The narrowness of the ideological viewpoint
Alice Sullivan and Judith Suissa of University College London on the narrowness of the ledge we are allowed to stand on:
Academics who do not adhere to a particular line on gender and transgender issues have suffered intimidation by trans activists. The people under attack are not mavericks or extremists. They are feminists who question the trans-orthodox view that biological sex is a social construct while gendered identities are fixed and innate. They also seek to defend women’s sex-based rights. In this article, we explain what is happening and consider what steps the higher education community needs to take to ensure that academic freedom is not curtailed.
One reason why concerns about academic freedom have been crystallised by the trans activist movement in particular is the narrowness of the ideological viewpoint that it has sought to impose.
Emphasis mine.
National polling shows that only 19 per cent of people share the view that ‘trans women are women’, and dissenting opinion encompasses a range of views. Yet trans activists claim that questioning the position that a person’s ‘gender identity’ trumps their biological sex in legal and social contexts amounts to being ‘anti-trans’, and to denying trans people’s very right to exist.
They call it bigotry and transphobia and they and their non-trans but equally rabid allies do everything they can to shut it down.
When academics disagree with a piece of research, they would normally encourage debate, critique and more research. However, in the case of transgender issues, activists have derailed this process repeatedly. This is particularly troubling given the need for research into the rapid growth in the numbers of young people presenting with gender dysphoria.
It’s also particularly troubling given how thoroughly the whole thing has been politicized, such that claims about “authentic self” and “validation” are brandished like weapons to close down attempts to talk about the facts, aka the evidence. Researchers are assailed for trying to find out why there is such rapid growth in the numbers of adolescents claiming gender dysphoria.
The climate within academia is inevitably influenced by the broader political arena, where trans activists have sought to shut down debate, often using violent misogynistic language and behaviour. Trans activists have adopted the slogan and hashtag #nodebate, claiming that debate constitutes ‘real harm’ or even ‘literal violence’.
As for encouraging debate, I see a large number of people encouraging “debate” on the Damore memo. I have personally been excoriated by people who want to “debate” the idea that women who are drunk still have full human rights. A lot of people want to “debate” whether telling men to keep their hands off women’s bodies without permission is stifling males.
But whether a trans-woman (raised as a man?) is fully a woman, with complete understanding of what it means to be a woman (usually differing strongly from that of “cis” women, who apparently do not know what it means to be a woman)? That is not subject to debate at all.
Pretty soon we’ll manage to redefine woman so that those of us born with female primary and secondary sexual characteristics, those of us who have the biological markers of womanhood, will no longer be covered by the definition of “woman”. We’ll need a new term to account for that – Man (meaning male bodied people and perhaps trans-men); Woman (meaning female-identified male bodied people and trans people who have had surgery and/or hormone therapy; and ??? (meaning those of us who would once have been called women but are no longer entitled to that name because we started life that way). I, for one, refuse the moniker of “uterus-haver” – and not only because I no longer have a uterus. I would have rejected that even when I did.
Good article. As an aside, I hope the authors don’t expect anything useful out of UCU. I was a member, back when I was a postdoc at UCL and they were utterly fucking useless.
I particularly remember the delight they had in telling us that they had “negotiated” a reduction in our hours from 37.5 to 35 hours a week in exchange for losing 3 days leave. We stared at them in horror, pointing out that none of us ever worked a straight 37.5 hour week, usually putting in at least 50 or 60 hours in a week and that they’d basically given away 3 days of leave for nothing and the University knew it. The rep was nonplussed, telling us we shouldn’t be working over our contracted hours without overtime or time-off-in-lieu. He had no understanding of how academic life works and gave us vague promises to “investigate” which as far as I know never actually happened. So don’t expect them to have the vaguest clue how to do anything effective in the arena of academic freedom.
iknklast, in my last comment* at PZs I made the point that the prefix ‘cis’ was effectively an insult, making women a mere sub-category of their own sex. I’m sure I’ll be educated as to why I’m wrong because reasons shut up transphobic bigot.
*I wasn’t overly complimentary about the commentariat over there in closing my comment so ‘last comment’ may be somewhat prophetic. I haven’t checked yet.
Further to my #3, I’ve just been back to PZs (not banned yet!) and he has a new post up about the death of New Atheism (he calls his involvement ‘the biggest regret of my life’.) in which his hypocrisy is just, well, I don’t have the words:
…says the man who throws ‘TERF’ around like confetti.
Consider me gobsmacked.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/01/25/the-train-wreck-that-was-the-new-atheism/
Well you see real feminists Center Trans Women, so feminists who call themselves feminists but don’t Center Trans Women are not real feminists. It’s easy once you know how.
Ha! He also says:
I know. It’s like he doesn’t read his own blog, isn’t it. What’s that old saying about never seeing faults in ourselves that we point out in others?
It’s called the fundamental attribution error.
Kudos to Acolyte of Sagan (or should I say Acolyte of Trump) for at least attempting some push back at the site under discussion. I particularly enjoyed the following exchange in the comments below the original post on the Covington incident.
Aos: Actually, it looks like the kids may not be witches after all.
Pharyngula regular: Only a witch would say that. He’s one of them!
I also found interesting the comment, a little later, that suggested the boys having their teeth smashed in by a large piece of concrete might not be such a bad idea.
Your moral superiors.
Oh, that PZ and his gang! Apparently they have some dude who knows, like, ecology or something and HE has written a definition of “woman” that lets men in womanface in. So, of course, anybody who does not take the new definition of woman that Ecology Dude came down off the mountain with as gospel is just, so, like SO hateful! I mean that is the way things are supposed to work, right? Some guy like Moses or Ecology Dude says something came into his head so it must be true and the only reason we won’t get in line like good little believers is our hatefulness.
PZ spends so much time crapping on religious types and then pushes this religion of “gender identity” with vigor and hate towards non-believers while claiming to be an atheist. A complete buffoon and hypocrite.
The fundamental attribution error is when we attribute another’s bad behavior to innate characteristics (“She is obviously a nasty witch”) while seeing our own behavior as situation-based (“I was rude because I’d just had a terrible day”.)
I looked it up and have been thinking about it since the Covington thing.
Psychological projection is the thing where we’re always seeing in others the faults we don’t notice in ourselves.
re. fundamental attribution error, how many of PZ’s regulars suffer from it chronically? It seems to be a defining characteristic of the nasty ones in there. “It is fine for me to insult you because what you take to be insults are actually accurate descriptors; your insults against me prove you to be an aggressive male enforcer of the patriarchy, you are causing harm therefore you must stop.”
Damn that’s good. Encapsulates the absurdity of the position in one sentence.
Lady M @ 11 – yes I know, and a boiled-down simplified quick and dirty version of that is “never seeing faults in ourselves that we point out in others.” It’s the irregular verb – I’m nonconformist / she’s crazy.
This business of PZ’s regulars and their taste for relentless abuse – they’re why I stopped reading Pharyngula at all for years…including even when I was part of the network. I would read an occasional post but then zip right on out of there. They’re why I try to discourage that kind of thing here, including my own impulses.
It’s not just the brutality, it’s the emptiness, the boring stupid shallow vulgarity of it. The clutter of it. It’s not rewarding to have to pick your way through a sea of ranting insults to find a kernel of sense or information.
Yeah, I’ve been a regular reader and occasional commentator there for years, but that’s always bugged me about the site. I haven’t said anything because of course that would be “tone trolling”, which is one of the worst sins you can commit, and I’ve probably engaged in some nastiness myself (though my preferred metier is the sarcastic one-liner). But it can drag you down, especially in threads where the only righteous response allowed to your opponents is tough guy internet threats of violence.
Carmichael, ‘Acolyte of Trump’ was good, but my favourite was from Giliell* in the transgender thread that swnow referred to above. According to her, I’m the Accolyte (sic) of Transphobia. Also, several people telling me how Sagan would disapprove of my views was amusing, particularly one who admitted to not reading anything by Sagan and knowing nothing about him, but nonetheless knew for sure that he would not want me for an acolyte! I was also told (after declaring that I was out and had no intention of continuing in that thread) that all the evidence for their viewpoint had been laid out for me, I just didn’t understand. I took ‘you don’t understand’ to mean ‘you won’t assimilate with the Horde’.
Oh, and one of those moral superiors was recently advocating for a revolution in which ‘TERFS’ would be lined up against a wall and shot, yet nary a word of rebuke from PZ (who, in the same thread, banned two commenters because they wouldn’t back down in their support for women). Makes one wonder.
swnow, we were supposed to take the ecologist’s word as gospel because ecology is biology and biologists are the experts on trans, y’know (are you listening, iknklast? You da expert!) Never mind that said ecologist claims that there are at least five natal sex states, three of which are hermaphrodite and intersex (which she says are the same thing, but it’s politer to use intersex nowadays, but still counts them as two things for her argument – shades of the Catholic ‘seperate but one’ Trinity) and freemartin – a cattle breeding term for a calf born as one of a set of twins where the other is male. The freemartin is genetically female but sterile and has some male characteristics, so not sure how that fits the trans argument. Both (all three?) are caused by abnormal foetal development, but that bunch are more than happy to co-opt anything if it can be twisted into their agenda.
*Holms earned my undying respect despite causing me to almost choke on my coffee following a rather lengthy and confusing language and word-usage lesson from Giliell about how ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are not adult forms of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ or ‘male’ and ‘female’ except when they are (or something like that), by very politely asking her to please hand her (English) degree back to the university. A work of beauty, Holms.
Funny how no one over there would even acknowledge my presence when I commented on ecological issues! I never commented on trans, because by the time that became an issue I had pretty much deserted that commentariat.
In fact, I find the same patterns in the commenters at We Hunted the Mammoth (and I think the same names, so there is a lot of overlap), even though I still read that site. This is about the only site where I find it worthwhile and beneficial to read comments…except maybe Jane Clare Jones, and I haven’t been reading her long enough to be sure. Thanks, Ophelia, for linking to her a few times.
And on what other site could you start out a thread on Russian malfeasance, and end up with corgis and Irish terriers in the comments?
Maybe I’m just being pedantic, but the orthodox view sort-of eradicates gender-fluidity as a category.
The FAE isn’t so much about not seeing our own flaws. It’s about how we think about them.
“Because of the fundamental attribution error, we tend to believe that others do bad things because they are bad people. We’re inclined to ignore situational factors that might have played a role.”
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/fundamental-attribution-error
“Trans-rational” needs to catch on.
Lady M @ 20 – well, I disagree. I get that “Because of the fundamental attribution error, we tend to believe that others do bad things because they are bad people. We’re inclined to ignore situational factors that might have played a role,” but the others bit has implications. Possibly the thing you quoted goes on to say that.
I wish more people over at Pharyngula would push back against the constant slew of TRANS WOMEN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS ALL WOMEN AND THEIR SOCIALISATION AS BOYS AND MEN IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND DON’T YOU DARE SUGGEST BEING PERCIEVED AS MALE FOR MOST OF THEIR LIVES AFFORDED THEM PRIVILEGE. The issue isn’t black and white but, in all their wokeness, the commenters refuse to discuss anything that might not be percieved as entirely flattering towards trans women.
The culture of the commentariat doesn’t allow for it though. I get why virtually no one speaks remotely critically with respect to trans issues on Pharyngula. They didn’t with Richard Carrier either though and look where that got them…
The issue isn’t even being flattering or unflattering though. It’s way more sweeping even than that. It’s not unflattering or insulting to say that males grow up with male privilege.
It’s about validation – and not validation in the sense of “you’re fine, you’re not an inferior or an underling, don’t let the bastards grind you down” but in the sense of “you are a woman if you say you are.” Which in fact does not apply to actual literal women, because they have to submit to being called cis even if they say they are not cis. So the rule is validation of men who say they are women coupled with invalidation of women who simply are women. What could possibly go wrong?
If for some reason a person still enjoys Pharyngula (and most of the FTB Blogs and wants to stay there), any hint of dispute is the kiss of death. No one who values membership of the group over self respect will put an alternative view to keyboard there now. Many were reluctant initially to criticise Carrier because he was ‘one of theirs’ and others because criticising someone for polyamory – which is one of the rainbow choices that must not be questioned. It wasn’t until the evidence of his behaviour began to look really sketchy that the Rubicon was crossed.
Ophelia, of COURSE it is insulating to question male privilege. Just as soon as that male declares themselves to be a women. Never insulting to question a women who is ‘cis’ though. Maybe because they lack *cough* male privilege *cough*. Seriously though, it’s the requirement for unquestioning validation that I think sticks in the craws of many of us. If trans people wanted our support and understanding for the issues they uniqely faced and the pursuit of basic human rights, they would get that. Instead, some of them seem intent on pushing women down a rung, while others (presumably a very small but notable minority) seem intent on using trans status as a tool to gain access to women and children to victimise them.
Note that Carrier didn’t catch heat when he used his blog to post a personal ad and then, in the comments, informed a trans woman who was interested that he was not, telling her that he likes sticking his dick in vaginas.
Oh, missed that interaction! I saw his personal ad and pretty much decided that he had gone from marginal to skeevy in my books. After that I think I only checked back to see his defence/flounce post.
The thing that gets me most, though, is the conclusion so often reached there that it is, in fact, the “cis”-women who have had privilege, because of being brought up as their “preferred” sex. They haven’t know what it is like to feel out of place in the expected gender roles, or to be treated as if there is something wrong with them because they don’t properly conform to gender roles, because, of course, they are women who are treated like women, so, privilege!
The only possible answer to that is WTF?
PZ has actually lectured some women he has deemed “TERF” about how privileged they are, and how they can’t see it because, well, privileged can never see their privilege. I’m sure he would justify it by saying, “well, I only mean privileged when….” but it’s still stupid. That isn’t what privilege is. Being treated like a woman because you are born a woman is not anymore privilege when compared with a trans-woman than when compared with a man. You are still being treated like shit, disrespected, objectified, underpaid, given fewer opportunities, dancing backwards and in high heels, and the fact that the trans-women DID NOT undergo that in growing up is NOT a sign that they have been mistreated. Sorry, dude, check your own goddamn privilege before you lecture other people about theirs, when you are so clueless.