Of course the Academics for Free Speech had lots of postings about trans and gender issues! Not long ago Lecturer Kathleen Stock was hounded out of her job for her idea that biological sex matters to women. Why is it disproportionately women who are abused and threatened? Why was this woman in liverpool so fearful? women who don't want any male who says they're a woman in their sports or prisons or refuges or changing rooms should have the right to say so without being labelled as bigots or shouted down or cancelled.
Try buying a classic feminist text or anything remotely critical of gender identity theory in the university bookshop. You'll be looking for a long time. Likewise, Waterstones in Liverpool One never has new books on this issue on public display - they are usually hidden away somewhere; in the stock cupboard, or apparently the " one copy they had has sold out".
Yes, book ' hiding' is a huge red flag for a democracy and seems to work in one direction only .,. Stashing away from public view the works of feminists like Helen Joyce, and Kathleen Stock, Abigail Shrier who simply want to keep women as a category rather than their being a ' choice' on the non binary spectrum.
I'm quite sure a lot of you "suffering" (facing) the prolem of book hiding are more than aware of its existence, but rather than constantly increase your ire, and raise your blood pressure or at worst, simply give up, you could always try "alternative" book shops, there are a few scattered around Liverpool, but one of the easiest to find, without having to do any internet searches, is "News from Nowhere" a great source for "non regular" material, the staff are very friendly and helpful too and are only too happy to help you find what you're looking for, and quite often if it isn't immediately to hand, they will willingly order it for you
Personally, I do buy most of my books from News From Nowhere. It is a legend in the city and it has been very important to me for many decades - for offering the sort of space and resource that only it can provide.
Alas News From Nowhere has also come in for flack ( and worse) in the last few years when it comes to the issue of the conflict between women's rights and trans rights ( as proposed). News From Nowhere stocks a full range of feminist texts and some people don't like that.
I look in other bookshops too.....in fact I make it my business to look out for new titles on this issue...hence the complaint. If students are not being gven access to a free range of texts then the breadth of their learning is compromised, and risks being shunted into narrow pre-ordained channels. This suppressive effect has been noted across the country ( Waterstones) - and it is a real issue when it comes to who gets to control what material people have access to, and who gets to speak freely.
My blood pressure is fine, thanks, even though I continue to think that free and open debate is of importance and must be fought for in order to maintain.
Given that the Post has built up a great reputation on being an alternative to the Echo’s low-quality and over sensationalised journalism, it was rather disappointing to see this article uncritically repeating ‘stuff wot we read in the Echo’.
More concerning was the fact that the article claims balance whilst subtly demonstrating the opposite. For example, the conflation of ‘Anti-Trans’ and ‘Gender Critical’, when these are two quite different things. The first is an opposition to trans-people, the second an opposition to a set of regressive stereotypes and an ideology that centres these stereotypes.
A useful example of how the two things are different; many right wingers in America are Anti Trans – but they are not the least bit gender critical, in fact they support traditional stereotypes around women and their role in society, the workplace and the family.
Gender critical people - often left wingers - reject traditional stereotypes. Their argument is that sex and gender are two different things. The first matters a lot and cannot be changed. The second doesn’t. To quote the words that JK Rowling has been subjected to years of abuse and death threats for, ‘Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”.
Gender ideology – and the shutting down of any debate about its implications - is undoubtedly making the headlines at the moment. And given that several lesbian female academics have been forced out of their jobs for speaking on this subject, I would challenge any twitter account re-tweeting relevant freedom of speech articles from mainstream media to do so without covering this issue regularly .
Also, editor, please note, use of the phrase ‘Cis Woman’ is the language of an ideology and should be avoided in balanced journalism as it is considered offensive by many.
So well put by Emma... i feel we re going along with an unscientific cultish ideology that says theres no such thing as male or female just a great big spectrum of feelings that can change at any time... and don t you dare question it or you' re hateful/ out of a job/ a fascist. But it s made crustal clear here by Emma
Cis is just a descriptive word it's really not that deep. Should they not use it because it offends you? Seems kind of counter to everything else you're saying. Idk not trying to argue but that doesn't really make sense when you think about it
Hi Lucy, my point is that “Cis” is the language of one side of the debate. It’s absolutely not a neutral descriptor. If I were to write a balanced article about a religious conflict for example, I wouldn’t use the descriptor “heathen” or “infidel” to describe a person…as that would be demonstrating clear bias towards one side.
Another good article. I have to admit I too am worried about free speech. I remember when Militant where in charge in Liverpool and being at a demo against them at the old pier head. The "left" and "progressives" shouting down anyone who dared to say anything against Hatton and co.
I do fear for free speech at the moment. It only seem to be free if you agree with certain views especially those views that are seen as "Progressive". It is not even conservative view or liberal views it is any view that goes against what is classed as a "progressive" agenda. However for me the "progressive" agenda seems more regressive and freedom to disagree with views is becoming more and more limited. 1984 anyone
“Free speech” is almost always cited in reference to the freedom to express conservative views, and I would invite you to open a newspaper or turn on the television to see how threatened those views are.
Women's rights and protections and child safeguarding are considered 'conservative' views now, are they? If so, bring them on. I'm an ex Labour party member and 'ex' for very good reasons.
For many years the mainstream news and press have simply not been awake, and reporting, on this issue. It is thanks, solely, to a resurgent women's movement that they now are.
I was replying to Ian’s comment, which frames the free speech issue as one affecting conservative views more than progressive ones - which seems hard to believe given the paucity of “progressive”-aligned media (however you want to define that) in this country. Perhaps I’m wrong, and the UK’s newspapers have found a sudden burning interest in women’s rights and women’s movements. However, if that were the case I would expect those outlets to approvingly cover some feminist issues that aren’t to do with trans people, and there is little sign of that.
The reason the issue of gender identity theory is of such fundamental importance for women's rights is because it totally undermines the reality of biological sex and replaces it with the concept of an inner soul which is'sexed' instead. That males can somehow be women. It reduces being female to a post modernistic idea of gender performance or expression. See Judith Butler.
This is, of course, nonsense. Gender is a set of social prescriptions and not a biological reality. That even the word 'woman' itself is appropriated and colonised and women are reduced to a mere category of their own sex is suggestive that women "are not real" ( as I was recently told by a young gay man)
There is no one set definition of feminsim. For some it is merely a matter of equal rights with men - whereby any differences which exist are minimised or glossed over. For others there are sex based differences and these differences need to be taken into account and accommodated in an equitable way. That is why we have singles sex spaces, services and sporting cartegories. Sex matters in certain circumstances.
Feminism doesn't belong to the Left. Feminism belongs to women. Adult human females - whatever their creed, religion or background.
In this country your may well be correct. But I have also seen the others side where it is classed as "left wing " views. You only need to look at what is going on in Russia and South America to see it in action. What I probably should have said is that trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you is really, in my head, a product of an politically unstable country that does not actually know what it is. I think that is where we are as a country. You could argue it starts with brexit but I would apply an argument it really started under Tony Blairs new labour. We are better than most in that we don't have running street battles as such neither do we have police and army on the streets armed 24 *7 * 365 like some failed states. This situation will continue until it is resolved either by the state its self or it just falls because people get fed up with it. However, I do think it has a very long way to go and I don' t believe I will live long enough to see it end
I agree with pretty much all of that - I think the lack of democratic accountability in this country, and the minuscule difference between the only two parties able to take power, create dangerous conditions that could easily breed fascism. Where I differ is only that those with “conservative” views are not a persecuted minority like progressives in Russia - indeed they set the agenda in the media and in politics. This seems observably true, no matter whether you approve of conservative viewpoints or not.
How embarrassing to be living in an age where academics can’t speak freely. Of course there’s a clash of rights! A significant minority has decided that the word ‘woman’ has been redefined... and women are not supposed to debate this?? Shocking
"On checking these claims, the lion’s share of the Liverpool AFAF Twitter account currently seems to be dedicated to retweets on exactly that topic, and only from one perspective: gender critical."
Well done Abi for fact checking. Looks like AFAF promoted Free Speech to push a particular agenda. Where is the debate, the alternative views, the thoughtful discussion ?
"I call up Firat again to ask about these Twitter posts and she tells me that while AFAF is not a group dedicated to discussing issues around gender and sex, “at the moment there’s a lot going on” about it in the media."
Well done Abi for challenging Firat for the apparent AFAF "X" social media bias.
I expect Academic Freedom of Speech to be research based, rather than repost articles from The Telegraph !
I also expect academics to be able to speak freely about their research without being picketed or abused.
Free speech and open debate has been closed down for years and people have had to meet in secret lest their legitimate meetings ( even on university campuses) be targeted and attacked by masked mobs. That mainstream news sources such as the Guardian ( to which most people concerned with women's rights and protections had subscribed to for years) have refused to cover issues - leading, eventually, to a number of senior, well respected journalists having to leave, is testament to how the tentacles of authoritarianism and censure have taken hold.
They too have a right to be heard ,and if the Times, The Telegraph, The Spectator and magazines such as Unherd are happy to give them a voice - then this is where you will find that free speech and alternative perspective. I didn't subscribe to The Post to read such thinly veiled bias.
That such news publications are finally doing their job and reporting on the issues is thanks to a determined and resurgent movement of people committed not only to women's rights and protections, but also to to the freedom of perfectly everyday speech and opinion.
And yet articles written by Grace Lavery and other post modernistic queer theorists were actively linked to? Obviously this issue is far too much for such an article as above to do justice to - but I suspect the 'Telegraph' reference was given to illustrate how "alt right wing" people who are critical of gender theory really are. The article was in no way even handed and was full of contested theories and positions posing as facts. Firat was, in effect, being 'held to account' for her perfectly mainstream thoughts and perspectives; as well as somehow responsible for the masked mob action that she has been subject to.
A thoughtful and fairly balanced article - there is perhaps one omission that I feel it’s worth commenting on as it’s a common one in these kinds of discussions. Offensive opinions, or reactions, tend to be framed as social media problem, but writers in legacy media like the Times or the Guardian, in particular, are just as obsessed with trans people as any of the anonymous twitter users at whose feet the blame is usually laid.
Hatred for this marginalised group is being mainstreamed and promoted by these outlets, and while columns “debating” the rights and even existence of trans people are framed as crucial freedom of speech issues, this “right to offend” is not applied to any angry responses in reply (an inconsistency that you do touch on).
It was hardly balanced. Quoting Grace Lavery as a reputable academic source is something of a joke, surely?
If we move away from that rather narcissitic view then we will see that talking about issues around the conflict between women's right and protections and their needs for dignity, privacy and fair sporting competition and 'trans rights' ( as framed) is not to be " obsessed with trans people" - it is to be committed to the rights and protections of women and girls and to the integrity and dignity of their sex.
Thanks Abi - insightful and well-researched as ever. I hope you don’t get any threats - the distance between ‘I disagree’ and ‘I will kill you’ seems frighteningly small these days.
I'd say almost to the point of non-existant! Somebody writes or says something "Off Topic" and they are almost immediately howled down, if they refuse to be berated, then the threats start. Not connected in any way to this topic or subject, but not too dissimilar is the Case of Salman Rushdie, surely that's a classic example, of how far some people seem to be willing to go to silence anybody they disagree with. Sadly, the kind of backlash that AFAF witnessed is only likely to get worse with the rise of "Free Speech" outlets such as Talk TV, Times Radio, and GBeebies, with their own set agenda and "Cabal" of presenters, each pretty much chosen for the views they represent, and their appeal to the swivel eyed loon wing of society, witness almost daily reports of "Woke" Activity in the likes of the Doolally Mail, or the Torygraph and best of all, The Wapping Liar. "Move out of line, if you wish, declare yourself different if that's how you feel, but do society, and yourself a massive favour, and keep quiet about it eh? There's a good chap/gel"
It has been quite a long time since I have read such a biased piece of reporting. That Grace Lavery should be referenced as a credible academic source is testimony to that.
So what if the group has strong views on the issue of the conflict between the transgender rights ( as proposed) and women's rights, protections and dignity. This is one of the most fundamental issues of our time and academics and others are right to have concerns and even strong views on this matter. This is indeed about the right to voice very mainstream views in public places without fear of attack.
The idea, as stated in the article, that it is trans identified people who are the victims here is far wide of the mark. Academics, not only in Liverpool universities, but people in many other walks of life are regularly hounded; abused; threatened; vilified; compared to Nazis; and have any meeting they attend picketed by masked mobs screaming abuse; sometimes pounding windows, and on occasion even storming the building. Women have been assaulted; arrested, lost their jobs and their reputations. and we are told that those responsible for these actions are really the victims?
There is a group of people determined to destroy Firat's career, as well as those of other academics in the city. These academics all have long histories of political engagement and activism of one sort or other - and to be so hounded by very small numbers of loud and very vocal members of the student body, and by other invested organisations is a travesty. To be given a free pass by a local news source committed to investigation, balance and truth is testimony to how powerful ( not powerless) the trans lobby is. It is totalitarian in nature, and needs to be confronted.
As for open debate - that would be a fine thing. The usual response is to close down any debate which is not wholly affirmative of the one very narrow, and extreme, agenda.
It will depend on your news source won't it? I subscribed to the Guardian my entire adult life - but gave up my susbscription about five or six years ago because they simply did not cover anything around the arrests, loss of jobs, or villification of academics on the subject of women's rights and protections, and child safeguarding.
Janice Turner was the journalist who first took up the baton and started to cover the issue in the Times, and as a result lots of people started to look to the Times to continue with its coverage. Five years ago Stonewall were telling us that there was " No Debate", and The Labour party too. For years there was no discussion in the commons on this issue. Now there is. That can only be a good thing. Redress is long over-due.
The guardian, which publishes a pile of gender critical stuff anyway and virtually no articles by trans people, vs every other print publication, and this shows how powerful the “trans lobby” is.
The Guardian does nothing of the sort. They have lately started to approach the issue - but far too little and far too late. Hence the loss of several of their long standing writers and columnists, and a lot of their subscribers.
I'm not sure which sections of the Guardian you are not reading - but it regularly features pro gender theory articles and first person accounts.
An ex-labour ex-guardian reader who now subscribes to dozen substacks entirely about conservative politics and “trans issues”. One can kinda see why the right wing press have taken an interest, eh
If the left is now truly about authoritarianism and censure then where are the dissidents to go? Personally, think this issue transcends party politics - but has been hijacked by an american Intersectionalist/scocial justice agenda - which alienates most.
When people such as Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore are being referred to as fascists the so called 'progressive lef't has lost the plot. And when the Labour party refers to its own members as 'hate speech' activists, and its own MPs have to have police escorts to conference - I'm not sure that ding-dong, left right, argy bargy concerns me anymore.
And to be honest - that is really quite liberating. The arguments are more important than the tribal affinity.
"It strikes me that free speech is only truly possible if there’s a level playing field between both camps. "
This raises the difficulty of who decides when a "playing field" is level enough for contentious views to be heard.
It invites the use of coercion. We have seen that coercion in the form of people losing their jobs, meetings being cancelled, attempted disciplinary action and bullying in political parties.
Excellent article Abi. Well balanced and thoroughly researched. I do feel that you have to be so guarded these days about what you say about anything. Maybe things have gone a bit too far in certain areas. Social media is now a medium where haters can stay anonymous and say what they like without recourse. I just choose to ignore what I feel is wrong but rightly or wrongly those people do have the right to say it. Until you are given a balanced view (educated) to understand both sides, hate or fear will remain.
Interesting and well balanced article on a tricky subject! I fall very much on the side of wanting to be inclusive to trans people but I also think, it feels soooo hard at the moment to even begin to combat the anti-trans sentiment that is so rife in our society, so sometimes in wanting to be allies, we can just get totally caught up in storming in, wanting to eradicate anything that seems in any way related. But clearly this just ends up pushing people further away from the cause we want to promote. It would be great if sensible and reasoned debates could be had between both sides but I think in reality the subject is just too emotive
Generally speaking, in the UK it seems we currently have unkind views masquerading as free speech advocates facing off against "anti-fa" using trans people as a human (rights) shield. You can probably count on one hand the number of trans people at a picket protest vs "allies", and sell off a surplus of MAGA hats on eBay.tx after a "free speech" rally.
Meanwhile, most everyone else just treats their female or male coworkers, friends and acquaintances as people, regardless of what their gender used to be.
Someone, somewhere gets something out of division being sowed. I think those arguing are either being played or are being complicit.
How do you know I'm not either, or indeed both? Presume much?
I know how I treat people. I know how my colleagues and friends treat other people. There are d-heads of course, however they are the minority.
I'm glad you put a questionmark at the end of your last sentence, because no of course I don't. However at least in the UK this is primarily a legacy issue, rather than mainstream oppression, and women can these days access equal success despite those legacy issues.
The overt examples out there of direct discrimination by d-heads and extremists reflects only them and not our society. I decline to contribute to giving them them the power that comes with polarisation of extreme reaction.
Indeed, it is entirely plausible - likely - that the attempts to "troll" our society are covertly designed and funded by other governments.
If it's just individual dickheads why is there a gender pay gap and why are women always under represented in senior roles? The same discrimination that trans people face is hard coded into society. Please remember your personal experience is not universal.
Perhaps you skim read my comment, as your question seems to infer I have made a statement which did not.
Thanks for educating me, and reminding me that I don't embody the universe. As a mere gay from a working class background naturally I have no experience of discrimination, be it direct, indirect or systemic.
As a member of a very small minority group, as opposed to a member of a demographic that represents over 50% of the population, I have no comprehension of what it means to be marginalised with no recourse.
I asked you if you thought women experience workplace discrimination, you said "However at least in the UK this is primarily a legacy issue, rather than mainstream oppression, and women can these days access equal success despite those legacy issues." To which I pointed out there's still inequality.
Then you said "The overt examples out there of direct discrimination by d-heads and extremists reflects only them and not our society." Suella Braverman just this week said she wants to get rid of gender neutral toilets, and that's just one of many examples of how our society is intolerant of trans people.
Cisgender, come on! Can we stop using nonsense terms to describe normal people. Trans-activists, anti-oil, XR etc should be considered domestic terrorist organisations and shouldn't be pandered to by using their preferred divisive terminology. These groups are full of hateful, angry, selfish deluded people, many with severe mental problems intent on causing trouble.
I think if you read an even-handed article that mentions trans people and immediately feel angry about extinction rebellion, you are allowing our toxic media environment to affect you in a way that isn’t healthy.
Not really, I just see all these 'me me me' posturing groups using whatever methods they choose to to cause disruption and spread hatred. Selfish and stupid, just look at the idiots deflating tyres on Land Rovers at a showroom 'because one killed two kids', using those deaths totally out of context for their own propaganda, or brain-dead rent-a-gob Abbott and her dead migrants tweet. There's a sickness in society and it is displayed by such groups, most violently by the angry young men of the trans-rights groups.
Add getting angry about a tweet by Dianne Abbott, man you might as well just be listing things right wing media grifters want you to be angry about (which is always random members of the public, and not of course corrupt politicians or collapsing public services)
I'm angry about corrupt socialist politicians within Liverpool City Region not being held to account and prosecuted. Liars and Frauds abound but it all gets swept under the carpet by the local Labour mafia.
Couldn’t agree more mate, democratic accountability in this country is almost non-existent. You mention children, and I’d just point out that the big risk to the children of this country is that millions of them are living in poverty, their mental health services are collapsing (CAHMS - look it up) and not a single politician wants to talk about making things better for young people. Those are the big problems, not the tiny minority of people in the country who are trans.
who are these right-wing grifters? I bet they are less dangerous than the loonie-liberal-lefties currently abusing children into transgenderism or wanting the worlds waste of humanity flooding the country.
After the Echo had me thrown off my journalism course (Posts passim) I did a subject access request which revealed chats in the newsroom discussing me, they decided I'm the type to "glue myself to a motorway".
This sort of reactionary, simplistic thinking is so dangerous.
they decided I'm the type to "glue myself to a motorway".
And no doubt you will, if it brings your greivances with the Echo to the fore! ;-) But in many ways, your case is a prime example of what we're talking about here, you were guilty ((C) the Echo) of disagreeing with a lot of what the reporters - I think journalists is pushing things a bit) and not being slow to say so. The Echo were obviously stung by a lot of what you apparently wrote, (I say apparently, because I only saw a couple of examples in the actual Post Article), but as is more and more common these days, rather than try to challenge you and thus prove you wrong, or take note of your criticisms, and maybe try to adress them, the Echo instead decided to approach the Course Provider, and "Gently remind them" that they provide the major funding for the course, and a bit more grattitude wouldn't go amiss - if you cath my drift - in other words, you're free to enroll whoever you wish, and whoever wants to be on the course, but if you carry on in this manner, it may be a bit difficult for some of your Graduates to find placements". So in many ways, your case is exactly what we're talking about in the article, "talk about whatever you like, until it upsets me, and then be very quiet and don't dare say anything else"
Of course the Academics for Free Speech had lots of postings about trans and gender issues! Not long ago Lecturer Kathleen Stock was hounded out of her job for her idea that biological sex matters to women. Why is it disproportionately women who are abused and threatened? Why was this woman in liverpool so fearful? women who don't want any male who says they're a woman in their sports or prisons or refuges or changing rooms should have the right to say so without being labelled as bigots or shouted down or cancelled.
Indeed!
Try buying a classic feminist text or anything remotely critical of gender identity theory in the university bookshop. You'll be looking for a long time. Likewise, Waterstones in Liverpool One never has new books on this issue on public display - they are usually hidden away somewhere; in the stock cupboard, or apparently the " one copy they had has sold out".
Yes, book ' hiding' is a huge red flag for a democracy and seems to work in one direction only .,. Stashing away from public view the works of feminists like Helen Joyce, and Kathleen Stock, Abigail Shrier who simply want to keep women as a category rather than their being a ' choice' on the non binary spectrum.
I'm quite sure a lot of you "suffering" (facing) the prolem of book hiding are more than aware of its existence, but rather than constantly increase your ire, and raise your blood pressure or at worst, simply give up, you could always try "alternative" book shops, there are a few scattered around Liverpool, but one of the easiest to find, without having to do any internet searches, is "News from Nowhere" a great source for "non regular" material, the staff are very friendly and helpful too and are only too happy to help you find what you're looking for, and quite often if it isn't immediately to hand, they will willingly order it for you
Personally, I do buy most of my books from News From Nowhere. It is a legend in the city and it has been very important to me for many decades - for offering the sort of space and resource that only it can provide.
Alas News From Nowhere has also come in for flack ( and worse) in the last few years when it comes to the issue of the conflict between women's rights and trans rights ( as proposed). News From Nowhere stocks a full range of feminist texts and some people don't like that.
I look in other bookshops too.....in fact I make it my business to look out for new titles on this issue...hence the complaint. If students are not being gven access to a free range of texts then the breadth of their learning is compromised, and risks being shunted into narrow pre-ordained channels. This suppressive effect has been noted across the country ( Waterstones) - and it is a real issue when it comes to who gets to control what material people have access to, and who gets to speak freely.
My blood pressure is fine, thanks, even though I continue to think that free and open debate is of importance and must be fought for in order to maintain.
Given that the Post has built up a great reputation on being an alternative to the Echo’s low-quality and over sensationalised journalism, it was rather disappointing to see this article uncritically repeating ‘stuff wot we read in the Echo’.
More concerning was the fact that the article claims balance whilst subtly demonstrating the opposite. For example, the conflation of ‘Anti-Trans’ and ‘Gender Critical’, when these are two quite different things. The first is an opposition to trans-people, the second an opposition to a set of regressive stereotypes and an ideology that centres these stereotypes.
A useful example of how the two things are different; many right wingers in America are Anti Trans – but they are not the least bit gender critical, in fact they support traditional stereotypes around women and their role in society, the workplace and the family.
Gender critical people - often left wingers - reject traditional stereotypes. Their argument is that sex and gender are two different things. The first matters a lot and cannot be changed. The second doesn’t. To quote the words that JK Rowling has been subjected to years of abuse and death threats for, ‘Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”.
Gender ideology – and the shutting down of any debate about its implications - is undoubtedly making the headlines at the moment. And given that several lesbian female academics have been forced out of their jobs for speaking on this subject, I would challenge any twitter account re-tweeting relevant freedom of speech articles from mainstream media to do so without covering this issue regularly .
Also, editor, please note, use of the phrase ‘Cis Woman’ is the language of an ideology and should be avoided in balanced journalism as it is considered offensive by many.
So well put by Emma... i feel we re going along with an unscientific cultish ideology that says theres no such thing as male or female just a great big spectrum of feelings that can change at any time... and don t you dare question it or you' re hateful/ out of a job/ a fascist. But it s made crustal clear here by Emma
Cis is just a descriptive word it's really not that deep. Should they not use it because it offends you? Seems kind of counter to everything else you're saying. Idk not trying to argue but that doesn't really make sense when you think about it
Hi Lucy, my point is that “Cis” is the language of one side of the debate. It’s absolutely not a neutral descriptor. If I were to write a balanced article about a religious conflict for example, I wouldn’t use the descriptor “heathen” or “infidel” to describe a person…as that would be demonstrating clear bias towards one side.
Another good article. I have to admit I too am worried about free speech. I remember when Militant where in charge in Liverpool and being at a demo against them at the old pier head. The "left" and "progressives" shouting down anyone who dared to say anything against Hatton and co.
I do fear for free speech at the moment. It only seem to be free if you agree with certain views especially those views that are seen as "Progressive". It is not even conservative view or liberal views it is any view that goes against what is classed as a "progressive" agenda. However for me the "progressive" agenda seems more regressive and freedom to disagree with views is becoming more and more limited. 1984 anyone
“Free speech” is almost always cited in reference to the freedom to express conservative views, and I would invite you to open a newspaper or turn on the television to see how threatened those views are.
Women's rights and protections and child safeguarding are considered 'conservative' views now, are they? If so, bring them on. I'm an ex Labour party member and 'ex' for very good reasons.
For many years the mainstream news and press have simply not been awake, and reporting, on this issue. It is thanks, solely, to a resurgent women's movement that they now are.
I was replying to Ian’s comment, which frames the free speech issue as one affecting conservative views more than progressive ones - which seems hard to believe given the paucity of “progressive”-aligned media (however you want to define that) in this country. Perhaps I’m wrong, and the UK’s newspapers have found a sudden burning interest in women’s rights and women’s movements. However, if that were the case I would expect those outlets to approvingly cover some feminist issues that aren’t to do with trans people, and there is little sign of that.
The reason the issue of gender identity theory is of such fundamental importance for women's rights is because it totally undermines the reality of biological sex and replaces it with the concept of an inner soul which is'sexed' instead. That males can somehow be women. It reduces being female to a post modernistic idea of gender performance or expression. See Judith Butler.
This is, of course, nonsense. Gender is a set of social prescriptions and not a biological reality. That even the word 'woman' itself is appropriated and colonised and women are reduced to a mere category of their own sex is suggestive that women "are not real" ( as I was recently told by a young gay man)
There is no one set definition of feminsim. For some it is merely a matter of equal rights with men - whereby any differences which exist are minimised or glossed over. For others there are sex based differences and these differences need to be taken into account and accommodated in an equitable way. That is why we have singles sex spaces, services and sporting cartegories. Sex matters in certain circumstances.
Feminism doesn't belong to the Left. Feminism belongs to women. Adult human females - whatever their creed, religion or background.
In this country your may well be correct. But I have also seen the others side where it is classed as "left wing " views. You only need to look at what is going on in Russia and South America to see it in action. What I probably should have said is that trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you is really, in my head, a product of an politically unstable country that does not actually know what it is. I think that is where we are as a country. You could argue it starts with brexit but I would apply an argument it really started under Tony Blairs new labour. We are better than most in that we don't have running street battles as such neither do we have police and army on the streets armed 24 *7 * 365 like some failed states. This situation will continue until it is resolved either by the state its self or it just falls because people get fed up with it. However, I do think it has a very long way to go and I don' t believe I will live long enough to see it end
I agree with pretty much all of that - I think the lack of democratic accountability in this country, and the minuscule difference between the only two parties able to take power, create dangerous conditions that could easily breed fascism. Where I differ is only that those with “conservative” views are not a persecuted minority like progressives in Russia - indeed they set the agenda in the media and in politics. This seems observably true, no matter whether you approve of conservative viewpoints or not.
How embarrassing to be living in an age where academics can’t speak freely. Of course there’s a clash of rights! A significant minority has decided that the word ‘woman’ has been redefined... and women are not supposed to debate this?? Shocking
"On checking these claims, the lion’s share of the Liverpool AFAF Twitter account currently seems to be dedicated to retweets on exactly that topic, and only from one perspective: gender critical."
Well done Abi for fact checking. Looks like AFAF promoted Free Speech to push a particular agenda. Where is the debate, the alternative views, the thoughtful discussion ?
"I call up Firat again to ask about these Twitter posts and she tells me that while AFAF is not a group dedicated to discussing issues around gender and sex, “at the moment there’s a lot going on” about it in the media."
Well done Abi for challenging Firat for the apparent AFAF "X" social media bias.
I expect Academic Freedom of Speech to be research based, rather than repost articles from The Telegraph !
I also expect academics to be able to speak freely about their research without being picketed or abused.
Free speech and open debate has been closed down for years and people have had to meet in secret lest their legitimate meetings ( even on university campuses) be targeted and attacked by masked mobs. That mainstream news sources such as the Guardian ( to which most people concerned with women's rights and protections had subscribed to for years) have refused to cover issues - leading, eventually, to a number of senior, well respected journalists having to leave, is testament to how the tentacles of authoritarianism and censure have taken hold.
They too have a right to be heard ,and if the Times, The Telegraph, The Spectator and magazines such as Unherd are happy to give them a voice - then this is where you will find that free speech and alternative perspective. I didn't subscribe to The Post to read such thinly veiled bias.
That such news publications are finally doing their job and reporting on the issues is thanks to a determined and resurgent movement of people committed not only to women's rights and protections, but also to to the freedom of perfectly everyday speech and opinion.
My comment about reposting articles from The Telegraph is that anyone can do that. No academic research required !
I respect the right of academics to freely speak about their academic work, but to simply repost media articles is hardly academic.
And yet articles written by Grace Lavery and other post modernistic queer theorists were actively linked to? Obviously this issue is far too much for such an article as above to do justice to - but I suspect the 'Telegraph' reference was given to illustrate how "alt right wing" people who are critical of gender theory really are. The article was in no way even handed and was full of contested theories and positions posing as facts. Firat was, in effect, being 'held to account' for her perfectly mainstream thoughts and perspectives; as well as somehow responsible for the masked mob action that she has been subject to.
A thoughtful and fairly balanced article - there is perhaps one omission that I feel it’s worth commenting on as it’s a common one in these kinds of discussions. Offensive opinions, or reactions, tend to be framed as social media problem, but writers in legacy media like the Times or the Guardian, in particular, are just as obsessed with trans people as any of the anonymous twitter users at whose feet the blame is usually laid.
Hatred for this marginalised group is being mainstreamed and promoted by these outlets, and while columns “debating” the rights and even existence of trans people are framed as crucial freedom of speech issues, this “right to offend” is not applied to any angry responses in reply (an inconsistency that you do touch on).
It was hardly balanced. Quoting Grace Lavery as a reputable academic source is something of a joke, surely?
If we move away from that rather narcissitic view then we will see that talking about issues around the conflict between women's right and protections and their needs for dignity, privacy and fair sporting competition and 'trans rights' ( as framed) is not to be " obsessed with trans people" - it is to be committed to the rights and protections of women and girls and to the integrity and dignity of their sex.
Thanks Abi - insightful and well-researched as ever. I hope you don’t get any threats - the distance between ‘I disagree’ and ‘I will kill you’ seems frighteningly small these days.
I'd say almost to the point of non-existant! Somebody writes or says something "Off Topic" and they are almost immediately howled down, if they refuse to be berated, then the threats start. Not connected in any way to this topic or subject, but not too dissimilar is the Case of Salman Rushdie, surely that's a classic example, of how far some people seem to be willing to go to silence anybody they disagree with. Sadly, the kind of backlash that AFAF witnessed is only likely to get worse with the rise of "Free Speech" outlets such as Talk TV, Times Radio, and GBeebies, with their own set agenda and "Cabal" of presenters, each pretty much chosen for the views they represent, and their appeal to the swivel eyed loon wing of society, witness almost daily reports of "Woke" Activity in the likes of the Doolally Mail, or the Torygraph and best of all, The Wapping Liar. "Move out of line, if you wish, declare yourself different if that's how you feel, but do society, and yourself a massive favour, and keep quiet about it eh? There's a good chap/gel"
It has been quite a long time since I have read such a biased piece of reporting. That Grace Lavery should be referenced as a credible academic source is testimony to that.
So what if the group has strong views on the issue of the conflict between the transgender rights ( as proposed) and women's rights, protections and dignity. This is one of the most fundamental issues of our time and academics and others are right to have concerns and even strong views on this matter. This is indeed about the right to voice very mainstream views in public places without fear of attack.
The idea, as stated in the article, that it is trans identified people who are the victims here is far wide of the mark. Academics, not only in Liverpool universities, but people in many other walks of life are regularly hounded; abused; threatened; vilified; compared to Nazis; and have any meeting they attend picketed by masked mobs screaming abuse; sometimes pounding windows, and on occasion even storming the building. Women have been assaulted; arrested, lost their jobs and their reputations. and we are told that those responsible for these actions are really the victims?
There is a group of people determined to destroy Firat's career, as well as those of other academics in the city. These academics all have long histories of political engagement and activism of one sort or other - and to be so hounded by very small numbers of loud and very vocal members of the student body, and by other invested organisations is a travesty. To be given a free pass by a local news source committed to investigation, balance and truth is testimony to how powerful ( not powerless) the trans lobby is. It is totalitarian in nature, and needs to be confronted.
As for open debate - that would be a fine thing. The usual response is to close down any debate which is not wholly affirmative of the one very narrow, and extreme, agenda.
Yes, one need only open any newspaper in the UK to see the all-powerful totalitarian trans lobby in action!
It will depend on your news source won't it? I subscribed to the Guardian my entire adult life - but gave up my susbscription about five or six years ago because they simply did not cover anything around the arrests, loss of jobs, or villification of academics on the subject of women's rights and protections, and child safeguarding.
Janice Turner was the journalist who first took up the baton and started to cover the issue in the Times, and as a result lots of people started to look to the Times to continue with its coverage. Five years ago Stonewall were telling us that there was " No Debate", and The Labour party too. For years there was no discussion in the commons on this issue. Now there is. That can only be a good thing. Redress is long over-due.
The guardian, which publishes a pile of gender critical stuff anyway and virtually no articles by trans people, vs every other print publication, and this shows how powerful the “trans lobby” is.
The Guardian does nothing of the sort. They have lately started to approach the issue - but far too little and far too late. Hence the loss of several of their long standing writers and columnists, and a lot of their subscribers.
I'm not sure which sections of the Guardian you are not reading - but it regularly features pro gender theory articles and first person accounts.
An ex-labour ex-guardian reader who now subscribes to dozen substacks entirely about conservative politics and “trans issues”. One can kinda see why the right wing press have taken an interest, eh
If the left is now truly about authoritarianism and censure then where are the dissidents to go? Personally, think this issue transcends party politics - but has been hijacked by an american Intersectionalist/scocial justice agenda - which alienates most.
When people such as Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore are being referred to as fascists the so called 'progressive lef't has lost the plot. And when the Labour party refers to its own members as 'hate speech' activists, and its own MPs have to have police escorts to conference - I'm not sure that ding-dong, left right, argy bargy concerns me anymore.
And to be honest - that is really quite liberating. The arguments are more important than the tribal affinity.
The author's opinion:-
"It strikes me that free speech is only truly possible if there’s a level playing field between both camps. "
This raises the difficulty of who decides when a "playing field" is level enough for contentious views to be heard.
It invites the use of coercion. We have seen that coercion in the form of people losing their jobs, meetings being cancelled, attempted disciplinary action and bullying in political parties.
Excellent article Abi. Well balanced and thoroughly researched. I do feel that you have to be so guarded these days about what you say about anything. Maybe things have gone a bit too far in certain areas. Social media is now a medium where haters can stay anonymous and say what they like without recourse. I just choose to ignore what I feel is wrong but rightly or wrongly those people do have the right to say it. Until you are given a balanced view (educated) to understand both sides, hate or fear will remain.
Related to this subject, I’d love to read a Post interview with the activist Gina Martin, who is from these parts and has an interesting new book out.
Interesting and well balanced article on a tricky subject! I fall very much on the side of wanting to be inclusive to trans people but I also think, it feels soooo hard at the moment to even begin to combat the anti-trans sentiment that is so rife in our society, so sometimes in wanting to be allies, we can just get totally caught up in storming in, wanting to eradicate anything that seems in any way related. But clearly this just ends up pushing people further away from the cause we want to promote. It would be great if sensible and reasoned debates could be had between both sides but I think in reality the subject is just too emotive
Thank you for reminding me of Grace Lavery. I feel happy again now as she is so Fab. Here is a lovely link to her recent article in the LARB: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/gender-criticism-versus-gender-abolition-on-three-recent-books-about-gender/
Great, balanced article. Really good journalism please keep up the good work.
Generally speaking, in the UK it seems we currently have unkind views masquerading as free speech advocates facing off against "anti-fa" using trans people as a human (rights) shield. You can probably count on one hand the number of trans people at a picket protest vs "allies", and sell off a surplus of MAGA hats on eBay.tx after a "free speech" rally.
Meanwhile, most everyone else just treats their female or male coworkers, friends and acquaintances as people, regardless of what their gender used to be.
Someone, somewhere gets something out of division being sowed. I think those arguing are either being played or are being complicit.
If you're not a woman or a trans person how do you know how we're treated by our coworkers? You think women enjoy equality in the workplace?
How do you know I'm not either, or indeed both? Presume much?
I know how I treat people. I know how my colleagues and friends treat other people. There are d-heads of course, however they are the minority.
I'm glad you put a questionmark at the end of your last sentence, because no of course I don't. However at least in the UK this is primarily a legacy issue, rather than mainstream oppression, and women can these days access equal success despite those legacy issues.
The overt examples out there of direct discrimination by d-heads and extremists reflects only them and not our society. I decline to contribute to giving them them the power that comes with polarisation of extreme reaction.
Indeed, it is entirely plausible - likely - that the attempts to "troll" our society are covertly designed and funded by other governments.
If it's just individual dickheads why is there a gender pay gap and why are women always under represented in senior roles? The same discrimination that trans people face is hard coded into society. Please remember your personal experience is not universal.
Perhaps you skim read my comment, as your question seems to infer I have made a statement which did not.
Thanks for educating me, and reminding me that I don't embody the universe. As a mere gay from a working class background naturally I have no experience of discrimination, be it direct, indirect or systemic.
As a member of a very small minority group, as opposed to a member of a demographic that represents over 50% of the population, I have no comprehension of what it means to be marginalised with no recourse.
I asked you if you thought women experience workplace discrimination, you said "However at least in the UK this is primarily a legacy issue, rather than mainstream oppression, and women can these days access equal success despite those legacy issues." To which I pointed out there's still inequality.
Then you said "The overt examples out there of direct discrimination by d-heads and extremists reflects only them and not our society." Suella Braverman just this week said she wants to get rid of gender neutral toilets, and that's just one of many examples of how our society is intolerant of trans people.
Happy to clear that up for you!
Yeah thanks.
Cisgender, come on! Can we stop using nonsense terms to describe normal people. Trans-activists, anti-oil, XR etc should be considered domestic terrorist organisations and shouldn't be pandered to by using their preferred divisive terminology. These groups are full of hateful, angry, selfish deluded people, many with severe mental problems intent on causing trouble.
I think if you read an even-handed article that mentions trans people and immediately feel angry about extinction rebellion, you are allowing our toxic media environment to affect you in a way that isn’t healthy.
Not really, I just see all these 'me me me' posturing groups using whatever methods they choose to to cause disruption and spread hatred. Selfish and stupid, just look at the idiots deflating tyres on Land Rovers at a showroom 'because one killed two kids', using those deaths totally out of context for their own propaganda, or brain-dead rent-a-gob Abbott and her dead migrants tweet. There's a sickness in society and it is displayed by such groups, most violently by the angry young men of the trans-rights groups.
Add getting angry about a tweet by Dianne Abbott, man you might as well just be listing things right wing media grifters want you to be angry about (which is always random members of the public, and not of course corrupt politicians or collapsing public services)
I'm angry about corrupt socialist politicians within Liverpool City Region not being held to account and prosecuted. Liars and Frauds abound but it all gets swept under the carpet by the local Labour mafia.
Couldn’t agree more mate, democratic accountability in this country is almost non-existent. You mention children, and I’d just point out that the big risk to the children of this country is that millions of them are living in poverty, their mental health services are collapsing (CAHMS - look it up) and not a single politician wants to talk about making things better for young people. Those are the big problems, not the tiny minority of people in the country who are trans.
who are these right-wing grifters? I bet they are less dangerous than the loonie-liberal-lefties currently abusing children into transgenderism or wanting the worlds waste of humanity flooding the country.
QED
they make speaker cable, what have they got to do with anything
After the Echo had me thrown off my journalism course (Posts passim) I did a subject access request which revealed chats in the newsroom discussing me, they decided I'm the type to "glue myself to a motorway".
This sort of reactionary, simplistic thinking is so dangerous.
they decided I'm the type to "glue myself to a motorway".
And no doubt you will, if it brings your greivances with the Echo to the fore! ;-) But in many ways, your case is a prime example of what we're talking about here, you were guilty ((C) the Echo) of disagreeing with a lot of what the reporters - I think journalists is pushing things a bit) and not being slow to say so. The Echo were obviously stung by a lot of what you apparently wrote, (I say apparently, because I only saw a couple of examples in the actual Post Article), but as is more and more common these days, rather than try to challenge you and thus prove you wrong, or take note of your criticisms, and maybe try to adress them, the Echo instead decided to approach the Course Provider, and "Gently remind them" that they provide the major funding for the course, and a bit more grattitude wouldn't go amiss - if you cath my drift - in other words, you're free to enroll whoever you wish, and whoever wants to be on the course, but if you carry on in this manner, it may be a bit difficult for some of your Graduates to find placements". So in many ways, your case is exactly what we're talking about in the article, "talk about whatever you like, until it upsets me, and then be very quiet and don't dare say anything else"