It’s appalling, is what it is. I can’t imagine them having ever done the same for women, more specifically lesbians. Here: “Public discourses regulary devalue the lives of women and lesbians, and appeals to both employment rights and academic freedom are often instrumentalized in this context.” That works better.
The union has thrown in with gender theory, abandoning any defence of academic freedom to disagree with it. They expresses its solidarity with trans people explicitly in paragraphs one through four; it expresses solidarity with academic freedom only in paragraph 3, and even that paragraph begins and ends with the former. They put in the barest mention of academic freedom only to give them a shred of plausible deniability.
It would be nice if these decision makers and ‘inclusivity’ experts could define “transphobia”.
I read as much of Kathleen Stock’s writing and commentary as I can, and in my estimation she is a superlative philosopher. That being said, she is not suffering from transphobia in any possible definition of what a ‘phobia’ is. Material Girls is an excellent piece of writing and a comprehensive explanation and summary of the issues, in which Prof. Stock displays her formidable reasoning skills with a knockdown appeal to logic and common sense, with conclusions that are virtually unassailable.
That’s the part that fries me. WTF is “transphobia”? They throw that word around as if it means something, and as if its meaning is known and understood. It isn’t. It never has been. In actual use, it means “failing to fall in line with palpably false statements of trans doctrine.”
Just as,
Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
is now accepted as “anti-trans,” when it is precisely the opposite of “anti-trans.”
The bully words slung about by trans advocates are either completely empty of content, or only have pretend-content that is the exact opposite of what they are using it for.
It’s spittingly infuriating. How can such idiocy and contrary-to-reality positions have become so entrenched in spaces that should be full of rational people who care about the real world and what’s true.
And I keep asking how people are defining “trans rights,” without ever getting much of an answer. I don’t see myself as opposing trans rights in the least, but then I consider trans rights to be human rights, and not anything special beyond that. It’s not a human right to be believed no matter what fatuous fantasy-based nonsense you talk. It’s not a human right to bully other people. It’s not a human right to be “validated” as something you’re not.
Maybe the core right they long for is the “right” not to be told they’re talking nonsense. Sorry, I can’t promise that. It’s not something I would do face to face, because that would be awkward and rude (and perhaps dangerous), but in public discourse? That’s another story. I think it’s nonsense, and I couldn’t see it otherwise if I tried. I can sort of see how they get there, but I can’t see how they persuade themselves it’s literally true on every level. I can’t, and I don’t in the least see why I should try. I don’t see it in their case any more than I see it when priests and mullahs try it.
It’s appalling, is what it is. I can’t imagine them having ever done the same for women, more specifically lesbians. Here: “Public discourses regulary devalue the lives of women and lesbians, and appeals to both employment rights and academic freedom are often instrumentalized in this context.” That works better.
Absolutely disgusting. Insane.
Utterly infuriating.
“We defend your academic freedom to agree with our rigid ideology.”
Surely Stalin and Mao would agree with the principle, if not the details.
I am quite sure that statement was released after careful consultation with all members, and then a secret ballot to establish the union position
….or perhaps not.
I’m writing to appropriate people at Sussex University about it, expressing my support.
Fortunately, it will be ignored, because the big guns are out:
https://openlettertosussexfromukphilosophers.wordpress.com/
Lot of names, there.
At least one of the names comments here occasionally.
The union has thrown in with gender theory, abandoning any defence of academic freedom to disagree with it. They expresses its solidarity with trans people explicitly in paragraphs one through four; it expresses solidarity with academic freedom only in paragraph 3, and even that paragraph begins and ends with the former. They put in the barest mention of academic freedom only to give them a shred of plausible deniability.
It would be nice if these decision makers and ‘inclusivity’ experts could define “transphobia”.
I read as much of Kathleen Stock’s writing and commentary as I can, and in my estimation she is a superlative philosopher. That being said, she is not suffering from transphobia in any possible definition of what a ‘phobia’ is. Material Girls is an excellent piece of writing and a comprehensive explanation and summary of the issues, in which Prof. Stock displays her formidable reasoning skills with a knockdown appeal to logic and common sense, with conclusions that are virtually unassailable.
Pearls before swine.
Define transphobia, you stupid shits, I dare ya.
@twiliter #9
That’s the part that fries me. WTF is “transphobia”? They throw that word around as if it means something, and as if its meaning is known and understood. It isn’t. It never has been. In actual use, it means “failing to fall in line with palpably false statements of trans doctrine.”
Just as,
is now accepted as “anti-trans,” when it is precisely the opposite of “anti-trans.”
The bully words slung about by trans advocates are either completely empty of content, or only have pretend-content that is the exact opposite of what they are using it for.
It’s spittingly infuriating. How can such idiocy and contrary-to-reality positions have become so entrenched in spaces that should be full of rational people who care about the real world and what’s true.
And I keep asking how people are defining “trans rights,” without ever getting much of an answer. I don’t see myself as opposing trans rights in the least, but then I consider trans rights to be human rights, and not anything special beyond that. It’s not a human right to be believed no matter what fatuous fantasy-based nonsense you talk. It’s not a human right to bully other people. It’s not a human right to be “validated” as something you’re not.
Maybe the core right they long for is the “right” not to be told they’re talking nonsense. Sorry, I can’t promise that. It’s not something I would do face to face, because that would be awkward and rude (and perhaps dangerous), but in public discourse? That’s another story. I think it’s nonsense, and I couldn’t see it otherwise if I tried. I can sort of see how they get there, but I can’t see how they persuade themselves it’s literally true on every level. I can’t, and I don’t in the least see why I should try. I don’t see it in their case any more than I see it when priests and mullahs try it.