It defines
The academics behind a gender-critical documentary have launched a discrimination claim against their own union after officials branded the film “transphobic” and campaigned against screenings at Edinburgh University.
Deirdre O’Neill, a lecturer at Hertfordshire University, and Michael Wayne, a professor at Brunel University, directed Adult Human Female, which they described as the “first UK documentary feature to look at the clash between women’s rights and trans ideology”.
It defines sex as being determined by biology and says women’s rights have been damaged by aspects of the trans movement.
Well it’s not that the film defines sex that way, it’s that that is the definition. A person’s sex is what it is, and playing Let’s Pretend can’t change that. Humans can’t change sex any more than they can change species.
The film-makers claim the University and College Union (UCU) treated them “detrimentally” to other members and non-members who hold opposing views on sex and gender.
Detrimentally compared to others, surely?
In 2023, screenings of the documentary at Edinburgh University caused a furore when pro-trans activists twice blocked access to the venue, forcing their cancellation.
Well…who or what really caused the furore? Was it really the screenings? Or was it the fatuous set of people who think we can change sex just as we change clothes.
The UCU opposed screenings of the film at Edinburgh University in December 2022, describing it as “hate speech”.
…
O’Neill said: “Although UCU claims to uphold academic freedom, it only upholds that freedom for those who agree with their views on gender identity, namely that a man can identify as a woman and thereby should be treated as a woman in law and policy.
“We respectfully disagree with that view and think it is bad news for women. But apparently, our film is ‘hateful’ for making that point.”
Trump identifies as a genius; is it hateful for sane people to point out that his intellect is not all that impressive?
After the second cancellation of the Edinburgh screening, the film-makers wrote to Jo Grady, UCU’s general secretary, requesting clarification on the union’s stance towards members who hold “gender-critical” beliefs.
Grady defended the Edinburgh branch’s right to block the screening.
Wayne said the film is “not hate speech nor punching down”.
“The only way that UCU can try and justify its stance, is to claim that our film is outside the boundaries of acceptable speech,” he said. “The problem is that for UCU, it is simply not possible to call into question the mantra that trans women are women.”
And that’s awkward, because universities and university unions should not be dealing in mantras.
It’s interesting how the captured media is so often having to pretend to be neutral about reality, presenting it as some sort of recently invented, minority opinion that they are reluctantly forced to mention in order to give the illusion of “balanced” reporting, while hiding the fact that the novel, extremist view is actually the trans activist one.
In the eyes of trans activists, there is no such thing as “respectful disagreement”. Anything less than complete silence and submission is hateful bigotry. Pointing out the harm to women that they suffer at the hands of gender ideology is orders of magnitude worse than those harms, because it puts the lie to the idea that there is “no conflict” between women’s rights and trans “rights”, and that this conflict arises because “Trans Women” Are NOT Women. Highlighting the lie is a greater crime than the lie itself. Captured media perpetuae this. Look at the BBC. Trans ideology is now the entrenched orthodoxy, the unremarkable norm that is supposed to be accepted without comment or question, the starting and ending point of all discussion and reportage.
Speaking of media behaviour regarding totalitarianism, how will American media respond to Trump’s promulgation of the One True America, as recorded in the One True American History, as made and celebrated by True Americans? With the mainstream media’s record of sanewashing Trump’s pronouncements, I’m not sure that they’re up to the challenge. They have traditionally prided themselves on their aggressive, independent, adversarial stance versus the government, but in the age of corporate control, are they simply kidding themselves, remembering the good old days and thinking they still have that go get ’em, Watergate era mojo? The Washington post was wrong: Democracy doesn’t die in darkness, it’s murdered in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue, with millions cheering on the gunman. How do they navigate that reality?
The film can be viewed here, at no charge and free of ads. Length: 1:31:45. I haven’t had time to watch it yet.