The precious right to silence the witch
The BBC reports on the Stock Spiral:
A group of Oxford University academics have signed a letter supporting the right of transgender students to speak out against Kathleen Stock, a prominent gender-critical figure.
“They have every right to try to shut her up!”
Another group of Oxford academics have already said objections to her invite go against free speech.
But the new letter said it was not a free-speech issue as revoking an invite “is not preventing them from speaking”.
When did we decide “invite” is a noun? When did we decide it’s the better word for “invitation”? When did we decide “invitation” is just too long and formal to bother typing? Four whole extra letters!
Anyway, to the substance – yes, of course revoking an invitation is a free speech issue. Of course particular instances of speech-refusal are free speech issues. That’s not to say I think speech-refusal should never happen, it’s just to say it is an issue.
The open letter shared on Saturday by the university’s LGBTQI+ society, signed by 100 academics and seen by the BBC, said: “We believe that trans students should not be made to debate their existence.”
A hundred academics signed that? How embarrassing for them. The quoted sentence is childishly crude and stupid. Nobody is disputing anybody’s existence; the issue is self-description. If you tell me you’re Queen Elizabeth I and I decline to believe you, I’m not debating your existence, I’m disbelieving your claim about yourself. It would work the same way if you told me you were a snow leopard or an airplane or a bowl of rice pudding. If I didn’t believe you existed I wouldn’t bother to disbelieve your claims.
What the inarticulate students mean of course is that they think students who are trans shouldn’t have to be in the same town as a philosopher who has Disapproved views on what “trans” means. Calling it being made to debate their existence is 1000 times more melodramatic, so that’s what they go with.
“We also refute that this is a free speech issue – disinviting someone is not preventing them from speaking.”
Urgh. Rookie mistake. They didn’t refute anything. Refute does not mean disagree with or reject.
Also, of course, yes, disinviting someone is preventing her from speaking on a given occasion. It’s a calculated insult at best, so it’s not something to do lightly.
“Freedom of speech matters, but we shouldn’t forget the right to protest… debate is essential for a vibrant democracy and we champion it.”
Ahahahahahahaha that’s hilarious. No they don’t.
There are a lot of words that these censorious children don’t know the meaning of.
[Did I say that rite?]
The full text of the second letter is here. Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London, who posted the link on Twitter, has examined the signatories:
Kathleen Stock has posted her full response to the BBC on Twitter.
[…] so we know who wrote that dopy crude letter saying Make Stock Go Away that some dopy Oxford academics signed. We know because he’s […]
That sentence, that “trans shouldn’t have to debate their existence” glosses over the assumptions baked into that idea. If we are to take, in full, the claims of “trans existence” – that TWAW, TMAM, non binary is valid etc etc, then we are, at a stroke, invalidating rather a lot of material fact, such as the existence of the female sex as a discrete class.
So anyone who says “trans rights aren’t up for debate” is telling you that they do not now, or possibly never did, believe that women’s rights are a thing. Or gay rights. Or so many others.
And it’s amazing what you can get away with arguing in public when you just don’t ever utter the corollary of your statements and assertions.
Sure, they get to protest anyone’s views. But they aren’t just objecting to Stock’s position, they are attempting to block the event. Different thing.