The resistance
Holly is pushing back against the bullying.
A feminist philosopher targeted by trans activists has lodged a formal complaint against the University of Melbourne, alleging it failed to provide a safe workplace.
Associate professor of philosophy Holly Lawford-Smith, in a complaint lodged last week with WorkSafe Victoria, accuses her employer of occupational health and safety breaches, of bullying her for her political views, and of undermining the university’s stated commitment to academic freedom.
Sound familiar? Kathleen Stock? Rebecca Tuvel?
The gender-critical feminist, who is opposed to trans women having access to women-only spaces and services, said she lodged the complaint following a two-year campaign against her that reached a crescendo following her attendance at the now notorious Let Women Speak rally, which was gatecrashed by neo-Nazis.
“The institutional culture at Melbourne [University] and the way they allow gender-critical feminists to be treated is unacceptable and violates academic freedom and what a university should be about,” Lawford-Smith said.
Hear hear.
The author of Gender Critical Feminism and a second book, Sex Matters, published by Oxford University Press, has for the past six weeks been the subject of an anonymous boycott campaign by student and trans rights activists against her second-year feminism class. She has also been the subject of disciplinary processes initiated by the university.
I didn’t know that. How horrible.
Stickers and posters produced under the banner of Fight Transphobia Uni Melb started appearing on campus about a week after Lawford-Smith attended the March 18 rally…
Ugly bullying snotty stickers and posters they are. The Age has photos.
Amelia Bright, a 23-year-old trans woman and gender studies student, said she was not involved in the boycott campaign but called for the university to commission an external review of Lawford-Smith’s second-year subject by experts in teaching and learning, psychological safety, trans issues and feminism.
“Dr Lawford-Smith fundamentally doesn’t believe in hearing out trans people, in considering their safety or having them in public life,” said Bright, the editor of a report by the student union’s Queer Political Action Collective into Lawford-Smith’s feminism class.
“All of her personal views absolutely seep into this subject. Frankly, you wouldn’t let a flat-earther teach an astronomy class.”
Uh, no. I hate to break it to you, but you’re the flat-earther in this scenario.
We HAVE heard trans people out. Again and again and again. They’re like those evangelical Christians who believe their message is so irresistible and self-evidently true that there are only two possible reasons you’re not yourself a Christian. Either you’re blinded with irrational hatred and need to be shunned and punished, or else you didn’t hear the Good News properly because they HAVEN’T BEEN SHOUTING LOUDLY ENOUGH. Either way there’s going to be a lot of flying spittle.
Questioning the idea that we all have a gendered soul? Transphobic.
Questioning whether or not you’re “trans” after having once considered it? Internalized transphobia.
Not being sexually attracted to transwomen when you’re a lesbian? Transphobic sexual apartheid.
Questioning “affirmation only” policies for chidren wondering if they’re in the “wrong body”? Transphobic.
Worried about the inevitable consequences of self-ID? Transphobic.
Bringing up the existence of detransitioners and trans desistors? Transphobic.
Etc., etc., … transphobic.
Transphobic? Then you’re a genocidal fascist.
Let me guess; some of Dr. Lawford-Smith’s objectionable “personal views” include the following:
1) In humans, there are only two sexes, male and female. Or, to put it another way: Men cannot be women.
2) Humans cannot change sex. So, Men cannot become women.
3) Sex is determined at conception and observable before birth. Sex is not “assigned” at birth.
These are basic facts about reality, and are no more “personal beliefs” than gravitation or plate tectonics.
I wonder how often “Amelia” Bright’s “personal views” have been put through peer review? It’s easy to lump objectionable ideas into the category of “transphobic,” but in an academic setting, explanation, debate and justification are expected. Views which are deemed sexist and racist are picked apart and their flawed reasoning is exposed to critical rebuttal. Why should “transphobic” ideas be treated any differently? Scholars usually relish the opportunity to demolish shoddy thinking; it’s part of the job. You get paid for pointing out bad ideas and explaining why they’re bad. The two go hand in hand. In fact, in academia, you’re not usually allowed to say an idea is bad without that further step of saying why. “Because I said so” isn’t going to cut it. So, Mr. Bright, time to go to work. Which of the three statements noted above does Bright consider incorrect, and how? Refutation of any of them would be revolutionary. If you roll up your sleeves, do the analysis, and prove them wrong, you can collect your Nobel Prize.*
But Bright is not interested in truth; he’s interested in power. He wants to be able to dictate what is permissible opinion and speech, what can and cannot be taught. He wants this power without having to explain himself or justify his decisions. He wants the fruits of the search for truth without doing the work. He wants to enshrine his “personal beliefs,” which seep into his every statement, without debate and accountability. He wants “Because I say so” to be the final word. Bright is trying to codify the replacement of a common understanding of how the world works with a novel, ideosyncratic, and ideological formulation that replaces facts assembled through inquiry and questioning with wishful thinking enforced by bullying and intimidation. The supposed high ground of “NO DEBATE!” is a ploy to hide the weak hand and utter lack of argument on his side of the aisle. In other words, he’s bluffing. He can’t win at the game as it’s normally played, so he’s going to kick over the table by crying “tTRANSPHOBIA!” before having to reveal his worthless cards, which have been hand drawn in crayon. The truly shocking thing is the number of people in power who are willing to help him. Bright is cheating, and the university administrators are helping him do it. Dr. Lawford-Smith is to be commended for standing up to the likes of him when those who should have her back will not.
I suppose this is one of the drawbacks to treating students as “customers.” If “The customer is always right,” what happens when your customer is an entitled, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, misogynistic asshole? If you’re afraid of your customers, how do you stop them from robbing you blind? If you’ve already surrendered your standards and authority, how do you now go back and say “No?” A good first step would be to grow a spine, or at least identify as a vertebrate. So far, there are precious few bones in evidence, let alone a backbone.
*Okay, maybe not a Nobel straight away. The requisite step for that would be to come up with an alternative explanation that better explains as much and more than the overturned theory.