University head says free speech does not override transgender safety

[Bronzeage]

Conservatives: "I don't think that free speech should be removed from white cis people including saying discriminatory things against trans people in course material. White Nazis should also be allowed on campus to have their hate speech. These are just ideas with no impact."

Also, conservatives: "On the other hand, when an Indian woman talks about whiteness negatively as a guest lecturer, that's completely unacceptable. She should be kicked out because it leads to white genocide."

I just want to be able to talk about white people positively.

Yes, indeed. White people just don't get enough good press.

 

[Derec]

"Liberals": "I don't think that free speech should be removed from a Pakistani woman who hates white people and wants to shoot them in the head. Also, black supremacists, supporters of Islamic terrorism and those who advocate for a genocide against Israel should be allowed on campus"

Also, "liberals": "On the other hand, when white cis people talks about transsexualism negatively, that's completely unacceptable. They should be kicked out because it leads to 'harm' to trans people."

FIFY

 

[Derec]

White people just don't get enough good press.

Certainly not in contemporary academia, where racist CRT reigns as the dominant narrative.

 

[Metaphor]

White people just don't get enough good press.

Certainly not in contemporary academia, where racist CRT reigns as the dominant narrative.

Whether or not white people qua white people get "enough good press", it's certainly the case that white people qua white people get mindlessly generalised (and white men often demonised) in the press and academia and corporate institutions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Freedom of speech is about protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech isn't threatened in the first place.

So is calling a pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection in the classroom or campus? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" to her face unpopular enough for protection as free speech?

Condemning people for who or what they are isn't particularly speech we need to protect.

 

[ZiprHead]

White people just don't get enough good press.

Certainly not in contemporary academia, where racist CRT reigns as the dominant narrative.

This again???

 

[Ahab]

Freedom of speech is about protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech isn't threatened in the first place.

So is calling a pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection in the classroom or campus? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" to her face unpopular enough for protection as free speech?

Condemning people for who or what they are isn't particularly speech we need to protect.

Of course insults like that should not be protected.

However most people engaged in gender criticism do not condemn trans persons or seek to insult them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Freedom of speech is about protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech isn't threatened in the first place.

So is calling a pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection in the classroom or campus? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" to her face unpopular enough for protection as free speech?

Condemning people for who or what they are isn't particularly speech we need to protect.

Of course insults like that should not be protected.

However most people engaged in gender criticism do not condemn trans persons or seek to insult them.

So the excuse is "I was ignorant of the impact of my statement and demand my right to remain ignorant"?

 

[LoAmmo]

White people just don't get enough good press.

Certainly not in contemporary academia, where racist CRT reigns as the dominant narrative.

This again???

a one-trick pony has one trick it's really good at. So, yes, this again. And again. And, wait for it...again.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course insults like that should not be protected.

However most people engaged in gender criticism do not condemn trans persons or seek to insult them.

So the excuse is "I was ignorant of the impact of my statement and demand my right to remain ignorant"?

Excuses are for when you've done something wrong, and 'impact' does not override the moral right to free speech. It offends me that so many people express the view that free speech ought be shut down because some people in their preferred protection groups are negatively 'impacted' by the expression of ideas, but my taking offense (the 'impact') is not any reason for such views to be shut down.

 

[Ahab]

Of course insults like that should not be protected.

However most people engaged in gender criticism do not condemn trans persons or seek to insult them.

So the excuse is "I was ignorant of the impact of my statement and demand my right to remain ignorant"?

I don't see any excuse here. Can you provide some actual examples?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course insults like that should not be protected.

However most people engaged in gender criticism do not condemn trans persons or seek to insult them.

So the excuse is "I was ignorant of the impact of my statement and demand my right to remain ignorant"?

I don't see any excuse here. Can you provide some actual examples?

The OP?

 

[Ahab]

I don't see any excuse here. Can you provide some actual examples?

The OP?

Sorry, but I don't see any examples of excuses there. Only vague claims about harmful speech with no criteria for what counts as 'harmful'.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, here's an example of something from the linked article in the op:

The student union’s complaint against Dr Lawford-Smith’s course included claims that the subject has reading texts that are “derogatory” to transgender and gender-diverse students, that have been published without a peer review process and which “perpetuate common falsehoods that transgender women are inherently predatory”. A review of the subject is under way.

I'm still forming my opinion the nuances of safety versus free speech, but what I've come up with so far is that I think institutions and other entities of power ought to be held to a different standard than individuals acting as individuals. So course material being spread or a team of business executives acting on behalf of their company or a doctor in a practice with a patient might be held to a higher standard than joe schmoe talking to lucy as co-equal persons in a bar. Further, that having course material and conclusions by a professor directed at students that "transgender women are inherently predatory" would indeed be harmful (and discriminatory) to transgender persons. That said, when you read the fine print of the quote, it says the students are "reading texts" with that content. This raises some questions, like are they also reading texts that completely refute those discriminatory ideas? Or just reading texts that disagree and they are expected to debate? Should they really put such a topic up for debate in a classroom where everyone is supposed to be co-equal, i.e. would they also put up for debate topics on blackness, whiteness, toxic masculinity, feminazis, or are trans persons being singled out because of the cultural zeitgeist that makes it a debated topic? Does the professor endorse one view over the other? I can't say necessarily that such thing should never, ever be in texts if somehow there is fairness and learning involved that is non-discriminatory, but maybe that isn't true of this case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It really is a simple test. Substitute the word with ‘the Jews’. Does the sentence sound anti-Semitic? There is your answer.

It is impossible to work oneself up over a Metaphor (or likewise) OP, as the claims have repeatedly been demonstrated to be exaggerated to flat out false.

Yes, free speech is important. Yes, we should encourage an open dialogue in schools. No, I’m not worried about egregious violations of free speech because of articles taken from angry alt-woke news aggregators.

 

[Emily Lake]

What do you want to say about good honest decent moral hard working people that are transgender that this would prevent?

That women have vaginas and men have penises. That sex cannot actually be changed. That transwomen are not women, they are men that wish to live as women; that transmen are not men, they are women who wish to live as men. That calling women "birthing parents", "uterus havers", "menstruators", or "people with cervixes" is not inclusive, it's dehumanizing. That males should not be allowed to compete in female sports, regardless of how they identify. That males and females should not be placed in shared accomodations in prisons or refuges, regardless of how they identify. That males should not be considered for female honors related to politically reserved positions, sex-based diversity on governing boards, and other recognitions.

That transgender people should be free from discrimination on the basis of their presentation They should not be subjected to violence, opprobrium, ostracism, or harassment. They should not be denied housing or employment on the basis of their gender presentation of personal identity (with the exception of jobs specifically reserved for a sex class for specific reasons where sex is directly relevant to the role). That they should not be denied medical care necessary for well being. But that getting naked in front of people of the opposite sex against their will is not a *right*.

Things like that.

 

[Emily Lake]

Gender identity is a mental construct.

It cannot be seen by an observer.

Trans women in prison is such a tiny problem but there could be a prison where only trans people go in every State.

Not because they will do harm but because they have a high likelihood of being harmed.

The State has an obligation to not allow prisoners to be harmed.

You should probably look into what is actually happening right now. Both CA and WA have passed legislation that allows prisoners to be housed in the ward that aligns with their self-declared gender identity. There are already males who have been incarcerated for violent crimes against women and children, who are being moved to female prisons because they have declared themselves to be transgender. CA has some hundreds of male prisoners who have requested to be moved. In the UK, there have been repeated cases of male prisoners who have claimed transgender status while in prison, and have been moved to the female ward where they subsequently raped female prisoners. The same thing has occurred in Canada.

In Washington state, the ACLU - the fucking ACLU! - has acted to BLOCK access to PUBLIC INFORMATION to a woman who requested to know how many male prisoners were currently housed in the female prison, and how many of those had committed violent crimes against women or children.

You're right, that generally speaking transgender prisoners in the male prison are at a higher than average likelihood of being harmed by other men. But you're wrong that they will not do harm when placed in prison with females.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'll tell you what I'm becoming phobic against. I'm developing a phobia against trans activists. I'm fine with transexuals. What I'm starting to have a problem with is their woke champions.

I'll echo this 100%. The actual transgender people I've interacted with have all been fantastic people. But the non-trans activists who've decided to speak on their behalf are downright toxic. I'll include in that category the subset of people (largely male but not exclusively) who have no gender dysphoria at all but who are exploiting the plight of transgender people for their own malicious ends.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know if Australia has a first Amendment equivalent but definitely those opposed to transsexuals should be allowed to freely speak.

But it is easily recognizable that many of these people don't care about women's sports or prison safety.

They grasp at any tiny insignificant thing to try to whip transsexuals in general and divide the population.

Wedge issues are issues society needs to work on.

But they are used by some to drum up prejudice and irrational hatred.

They are used maliciously by unethical people.

I think you're making unwarranted assumptions. Most of the people who are affected by this sort of speech limitations are females who are trying to protect female rights and dignity.

 

[Emily Lake]

So is calling a pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection in the classroom or campus? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" unpopular enough to warrant protection? Is calling a specific pregnant student a "whore" to her face unpopular enough for protection as free speech?

Condemning people for who or what they are isn't particularly speech we need to protect.

This.... this reads as if you're saying that the pregnant student was literally a prostitute.