Some background
Pips & Andy respond (except not really):
I haven’t been able to find another source for the statement so that I could just quote it, so it will have to be images via Stoat.
Helen Joyce points out what’s missing:
Tip Jar
Pips & Andy respond (except not really):
I haven’t been able to find another source for the statement so that I could just quote it, so it will have to be images via Stoat.
Helen Joyce points out what’s missing:
“Some Caians raised concerns about the event, Criticising gender-identity ideology: what happens when speech is silenced, and did not want it to take place.”
I wonder if they even noticed the irony there.
This part is interesting: “I disagree with her views, the way she presents them, and the way in which she responds to those who criticize her.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Joyce has been uniformly civil in her public discourse on gender-related issues. Perhaps there’s a bit of a tart tone to some of her tweets, but she’s not cursing anyone out. She’s not adopting the “ironic” and “edgy” rhetoric of violence that permeates online genderist activism (“Punch a TERF,” “TERFs get the wall,” etc). She doesn’t insult anyone’s appearance, call for anyone to be harassed or fired, or baselessly insinuate that anyone is a Nazi, white supremacist, or suchnot. She’s certainly not splashing urine on anyone’s office door or lobbing smoke bombs through anyone’s window. This is further proof of what I think most of us already know: there is no amount of softpedaling that will render criticisms of genderism acceptable to genderists. Even the most moderate expression of dissent will be treated as a display of vicious bigotry.
I would be very interested to hear why Pippa disagrees with HJ’s views, but as we all know, genderists are much better at attacking their detractors than they are at defending themselves.
Re #2, I am not convinced Pippa actually read the book. I would be interested in any specific examples of views that were disagreed with, positions that were expressed in an objectionable manner, or inappropriate responses to criticism. There have been enough claims of reading the book that turned out to have meant “read a review” or “read a couple of pages” that I am wary.
If the ideas expressed in the “background” document were really true, then “Pippa and Andrew” would never have issued the statement that they did.
“We did not consider a cancellation. Free speech is fundamental and disagreeing is part of academia. Students are encouraged to engage in challenging discussions about difficult topics at university and at Caius. …
“I agree that there are difficult and complex discussions to have around bodily autonomy and parental relationships with children, with the use of puberty blockers on children, on characterization of participants in sport, on gendered violence, and the intersection between sex-based rights and protected characteristics. As well as on protected spaces for women.
“… Each [student or alumnus/a (could and should also have included staff and guests, imo)] has a valued opinion and a right to express it. That will never change. Neither will our commitment to free speech.
“I hope it is possible for reasonable people to disagree and that freedom of expression is available to everyone[.]”
If “Pippa and Andrew” had written that, and warned against violations of free speech (such as noisy swarming of the event to prevent the speaker from speaking or the attendees from listening), there would have been no problems. The students and staff who tried to physically interfere with the presentation should have been cautioned that disciplinary consequences would attend this violation of the fundamental principle of free speech.
I think I’ve got the decoding correct:
“I disagree with her views, and that she is even allowed to hold them, the fact that she is permitted to present them at all, and that she dares to respond to those who criticize her.”
Exactly.