Just such a toxic climate
Laura Favaro’s article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed last September:
“There’s just such a toxic climate around this subject,” I was repeatedly told. A mid-career sociologist added: “There is conflict, and bullying, but no debate happening.”
But the topic seemed too important to ignore. In recent times, it has moved from Twitter (where it now trends almost daily) to the centre-stage of politics; would Liz Truss have been elected as the new Conservative Party leader by Tory MPs and party members without her consistent opposition to gender self-identification? Nowhere is the debate more febrile, however, than academia. It has ended friendships, research collaborations and even academic careers.
One recent case in point is the accusation that University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady presided over a “gender ID witch-hunt”. The Times obtained minutes of a meeting she attended that sought to gather information about alleged “transphobes and prominent gender-critical activists” working in university diversity departments.
Jo Grady apparently believe the “trans people are the most vulnerable” mantra.
Favaro goes on:
It was clear that the “gender-critical” feminist academics I interviewed had faced negative repercussions for years for expressing their view (now protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010…) Among other experiences, my interviewees described complaints to and by management, attempts to shut down events, no platforming, disinvitations, intimidation, smears and losing career progression opportunities, including being blocked from jobs.
Others spoke about being physically removed from events, alongside receiving torrents of abuse online that even included incitements to murder. One criminology scholar said her experience was “a continuum of hell”, while a law scholar claimed “the impact has been huge [and] is going to last a long time”. Aware of these potential consequences, and citing feelings of fear, isolation and despair, others had decided to “hide in the shadows”.
Those in the earlier stages of their careers said that “it would just be too terrifying” to make their views public due to the threat of being “ostracised…because so much within academia depends on personal connections”, while more experienced colleagues alluded to “self-preservation”. Feared by all was the “horrible backlash” online; one sociologist worried about death and rape threats seen elsewhere stated: “I have children – I’m frightened.”
This didn’t happen with previous rights campaigns did it? Disagreement, argument, heated discussions, yes, but this systematic bullying and ostracism and career-trashing? Was that a thing? Not that I know of. Men who got nailed for sexual harassment may have seen it that way, but I don’t know of anyone else who did. The frantic rage and repudiation of this “activism” are (as far as I know) new.
Despite its conceptual diversity, genderism coheres around the push for gender (identity) to replace sex in most – if not all – contexts. Unlike feminism, its political subject is not female people but rather all those subjected to gender oppression – a concept that is redefined to emphasise lack of choice and affirmation relating to gender identity.
And there’s part of the problem right there. However constrained men are by the rules of gender, they’re not subordinated by them in the way women are. It’s like All Lives Matter again.
One interviewee who identified as a trans woman described the current situation in academia as “a political battle over an institutional space”, clarifying that: “My political bottom line is – I don’t concede to people who are interested in the eradication of me and everyone like me in the world because I consider that a genocidal project.”
This view, together with the belief that “cis women have more power than trans people”, led genderist academics to refrain from forthrightly denouncing some transgender activists’ aggressive tactics towards feminists. These include threats and ideations of extreme violence, which, as well as being pervasive on social media, appear to be increasingly condoned at universities. For example, last year, a London School of Economics postgraduate student conference paper described a scene in which feminists critical of genderism “scream for mercy”. The paper then described the potential threat: “I hold a knife to your throat and spit my transness into your ear”, concluding: “Are you scared? I sure fucking hope so.”
When discussing this horrific anti-feminism, some interviewees, including those working on violence against women, would nonetheless still equivocate. As one sociologist put it: “My priority are the people who are being harmed by this debate, who I perceive to be trans people.” “These gender-critical feminists – they are intellectualising [sex and gender], and I think it’s harmful,” she added.
So this sociologist, who is a woman, sees men as the victims of women, as long as the men claim to be trans.
When asked to describe their arguments, however, she responded: “I don’t know if what I understand or what I think are the issues are the issues, I’ll be honest with you – I stay out of their way.” This remarkable coupling of condemnation and ignorance regarding gender-critical feminism was fairly common among genderist academics. Many readily admitted that they limit their academic engagements, including their reading, to their “echo chambers and bubbles” where, as one journal editor noted, “we all share basically the same perspectives”.
“And we’re all pretty stupid.”
A number of genderist academics recognised that “more nuanced, more honest, self-aware conversations [should] take place” – although strictly among genderists only and in private spaces, since, in public, “you’ve got to be for your team and toe the party line”, one education scholar explained.
Ahhhhh well no wonder it’s such an intelligent thoughtful well-reasoned debate.
Gatekeeping was also suggested in the responses by another 11 interviewees who held principal editorship roles at feminist, gender and sexuality studies journals. All confirmed that genderist perspectives dominate these publications, in the sense that “on the editorial board, none of us would describe ourselves as in the gender critical camp”. Editors additionally pointed to the preferred perspective of authors, readers and publishing houses. For some, it was a matter of scholarly values, with gender-critical feminism described as “wrong-headed”, “outdated” or “completely delegitimised”. Others, however, acknowledged that “the objection is a political one”.
This article is making me feel ill.
Genderist academics reported personally imposing bans from academic networks and events, along with language policing of colleagues as well as students. “If students write ‘female’ in their essay, I’ll cross it out,” a sociologist told me, because “what matters is gender [identity]”.
The illness just got worse.
It’s understandable why transactivists are so desperate to avoid comparisons between TiMs and Rachel Dolezal:
because Dolezal is a fucking angel compared to these goons. However misguided and appropriative her actions were, she didn’t terrorize members of the demographic she was trying to insinuate herself into. I don’t think she burned crosses on the lawns of Black people, or hanged them in effigy. She was an idividual “racial tourist,” not a brutal army of occupation, with massive support coming from government, academia, and industry.
And Judith Butler didn’t intellectualize sex and gender in a way that was harmful? You can draw a much shorter, straighter line between Butler’s work and trans activist violence against women, than you ever could between the writing of feminists and male violence against TiMs.
And genderists seek to extend this bubble of ignorance and stupidity to the rest of society. Through their media enablers, they’re trying to put blinders on everyone, preventing us from seeing what we’re not supposed to, because we’re not qualified:
It’s an attempt to impose a Trans version of the Official Secrets Act:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/official-secrets-act
Ditto. Animal Farm was supposed to be a satire: Nineteen Eighty Four was supposed to be a warning. Genderists are using them as fucking blueprints.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Just such a toxic […]
So one in which a person (even a TIM) is not disadvantaged, vulnerable or discriminated against for being a woman, but because they can’t change gender by perhaps no more effort than saying “hi my name is Shirley” without someone saying “really?”. Okaaaay.
Slightly OT, but “Animal Farm” is a critique of Capitalism and the exploitation of Labour.
Back on topic,
When I read so much of what passes for “trans activism” it is self evident that these people are mentally disturbed, and not just about their made up gender, but about how life and society operate. Everything is an existential threat and their narcissism won’t let them see anyone’s POV but their own.
They also share traits with psychopaths where violence is the assumed default against any perceived attack. They must surround themselves with sycophants and shun anyone with the slightest contrary view. They are Donald Trump, Vlad Putin, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in frilly dresses and better make up. But their desire for power and control is the same. They will set the world on fire before they concede an inch.
And, in breaking news, Basketball Australia has grown a spine and refused to let a man play on a women’s team. Cue confected outrage from the perpetually offended when men are denied their latest shiny toy.
That’s an interesting take. I’ve only ever seen it analyzed as holding a magnifying glass to Soviet Russia and the utopianism intrinsic to Communism.
Well that certainly is what it is, but Orwell was a critic of Stalin and Stalinism from the left, so the critique of capitalism’s exploitation of labour is part of the picture.
Rob #4 “hi my name is Shirley”
I’m not joking, and don’t call me (him?) Shirley