How hurt people feel about the outcome
The Guardian reports, or gloats:
A university has apologised to transgender and non-binary staff and students over a review that suggested it had unlawfully no-platformed two female academics whom some had accused of transphobia.
You’d think it was the two female academics who were owed apologies, wouldn’t you.
The vice-chancellor of Essex University has written to staff and students to say sorry for the timing of the highly critical report, which was released shortly before exams and Pride month, and for the stress under which it had placed staff and students.
Blah blah blah blah, and meanwhile the stress on the two invited academics, and anyone who wanted to hear them, who respected them, who had a hand in inviting them – that stress doesn’t matter and needs no apology.
The university accepted the report and Forster reasserted its commitment to protecting freedom of speech on the campus and apologised to the two academics.
“I was deeply concerned to read the input into the review from some staff and students who said that they felt constrained to self-censor their speech and activity because of concerns about how we manage the balance between freedom of speech and our commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion,” he wrote at the time.
On Friday he issued the further apology, which he said followed a meeting with trans and non-binary students and staff where they discussed the review’s impact on the community. “In the meeting we discussed how hurt people feel about the outcome and the very negative impact that this has had and continues to have on trans and non-binary staff and students.”
In the meeting there was a whole lot of emotional blackmail and for some reason this adult man took it seriously, so seriously that he insulted the two female academics all over again. People need to start recognizing emotional blackmail and telling it to stop mewling.
Forster added: “My personal view is that the current law in the UK does not fully respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people. I understand that in meeting our obligations to respect academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law, we have given the impression that we might not care about the lived reality of trans and non-binary people.
“As we revise our equality, diversity and inclusion policies and procedures we will continue to go beyond the minimum standards required by law, wherever we can, to ensure that we recognise, respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people.”
But not women. Nobody respects women. The very idea is absurd.
“The university accepted the report…”
… but made it clear that the author, and anyone else who similarly thinks an “independent” report means dissenting from the orthodoxy, will not be hired for any future reports.
This is how this shit works. Supposedly “independent” third parties know where their bread is buttered, and somehow manage not to piss off the people who write the checks.
God it’s sleazy.
[…] How hurt people feel about the outcome […]
Jeezis H. Kerrist.
I agree but I fear that should this idea get accepted it will be used against women.
I fear all arguments women use for not allowing transwomen in women only spaces, will be labeled: emotional blackmail.
The Guardian completely ignored the publication of Akua Reindorf’s report back in May, perhaps so it wouldn’t cast a shadow over Pride month for its readers, so it’s odd for it to take up the story now. It would be (slightly) interesting to know what more Forster the law should do to “fully respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people”, though I suspect he doesn’t know either.
Not so much odd as horribly typical.
Women are already accused of “weaponizing” their experiences of abuse, which are further derided as “white women’s tears.” Rich coming from activists who call “misgendering” “actual violence,” which will lead to suicide amongst trans people.