UK universities have failed to protect gender-critical academics from bullying and career-threatening restrictions on their research
Researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex.
My favourite tidbit however is this:
The latest report’s call for evidence received 140 responses, the majority from people agreeing with gender-critical views – defined as a belief that biological sex is unchanging and should not be conflated with gender.
It’s the “gender-critical” fucks that conflate sex with gender! That’s the whole point, they claim gender and sex is the same thing so you can’t change your gender cause you can’t change your chomosomes, etc.
It’s so incredibly dishonest to read “biological sex is unchanging and should not be conflated with gender” as support for gender critical views, I’m honestly speechless.
(Edit) I think what it really does is retconning the recent court ruling, as if it was always obvious that legal protections for women only apply to people who menstruate, and if trans women thought those protections apply to them it’s because they thought they can menstruate. It’s retrospectively saying, “it was never even debated whether those laws should consider sex or gender, it was always clear those laws are about biological sex and people who thought otherwise were conflating sex with gender”.
I’m quite… uh… there’s must be a term in English. Like those kind of people that do not raise their voices enough, that do not do enough. In my case, not out of laziness. I’m too skeptical of ideas, to the point of knowing what the parties say, but not taking a stance. I marked the opinions I do have.
I believe that there’s like a theoretical field that should be open to speculation and investigation, and a daily life that has to be lived with the best ethics we can find and the suspension of judgement around the rest. Like I wouldn’t really know if gender exists as a biological reality or only a social construct; if the latter, I don’t know if it’s a social construct we should change, not change, abolish, cherish, etc. I’m kind of gender fluid or that’s what I think I am, so maybe I’m biased because I do not experience any attachment to my gender. And I do not see a problem in questioning these things because I do not think these questions should translate to how we treat people.
For example, you say that their belief that gender is not important is invalidating their identities, and I partially agree, but I believe GC people should respect pronouns and stuff because that’s just being respectful. It’s no different to someone asking a change in nicknames, or a joke not being made. It takes zero effort and it means a lot to the trans folk in question. It’s like “I do not believe gender should be a thing in our society, but to you it is important and I will acknowledge it as that in my treatment of you because I care for you”. And not in a patronizing way, but in a good faith way. And I would expect the same from other sides like how non-binary people can chat with binary trans folks (those who believe only in two genders). At the end of the day, we do not have the final answer, so trying to get solutions that serve us all should be our aim.
I understand the frustration that the trans community must feel when GC tell them, for example, that sports shouldn’t be gender-based but sex-based. And probably GC feel the same when others tell them that sports shouldn’t be sex-based but gender-based. It’s inevitable that they feel very strongly about this, but my naivety tells me that we need to make an effort to breath, to pause, and to find alternatives that makes the majority of us happy. Maybe sports based in something different (not sex and not gender). Bathrooms not divided by sex or gender either, maybe divided by something more functional (and something that helps with the disproportionate capacity given to one bathroom over the other nowadays).
Philosophy and science will continue to advance and change. In 300 years, people might look at us like we look at the “rationalists vs empiricists” debate or something like that. Just primitive frameworks that thanks to discoveries and better interpretations of the topic through the centuries are now obsolete and replaced by something in which we all had little points of truth and little points of nonsense.
We live so shortly, we know so little… I guess that’s where I’m coming. Like I’m not taking a firm stance on the theoretical because I honestly believe we are in a very difficult position, with little knowledge and little possibility of action. But on the practical, I would always defend people, from transphobia or otherwise. I wish for people to see their wills fulfilled as much as possible (and as long as they are not hurting others). In this case, I believe gender-based rights and words can exist alongside sex-based rights and different opinions. The major obstacle is not ideological but monetary, material. How can we have an AFAB-only club and a women-only club at the same time if capitalism is making it difficult to have even a single club? So I do not know if I’m a comrade in the communist sense, but I definitely agree with anticapitalism and I hope I do not affect the fight if I’m not actively helping it.
In Spanish people from all sides would call me «tibia» (warm, not quite cold and not quite warm). It’s an insult. I guess many would think that I cannot try to reconcile these kind of disagreements or contradictions, but that’s just what my insides tell me is correct and worth trying. I’m also like this in things like violent revolution (I’m hoping it’s not necessary like the standard Marxist believe) or veganism (in which animal suffering is not negotiable, but I think lab-meat or other alternatives might be a solution, temporary or permanent, while some vegans think it just incentives people to see animal meat and therefore animals as products still, but that’s why I’m open for it to be temporary).
Lol. Sorry, that’s a lot of text. I just wanted to present who I am honestly. As for the GC points, I do not know if I’m the correct person to try to explain it further, but I’ll try in another comment. I feel like I will distort it, but it’s a fun exercise at the same time (to try to be true to their texts).
Thank you for reading.
“Liberal”
So cool, so detached, and yet so wise.
I don’t have it in me to comment beside: free marketplace of ideas, enlightened centrism, tone policing, both sideism.
Calling for GC people to treat trans identities like nicknames but not in a patronising way takes the cake.
That’s great for you! Of course these questions do translate to how trans people are treated but you don’t think they should so that’s ok.
Yeah the condition of trans people in the UK is totally caused by scarcity. Damn you capitalism, if not for you we’d have clubs for everyone! Unfortunately, under capitalism we barely have enough for cis people so… Sorry trans folks.
I should hope so
No I’m fine, thanks.
Being a binary trans person does not mean that you ‘only believe in two genders’, it means that you personally identify with one of the two binary genders. A binary trans woman is not a TERF, she is a trans person who identifies with womanhood and is comfortable with that role. But ultimately nonbinary people and binary trans people have more in common than they have apart, because we are all subverting the established gender binary, whether it’s to traverse from one side to the other or to break out entirely. (And, as I said in my previous post, “nonbinary” and “trans” are not two distinct things - nonbinary people are included under the trans umbrella by default, and plenty of nonbinary people physically transition. I myself started out identifying as a binary trans person and then felt less like I needed to conform to the gender binary as my dysphoria diminished.)
There is some friction between binary trans people and nonbinary (trans) people, but IMO it is no different than some cis gays being biphobic towards cis bisexuals.