Respecting the views
Yet another one.
The red haze of fury that immediately descended prevented me from noticing the staggering rudeness of simply cc-ing Stock on an email to others as opposed to communicating with her directly. I guess that’s because the latter would require apologies? I guess it’s just simpler and quicker for the bullies in charge to discuss it among themselves and cc the people they’re bullying?
I find this simply enraging. Preemptive “on second thought no” a mere week beforehand, on the basis of utterly spurious “health and safety issues” – which by the way are immediately nullified by the suggestion that a “transgender speaker” should be invited.
And all this in aid of the new and preposterous doctrine that we are required to accept men’s claims that they are women, that we are required to believe all such claims without hesitation and with enthusiasm. Women are required to accept men as women on command, and forbidden to say no or to ask any questions. If we fail to comply they will punish us.
It’s health and safety! Also, we should invited somebody trans!
Do the managers at the University of East Anglia want to bring their institution into disrepute? Because that is by god what they’re doing.
When they wrote that her talk was suspended because of “security and health and safety issues,” Stock seems to have concluded that they meant “there’s a threat to your safety, so we have to postpone in your interest.” But, unless she’s leaving out more context, it’s also likely that the university meant “ the mere expression of your views on university property is a threat to the security, health, and safety of the most vulnerable and marginalized people on earth, ever.”
Hmm not exactly, I think. The “safety” thing is a pattern, and she’s all too aware of that pattern. “Safety” is a fig leaf, and as such it can include the safety of the speaker (because, being a fig leaf, it’s not really about anyone’s safety) while also being about a threat to the security, health, and safety of the most vulnerable and marginalized people on earth, ever, along with the safety of the world as we know it and anything else they care to imply. I’m confident she’s not for a second thinking they’re worrying about her safety.
University administrators are likely thinking of their own safety. Profiles in courage they are not.
“health and safety issues” sounds much nicer than ‘we’ve been threatened’ or ‘we expect violence.’
Telling that for Dr. Stock “health and safety” are “issues,” yet they’re willing to host a “balancing ” speaker from “the other side.” The “health and safety issues” magically evaporate with the application of “balance.” TRAs are expected to be mollified by this balance (though we all know that there would be disruptive opposition to Dr. Stock’s presentation even if she were to accede to the demand for “balance.”) Also telling that TRAs speaking is not thought to raise issues of “health and safety.” That is GC feminists aren’t expected to respond by summoning a mob of howling protesters to threaten and intimidate TRA speakers. It’s like some sort of asymmetrical warfare; a small band of internet activists (or just a single narcissist: see MeTooSTEM) can shut down events at will.