Quite the oopsy
Oh come ON.
Meaning what, their foot slipped and they typed “gender critical” instead of “transphobic”?
Come on. It wasn’t a fumble or a blunder or a pratfall or a “genuine mistake.” It was an iteration of the trans dogma that the two are the same thing, and equally evil and deserving of punishment and exile. It was yet another instance of the hatred of women that saturates this boneheaded ideology.
Get out of here with that smarmy “genuine mistake” crap. Nobody is fooled.
Recalling this precedent, maybe it was global replace accident.
So, Russell group, how do you determine what counts as “transphobic” speech? What distinguishes “transphobic” speech from “gender critical” speech? Examples would help. For instance, which of the following are gender critical, and which are transphobic?
Sex is real.
People can’t change sex.
Trans women are, by definition, men.
Trans women should not be allowed in women’s prisons.
Or in women’s crisis centers.
Or in women’s sports.
Or in women’s shelters.
Or in women’s toilets.
Or anyplace else that women designate as single-sex spaces.
Trans women should not be allowed to take positions (elected or appointed) reserved for women.
Women should have the right to demand that they be examined by female (i.e., biological woman) doctors, TSA agents, etc.
That’s just a quick sample; I’m sure. you can provide more.
Have you got that the wrong way round? They meant “transphobic” and typed “gender critical”?
I’m pretty sure that “gender critical”, in the eyes of the Russell Group, is just a synonym for “transphobic”, and switching one for the other is akin to switching “Negro” to “People of Color” or “African-American” or “Black”, depending which term is considered acceptable at the day of writing. I suspect that the thought process was something like “transphobic, oh right, we’re supposed to call it gender critical, oops, I guess we actually were supposed to call it transphobic this time, I can never keep up with these things”.
AoS – yes. My foot slipped. (Thanks.)