They’ve noticed
The Observer points out that free speech is a fundamental human right and basic to democracy.
So it should concern anyone who claims to be a democrat that there is growing evidence that women who have expressed a set of feminist beliefs that have come to be known as “gender-critical” have, in some cases, faced significant professional penalties as a result.
Growing evidence, yes, as in there’s always more of it, but it’s been quite hefty for several years now.
The belief that the patriarchal oppression of women is grounded partly in their biological sex, not just the social expression of gender, and that women therefore have the right to certain single-sex spaces and to organise on the basis of biological sex if they so wish, represents a long-standing strand of feminist thinking. Other feminists disagree, believing that gender identity supersedes biological sex altogether.
That’s not right. It wasn’t a “strand” of feminist thinking, it was all of it. This idea that gender identity supersedes biological sex is comparatively new.
And that’s for obvious reasons. What kind of labor movement can you have if you think that being working class is a matter of identity rather than the brute facts of the matter? What kind of anti-racism is it that thinks it’s all a matter of choice?
As a society, we need to resolve the question of how to protect the privacy, dignity and rights of trans women while also respecting the privacy, dignity and rights of those born female.
But trans women are men, so their need for privacy isn’t quite as urgent as women’s need is.
Yet there have been clear and significant attempts to interfere with women’s freedom to express gender-critical beliefs.
The Observer then lists the recent examples we’re familiar with – Maya Forstater; Rosa Freedman and Jo Phoenix; Jess De Wahls. (They skipped Marion Millar though.)
These are just a few examples but there have been many more of women being harassed, punished, censured – and even physically assaulted – for their gender-critical views. Meanwhile, the chief executive of Stonewall has likened gender-critical beliefs to antisemitism. The chilling result is the frightening of women into silence because they fear the consequences of expressing their feminist beliefs.
Yes, and that’s been going on for several years, intensifying all the time.
For centuries, patriarchal societies have tried to limit the free expression of women. For centuries, women have fought back against attempts to curb their fundamental human rights. It should not need stating that gender-critical feminists have the same free-speech rights as all other citizens. In a democracy, there is no debate to be had about women’s freedom of speech.
Better late than never.
They may have skipped Marion Millar because the case will be heard soon and Scotland enforces rules on contempt of court with great rigour.
The rhetoric of “no debate” does not sit well with me. I mean, there is a debate to be had about freedom of speech. In fact, that’s what this article is doing: taking the “pro” side in the debate.
It makes me wonder if people mean something besides no debate when they say there’s no debate.
I agree that
seems somewhat oxymoronic. But if a democracy relies on freedom of speech (and I believe it does), then it has to be freedom of speech for everyone. You can’t exclude half the population, or debate whether half the population is entitled to freedom of speech.
If there are to be any restrictions to speech, they must be reasonable (no shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre without good cause) and apply to everyone.
“Both are legitimate perspectives”
Whassup with this new variation on bothsiderism ? One is legitimate, the other is entirely magical pseudo-thinking.
“In recent weeks, there has been an overdue correction in the public realm, reinforcing the fact that both sets of beliefs – gender-critical and sex-critical – are legitimate perspectives”
Magical psuedo-thought-word “legitimate” again. What exactly is it that “legitimizes” self-ID?
Sex, yes, that’s a biological reality; gender – at best an academic construct developed to broaden access to “research” funding. wtf is “gender-critical” when it’s at home with it’s feet up?
Gender critical is the view held by radical feminists and others that sex is real and ‘gender’ (the different sets of stereotypes expected of each sex, and which differ from society to society and across time) is tosh and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
tigger:
And the consequences for misusing free speech have to be proportionate and the same for everyone.
@ktron #4:
I interpret the term “legitimate perspective” to indicate a proposition that a reasonable person could consider and believe in good conscience. It’s not about true or false. It’s more about the believer than the belief. So there’s a lot of latitude there, given how easy it is for even intelligent, well-meaning people to go wrong.
Which means creationism, homeopathy, and the Republican platform are all “legitimate perspectives” open to debate.