No listen they can explain. It’s totally feminist and free speechy to attack and lie about a feminist speaker in an attempt to get her forcibly silenced.

The University of Sydney Philosophy Department has listed Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor in Political Philosophy at the University of Melbourne, as one of its speakers in its Semester 2 seminar series. The casual seminar format is open to all, and features interstate and international academics on a weekly basis. 

Lawford-Smith, who labels herself a “gender critical feminist”, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERFism), has been previously called out for her transphobic views and posts on social media. 

“Called out” by whom you may wonder, but that’s none of your business, because “calling out” is a sacred ceremony that cannot be viewed or questioned by heathen outsiders like you.

Also we’re the ones who get to label people, not you and not the people. She can say she’s a gender critical feminist all she wants but we know for a fact that she’s actually a trans-exclusionary radical feminist which is a terf which is a witch who needs to be burned.

This includes Lawford-Smith referring to transgender women as “trans-identified men” or “men who identify as women”

Which should be a crime punishable by the death penalty. Transgender women are men who are women. Saying anything else is worse than murder by torture.

When contacted for comment, organiser of the lecture series and Associate Lecturer of Philosophy Ryan Cox redirected Honi Soit towards Chair of Philosophy Department and Professor Kristie Miller.

…

Miller explains the department’s decision, “Lawford-Smith is a well respected political philosopher with views on a wide range of matters. The department of philosophy supports academic freedom to explore issue of moral, political, social, and other import, even when these may be difficult or controversial. The department is looking forward to hearing Holly’s thoughts about feminist philosophy and its connection to political action.” [sic]

That “sic” is pathetic. There are no grammar or spelling mistakes, so the sic is meant to imply that the whole quoted passage is a mistake. No YOU are.

SRC Women’s Officers Rand and Eliza Crossley explained, “This University prides itself on its diversity and inclusivity, however, including a known trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) in a lecture series contradicts this entirely, by platforming harmful ideas that directly deny the identity of many students.” 

No, stupid children, it does no such thing. It’s not “exclusionary” to say that men are not women any more than it’s “exclusionary” to say that lions are not butterflies or universities are not bottle factories or students are not daffodils. It’s not “exclusionary” to know what things are. It’s not “exclusionary” to define things accurately. It’s necessary for our functioning to know what things are and what they’re not. We’re allowed to do that. Women are especially allowed to do that in the case of men, because there are situations in which women need to avoid men, for our own safety or equality or both.

And it’s nobody’s job to worry about the “identity” of students, especially when what’s meant by “identity” is actually fantasy. It’s certainly no academic’s job to pretend a student’s fantasy about the self is reality. The people who’ve been telling you it is are horribly and drastically wrong, and they’ve ruined your ability to think.