Bullshittage
A sign at the The Institute of Contemporary Music Performance in London:
A scramble to apologize without any mention of what was wrong with the “signage.”
Earlier today on-campus signage at the Institute of Contemporary Music Performance (ICMP) was shared on social media.
Our intention, following discussions with our student community, had been to communicate the definition of TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) to help clarify what we considered to be growing misconceptions around what the term means.
It’s not a “term.” It’s an incendiary device, like “cunt” and “bitch” and “whore.” It’s an epithet. The point of it is to invoke and inflame hatred of women. Trying to “clarify” its “definition” is like trying to clear up the meaning of “nigger.” This isn’t a dictionary thing, it’s an incitement of hatred thing.
We got it wrong.
The signage is clunky and we can see how it can be misinterpreted as an ICMP view and/or policy.
The signage has now been removed and we apologise profusely for any offence caused.
The sign is not “clunky”; the sign is a frank and open incitement to hatred of women.
The issue is not “offence” so much as fear. Men are afraid women will laugh at them; you know the punchline. It’s not unusual for men to inflict physical violence on women, including murder. Institutions putting up signs saying “Here’s a reason to hate women who are defending their rights” are not merely “causing offence,” they’re putting women at literal physical risk.
The “profuse” apology is rejected with prejudice.
Here is what their zero tolerance policy covers, according to the link on the sign. >>
Violence, harassment and discrimination may take the form of:
Sexual harassment and/or assault
Racism
Homophobia
Islamophobia
Antisemitism
Bullying and/or assault
Transphobia
Hate crime
Online harassment
Ageism
Ableism
*Please note this list is not exhaustive.
<< Apparently sexism doesn't make the (non-exhaustive) list, but if it did, the sign itself violates it's own policy. Since the nebulous "transphobia" isn't clearly defined, it targets women who might object to men in women only spaces for harrassment (report them). It doesn't say what kind of measures would be taken of course, but I'm sure it would be some form of harrassment.
This is (part) of the problem with this whole ‘debate’. Generally well meaning people who want to do the right thing are being pressured to support trans rights in a vacuum of debate and information. As a result they do what sounds like a lovely caring and supportive thing, without giving it any really deep and serious thought as far as I can tell. The result is the occasional bit of floundering like this, but more generally becomes digging in deeper to defend the already publicly taken position.
it’s a shitty way to implement any public policy, but I do have to hand it to the TRA’s, they have been more successful in a shorter period of time than ANY other justice or rights movement I can think of. Hell, in some States this weekend sizeable pluralities in multiple states were still voting in favour of keeping slavery and anti-miscegination laws on their books. I think in one state the proposal to remove such laws was even voted down!
If we’re blunt, even in the oh so wonderful, advanced, and civilised West, women rights are a reluctant afterthought. Always the last thing considered, even by many women, and then usually only after considerable agitation. Agitation that usually results in many so called good men expressing anything from annoyance to anger and contempt at the agitators.
Huh? Citation needed.
The GC position is that female people should be allowed in female spaces — unless they’re talking about TIFs who take testosterone and want to be on women’s sports teams, which is considered doping. But this statement isn’t just wrong, it’s bizarre. Their position is that women who identify as male shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces because they’re men . It’s a strange crime then to charge us with.
Maybe they realized this and decided it was “clunky.”
Sastra, yes, many eyes were rolled on Twitter at that mistake. That’s the opposite of the GC position but don’t let that stop you, siiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.
Acceptance and inclusion for everyone except for feminists who don’t agree that men are women. Call them names (TERF’s), accuse them all of being “phobic” (by default), and then “report” them. If this isn’t prejudice and bigotry then I don’t know what is. How people buy into this garbage is beyond belief.
Note the “flag” imagery. The baby colors dominate, the LGB colors are pouring off the corner, and racial inclusion doesn’t even appear.
And female inclusion never appears, does it?
Of course, there was no way moley was going to leave that alone…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhNY2P5XoAA-J73?format=jpg&name=large