All is a crime, all shall have punishments
The UK’s National Education Union aka NEU issued a statement yesterday, no doubt as a hex against the danger of all those witches running around talking about women and our rights. It’s a breathtaking piece of writing, especially coming from an organization that links itself to education.
The statement is a statement on transphobia. The statement states that it is
A clear expression of the union’s commitment to protecting trans members from harassment and offensive conduct.
Then it defines transpobia.
Transphobia is the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact that they are or are perceived of [sic] as trans or trans allies. It can take place through words or actions, expressing itself as harassment or hatred or in discriminatory practices and behaviours.
Transphobic behaviour will amount to harassment where the complainant reasonably perceives it as creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
That’s the bit I discussed a few hours ago, to note that the ideologues of transism are willing and eager to see “offensive” words or acts anywhere and everywhere. There are no limits on what the ideologues will consider “offensive.” They consider the simple fact that men are not women “offensive.” The breadth of this definition of transphobia amounts to saying nobody who isn’t already a trans ideologue is allowed to say a single word on the subject.
Note also that it’s transphobic even to dislike someone who is a trans ally. Suddenly it’s transphobic to think Owen Jones and Jolyon Maugham are condescending misogynist pigs.
The NEU goes on to explain its use of the word “trans.”
We go further than the Equality Act 2010 and define trans to mean people whose gender is inconsistent with the sex they were registered at birth. Trans people need not have had any medical transition to be considered trans. They may describe themselves using a variety of terms including non-binary and gender non-conforming.
In short there is no criterion. None. How do we know which people have a gender that’s inconsistent with the sex they were registered at birth? We don’t. Therefore we have to assume everyone is trans, and say nothing about the subject to anyone at any time, lest we be convicted of “transphobia” on the spot.
Then we get a short prayer.
The NEU’s commitment to protecting trans rights
We accept and acknowledge that trans identities are real and valid. We recognize and condemn the harm that transphobic behaviour causes.
Just in case that wasn’t clear already.
Then a reminder of the “impact” of “transphobia”:
The effects of transphobic behaviour are broad and far-reaching. Transphobia can prevent people from living full and open lives, comfortably as themselves and free from harm. It creates barriers in society and in the workplace.
What kind of barriers? What a transphobic question – the kind that come from not validating people’s personal fantasies about themselves. IT IS MANDATORY TO VALIDATE PEOPLE’S FANTASIES ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Then we get a startlingly copious list of examples of transphobic behaviour.
- -The intentional or repeated mis-gendering of trans people (whether or not that person is present);
- -Abusing trans people whether through mockery, innuendo, insults, jokes or demeaning comments or malicious gossip about trans identity and practices;
- -Intrusive questioning;
- -Seeking to remove trans people from discussions about issues which directly affect them;
- -Ostracising trans people on grounds of their trans status;
- -Forcing or pressurizing trans people to participate in discussions of trans identity against their wishes;
- -Spreading the idea that being trans is a contagion or a plague;
- -Failing to listen respectfully to trans voices including those of trans children about their choices and identity.
Comprehensive indeed.
Holding and expressing gender critical views
Nothing in this definition is intended to contravene the protections given to all protected groups under the Equality Act 2010. The NEU rejects all discrimination and recognizes that holding and expressing gender critical views is protected by law under the Equality Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 9 and 10. This means holders of these views can express them freely, as long as they do so in a respectful manner, avoiding creating an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to trans people.
And who decides? Who decides that our expressions of our views on this subject are conveyed in a respectful manner that avoids creating an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to trans people?
And is there any rule against creating an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to women?
H/t Papito.
Updating to add: The NEU instituted this policy last October, and I did a (too polite) post about it.
They are unable to define “trans”, as we see above, so how, by whom or what shall they determine what is said/written’/done in a “respectful manner”?
Is it verboten to say “India, you’re a man”, but ok to say, “India, respectfully, you’re a man”?
NEU, get back to us when you have a policy mandating all male members who transition to women take a 17% pay cut.
People, of either sex, are free to adopt or express any gender ideas, tropes, mannerisms, characteristics, fashions, and stereotypes that they like. Men and women alike can have any “gender” they want, and people of either sex can like exactly the same “gender” content as a member of the opposite sex. There is, therefore, no “inconsistency” whatsoever between “gender” and anyone’s actual sex. Either biological sex is fully “consistent” with any particular cluster of “gender” notions.
People who are very, very sure about what they “know to be true about themselves” — that they’ve had a direct experience of God, that they have psychic powers, that they’re multiple personalities, that they were abducted by aliens, that they’re inherently fat, that they’re a woman in a male body, etc — are too close and too emotionally involved to provide an objective analysis of the truth of their claims. Their unquestioning certainty is actually suspicious.
After we’ve ascertained that trans people are 1) sincere and 2.) incapable of providing any description or proof beyond their vague testimony of their personal experience, their role in deciding whether or not they’re really a man or woman is over. That the answer “directly affects them” is irrelevant.
That’s not phobic. That’s practical sense.
So now non-binary is also a form of “trans”? I thought “trans” implied identifying as either male or female.
And gender-nonconforming is also “trans”? So, considering how TRAs just told us that Stock looks like a man (and is thus non-conforming) is she now trans and criticizing her is transphobia?
The consistency is not strong in this one.