Is this woman a transphobe?

[kabbes]

Well I’m not about to start digging into archives to draw out chapter and verse of the details. Not least because the precise details aren’t really the point. What I distinctly remember was that it was one of the first times it was apparent to me, at least, that some concepts and assumptions that had been contained and taken for granted within student identity politics suddenly hit a mainstream audience that didn’t share those same taken-for-granted views. There is a difficulty in connecting material, structural power dynamics with individual psychological self-based conceptualisations, and this difficulty had not been engaged with. The result was a shitstorm that was interpreted in very different ways by different groups of people whose entire ontological basis for and experience attached to the self, society and the everyday were worlds apart. It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences (on the parts of all involved) that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society

You’re right that I’ve conflated two controversies, though. It was the controversy related to the women’s officer for a Labour constituency, not the one related to Goldsmiths that I am talking about.

 

[belboid]

Well I’m not about to start digging into archives to draw out chapter and verse of the details. Not least because the precise details aren’t really the point. What I distinctly remember was that it was one of the first times it was apparent to me, at least, that some concepts and assumptions that had been contained and taken for granted within student identity politics suddenly hit a mainstream audience that didn’t share those same taken-for-granted views. There is a difficulty in connecting material, structural power dynamics with individual psychological self-based conceptualisations, and this difficulty had not been engaged with. The result was a shitstorm that was interpreted in very different ways by different groups of people whose entire ontological basis of and experience attached to the self, society and the everyday were worlds apart. It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society

What happened was a right wing press saw an opportunity to have a go at a loony left Corbyn supporter and you bought the whole kit and caboodle. The fact that you have completely muddled up Bahar Mustafa (who said absolutely nothing about trans issues until well after she was bullied out of her job) with your fantasy character is.... let's go for interesting.

 

[kabbes]

What happened was a right wing press saw an opportunity to have a go at a loony left Corbyn supporter and you bought the whole kit and caboodle. The fact that you have completely muddled up Bahar Mustafa (who said absolutely nothing about trans issues until well after she was bullied out of her job) with your fantasy character is.... let's go for interesting.

This precisely demonstrates the exact lack of willingness to even engage with the underlying ontological issues that led to the thing blowing up in the first place. If you really want to rake it up (which I didn’t — I was making a point about how this stuff became toxic, not about who was right): what happened was that people within a certain sector of politics were so worried about the (undoubtedly important) right to be seen as a woman because you feel like a woman that they failed to consider the perspective of women who would be alienated by the idea that to be a woman, you have to “feel like a woman”. “What does that mean?” these outsider women wanted to know. And no answer was forthcoming because it seems so obvious if your understanding of the self all derives from a Descartean duality and a consciousness that comes from within. Plus it seemed so obvious that those asking the question must of course have been doing so in bad faith. Just right-wingers to be vilified. Not least because an atomised understanding of the self tends to go hand in hand with a solipsism that conceptualises questions as being about the one asked the question of rather than the one doing the questioning.

 

[belboid]

This precisely demonstrates the exact lack of willingness to even engage with the underlying ontological issues that led to the thing blowing up in the first place. If you really want to rake it up (which I didn’t — I was making a point about how this stuff became toxic, not about who was right): what happened was that people within a certain sector of politics were so worried about the (undoubtedly important) right to be seen as a woman because you feel like a woman that they failed to consider the perspective of women who would be alienated by the idea that to be a woman, you have to “feel like a woman”. “What does that mean?” these outsider women wanted to know. And no answer was forthcoming because it seems so obvious if your understanding of the self all derives from a Descartean duality and a consciousness that comes from within. Plus it seemed so obvious that those asking the question must of course have been doing so in bad faith. Just right-wingers to be vilified. Not least because an atomised understanding of the self tends to go hand in hand with a solipsism that conceptualises questions as being about the one asked the question of rather than the one doing the questioning.

No, it is me laughing at you for your pomposity and ignorance. I repeat, Bahar Mustafa said absolutely nothing about trans rights (as far as I am aware), so the above is absolutely nothing buy belated self-justification for your complete horror at young people not doing things the same way as old farts like us. Thank god.

Old man shouting at clouds (but with a thesaurus)

 

[kabbes]

No, it is me laughing at you for your pomposity and ignorance. I repeat, Bahar Mustafa said absolutely nothing about trans rights (as far as I am aware), so the above is absolutely nothing buy belated self-justification for your complete horror at young people not doing things the same way as old farts like us. Thank god.

Old man shouting at clouds (but with a thesaurus)

I’m not talking about Bahar Mustafa. As I already acknowledged, I’d got the goldsmiths and Labour controversies mixed up.

 

[belboid]

I’m not talking about Bahar Mustafa. As I already acknowledged, I’d got the goldsmiths and Labour controversies mixed up.

So you're talking about a case where a trans woman was freely elected against a transphobic candidate (whose campaign centred on transphobia) and who then wanted to implement the platform she openly stood on. Again, a right-wing load of old balls that you bought hook line and sinker.

Trans people assert themselves a tiny bit and its all far too sudden, silly fools should have sat back and patiently explained their position for a few decades.

 

[frogwoman]

It was lily madigan iirc. In any case I've not got the slightest interested in student controversies in goldsmith's and it's weird that people form their opinion on 1% of the population based on this.

 

[frogwoman]

So if trans people shouldn't stand for elected positions and shouldn't take part in sports etc what are they supposed to do then? It honestly seems to me that some people want them to be pushed out of anything 'visible' whatsoever

 

[hitmouse]

It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences (on the parts of all involved) that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society

You’re right that I’ve conflated two controversies, though. It was the controversy related to the women’s officer for a Labour constituency, not the one related to Goldsmiths that I am talking about.

Maybe we should start by trying to establish the ontological differences between the Rochester and Strood CLP and Goldsmiths, and then work from there?

 

[kabbes]

So if trans people shouldn't stand for elected positions and shouldn't take part in sports etc what are they supposed to do then? It honestly seems to me that some people want them to be pushed out of anything 'visible' whatsoever

Who said it was anything to do with who is allowed to stand for a position? Did I mention anything along those lines at all?

 

[belboid]

Who said it was anything to do with who is allowed to stand for a position? Did I mention anything along those lines at all?

This is what you said - the fact that it is 100% untrue (both for BM and LM) means you should probably stop defending it.

My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing. That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”

 

[smokedout]

Well I’m not about to start digging into archives to draw out chapter and verse of the details. Not least because the precise details aren’t really the point. What I distinctly remember was that it was one of the first times it was apparent to me, at least, that some concepts and assumptions that had been contained and taken for granted within student identity politics suddenly hit a mainstream audience that didn’t share those same taken-for-granted views. There is a difficulty in connecting material, structural power dynamics with individual psychological self-based conceptualisations, and this difficulty had not been engaged with. The result was a shitstorm that was interpreted in very different ways by different groups of people whose entire ontological basis for and experience attached to the self, society and the everyday were worlds apart. It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences (on the parts of all involved) that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society

You’re right that I’ve conflated two controversies, though. It was the controversy related to the women’s officer for a Labour constituency, not the one related to Goldsmiths that I am talking about.

This thing I can't remember properly made me very cross and was the first time I noticed uppity trans people so that must be when this conflict started and it was a trans person's fault.

Nothing to do with a media campaign in which centrist feminist newspaper columnists on the left and ring wing men in the Tory press co-operated in a relentless attack on trans rights which was in full swing by the time Madigan got elected.

 

[mauvais]

I sat in an hour-long listening session yesterday where my trans colleagues talked about how they feel right now and the consequences on them of what my employer does.

A dose of this sort of thing would do a lot of people here some good, not least to suppress their 'yes but what about...' opinions, maybe forever.

 

[Wilf]

I notice Kathleen Stock has resigned.

Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row

Kathleen Stock announces resignation as university says ‘no substantive allegations of wrongdoing’ were made against her

www.theguardian.com

I'm not going to wade in on the substance of her views, particularly as I gather the criticisms of her go beyond her actual writings. However the way this has played out has a depressing feel to it. I work at a university but am not going to bang on about some abstract 'academic freedom'. I am a bit surprised that my union, UCU, has played an apparently 'anti-Stock' role, though again, I don't know enough of the back story. What depresses me are aspects of the anti-Stock campaign and how it seems to have become a mixture of anonymous protest and student consumerism. You get some of that in the quotes from this pre-resignation reporting:

Campus in the spotlight: how Sussex became focus of row over trans rights

What started as protest calling for a lecturer to be sacked has evolved into a fraught debate over academic freedom and student safety

www.theguardian.com

“People are annoyed because Stock’s being paid to research about that here, when it makes other people feel uncomfortable,” said a first-year student. “I know some people want her out,” said another. “I would rather the university explain why she should be here a lot better. I’m never going to be as angry as someone who is transgender. But there are obviously people who are going to be majorly affected.”

Stock told the Sunday Times she has been advised by police to install CCTV at her home and to stay away from Sussex’s campus.

“I know they are trying to protect her,” said another student. “But surely they should be trying to protect students. For her it’s her line of work, it’s her career. She gets paid to be here. We are paying to be here. To pay nine grand a year, people deserve to feel safe and accepted.”

This view was echoed by others. “A university’s first priority should be the safety and wellbeing of their students,” said a second-year student. “They’re the ones paying £9,250.”

Suppose this is a difficult thread to start sounding off about 'identity politics' as, perhaps I am. Same time, I don't like that slippage from 'We don't like her views... through to 'you need to keep us safe'.... on to 'she has to go because we are paying for it'. Feel like throwing some caveats in straight away. I'm certain trans people do feel unsafe and I'm sure Stock's views/actions/campaigns don't help that. But it's the shortcuts, via consumerism, towards boot her out that are problematic.

 

[belboid]

I notice Kathleen Stock has resigned.

Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row

Kathleen Stock announces resignation as university says ‘no substantive allegations of wrongdoing’ were made against her

www.theguardian.com

I'm not going to wade in on the substance of her views, particularly as I gather the criticisms of her go beyond her actual writings. However the way this has played out has a depressing feel to it. I work at a university but am not going to bang on about some abstract 'academic freedom'. I am a bit surprised that my union, UCU, has played an apparently 'anti-Stock' role, though again, I don't know enough of the back story. What depresses me are aspects of the anti-Stock campaign and how it seems to have become a mixture of anonymous protest and student consumerism. You get some of that in the quotes from this pre-resignation reporting:

Campus in the spotlight: how Sussex became focus of row over trans rights

What started as protest calling for a lecturer to be sacked has evolved into a fraught debate over academic freedom and student safety

www.theguardian.com

Suppose this is a difficult thread to start sounding off about 'identity politics' as, perhaps I am. Same time, I don't like that slippage from 'We don't like her views... through to 'you need to keep us safe'.... on to 'she has to go because we are paying for it'. Feel like throwing some caveats in straight away. I'm certain trans people do feel unsafe and I'm sure Stock's views/actions/campaigns don't help that. But it's the shortcuts, via consumerism, towards boot her out that are problematic.

The protests weren’t about her views, they were about her actions. There was never any objection to her actual teaching or research topics, so it is not about ‘academic freedom’ at all.

It is, or was, about her being a head of the anti trans group the LGB Alliance and her campaigning to reduce the rights of trans people (wrt toilets and other facilities) and her campaign against Stonewall.

Sussex’s own “Code of Practice on Academic Titles” (CPAT) states that “academic title holders must not bring the university into disrepute,” which it further defines as follows:

Those that demonstrate hostility towards, or could reasonably be expected to generate hostility in others towards, individuals or groups of individuals by reason of a protected characteristic (as defined in the Equality Act 2010).

That is what the complaints about Stock were about, not that you’d read that in reactionary shite like the guardian.

 

[Wilf]

The protests weren’t about her views, they were about her actions. There was never any objection to her actual teaching or research topics, so it is not about ‘academic freedom’ at all.

It is, or was, about her being a head of the anti trans group the LGB Alliance and her campaigning to reduce the rights of trans people (wrt toilets and other facilities) and her campaign against Stonewall.

Sussex’s own “Code of Practice on Academic Titles” (CPAT) states that “academic title holders must not bring the university into disrepute,” which it further defines as follows:



That is what the complaints about Stock were about, not that you’d read that in reactionary shite like the guardian.

Well, as I said, I'm not defending some abstract notion of academic freedom anyway and the biggest threats to it are from university bosses themselves. And as I also said, I'm aware it was about her actions. But when you said it was never about her teaching/research, there are quotes in the piece that focus exactly on that.

Fwiw, I've no objection to students setting out a political challenge to that which they are taught. 'Sack her because we are consumers' ain't that though.

 

[19force8]

The protests weren’t about her views, they were about her actions. There was never any objection to her actual teaching or research topics, so it is not about ‘academic freedom’ at all.

It is, or was, about her being a head of the anti trans group the LGB Alliance and her campaigning to reduce the rights of trans people (wrt toilets and other facilities) and her campaign against Stonewall.

It's about more than toilets, etc. She was a signatory to the Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights which called for "the elimination of that act and practice of discrimination against women which comprises the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ in the category of women." In other words for the elimination of trans women's existing rights in UK law. The declaration was the work of the Women's Human Rights Campaign, a transphobic group that seeks to "morally mandate" "transsexualism" out of existence.

But Stock doesn't want the GRA repealed

On top of that she has a record of stamping on the freedom of speech of students and junior academics. One of whom her followers sought to have suspended from his role with the American Psychological Philosophical [doh!] Association. All that is bad enough, but when academics of equal status have a go at her for her appalling views and behaviour she doesn't make a peep.

On the whole a nasty piece of work. I pity the students at Sussex.

Edit: And solidarity with them too.

Further edits re the situation with the APA.

 

[Raheem]

Fwiw, I've no objection to students setting out a political challenge to that which they are taught. 'Sack her because we are consumers' ain't that though.

Have to say, this seems like picking holes. It might not be a great feature of our HE system, but they are consumers in the end.

 

[hitmouse]

If anyone wants a fairly long read from the other side of the story:

The UK Media Has Seriously Bungled the Kathleen Stock Story

This is a long essay. It has to be, because the errors made in reporting the Stock story are many and consequential. The upshot is: Adam Tickell, the VC of Sussex University, should be fired; the UK media desperately needs to hire trans editors; and Kathleen Stock has this week conspired to...

grace.substack.com

UCU statement is here, not sure if they've said anything on the matter since then?

University of Sussex: UCU statement

www.ucu.org.uk

(eta: that seems to be a national UCU statement saying "we think the Sussex UCU statement is alright" but not actually linking to said Sussex UCU statement, sure it should be possible to find it but have to go do other stuff right now)

 

[kabbes]

Students genuinely are paying a lot of money, though. And what they get for that money is frequently both poorly organised and almost contemptuous in its attitude towards those paying for it. In addition, the students have very little power to address the problems they face, because the institutions know they can just wait them out — students are only there for 3 or 4 years — plus students are relying on the very people they ought to complain about for their futures.

In that context, I’m not surprised that it is uppermost in students’ minds when they find themselves in yet another power imbalance to point out that they are actually paying for this experience. In no other walk of life would you expect to shell out over £27000 to be treated like an annoyance.

 

[hitmouse]

Oh, here's the actual UCU Sussex statement:

Statement in Support of Trans and Nonbinary Communities at Sussex

In the light of recent events on campus and ensuing public response on social media, we extend our solidarity to all trans and nonbinary members of our community who, now more than ever, should receive the unequivocal support of the University and its management. As a union, we strongly condemn...

ucusussex.wixsite.com

Which does say "We do not endorse the call for any worker to be summarily sacked and we oppose all forms of bullying, harassment, and intimidation of staff and students." Although you could point out that the word "summarily" does a lot of work in that sentence, and I imagine it probably is the case that they probably didn't fight as hard to prevent this sacking as they might have done for any other job loss, but then again this isn't exactly any old sacking.

Also IIRC Stock has a history of acting in ways that undermines union actions in the sector, which again isn't a sacking offence in itself but might not contribute to making too many friends in the local union branch:


Oops, and just realised that she resigned rather than being sacked, with the management line being

“We had hoped that Professor Stock would feel able to return to work, and we would have supported her to do so,” it continues. “She has decided that recent events have meant that this will not be possible, and we respect and understand that decision.

“We will miss her many contributions, from which the university has benefited during her time here.”

In which case it's even harder to see what the UCU could/should have done in defence of Stock, since it's not something coming from management.

 

[19force8]

If anyone wants a fairly long read from the other side of the story:

The UK Media Has Seriously Bungled the Kathleen Stock Story

This is a long essay. It has to be, because the errors made in reporting the Stock story are many and consequential. The upshot is: Adam Tickell, the VC of Sussex University, should be fired; the UK media desperately needs to hire trans editors; and Kathleen Stock has this week conspired to...

grace.substack.com

I like the way Grace Lavery refuses to back down in the face bullying from the usual suspects. Where students have had to withdraw fair criticism and apologise to Stock for fear of being sued she has taken up their criticisms as her own and amplified them.

In part it's because living in the USA gives her virtual immunity from UK libel law (anyone who's followed Rachel Riley's three year libel case against Mike Sivier will know what an enormous burden our laws are), but there also seems to be a strong protective ethos towards students among (some) American academics.

 

[belboid]

In which case it's even harder to see what the UCU could/should have done in defence of Stock, since it's not something coming from management.

not to mention the fact that she quit the union a couple of years back

 

[Raheem]

She'll have quit to take up an offer from some RW think-tank or whatever. Betcha.

 

[Wilf]

Students genuinely are paying a lot of money, though. And what they get for that money is frequently both poorly organised and almost contemptuous in its attitude towards those paying for it. In addition, the students have very little power to address the problems they face, because the institutions know they can just wait them out — students are only there for 3 or 4 years — plus students are relying on the very people they ought to complain about for their futures.

In that context, I’m not surprised that it is uppermost in students’ minds when they find themselves in yet another power imbalance to point out that they are actually paying for this experience. In no other walk of life would you expect to shell out over £27000 to be treated like an annoyance.

Yes, it's the power of the consumer, but in an unresponsive, clunky market. Students have just about no power 'as students', only in certain circumstances as a kind of administrative consumer (national student survey and other 'feedback' loops). My own institution has just done appallingly badly in the NSS and it's a 'real' thing, something the place has shat itself over as it affects league tables and numbers opting to study there. At the moment, 'responsiveness' to students is top of the agenda, as is the 'student voice'. But there's no real participation, or power. The NSS and student satisfaction is at one and the same time something that panics managers whilst also being deployed against staff to make them dance.. Consumerism in HE is about bosses, not 'consumers'.

 

[bimble]

I am so confused. I think maybe the Times newspaper has completely lost the plot ?
This is their article today:

Urging change of gender to be criminalised | News | The Times

archived 28 Oct 2021 23:03:29 UTC

archive.ph

it says that 'gender identity counselling' is going to be criminalised.

This is all i can find from the government on this.

Government progresses ban on LGBT Conversion Therapy

Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, today (29 October) vowed to protect LGBT people, and especially under 18s, from harmful conversion therapies as she set out proposals to ban the practice.

www.gov.uk

Anybody have an idea what if anything is actually going on?

 

[TopCat]

I am so confused. I think maybe the Times newspaper has completely lost the plot ?
This is their article today:

Urging change of gender to be criminalised | News | The Times

archived 28 Oct 2021 23:03:29 UTC

archive.ph

This is all i can find from the government on this.

Government progresses ban on LGBT Conversion Therapy

Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, today (29 October) vowed to protect LGBT people, and especially under 18s, from harmful conversion therapies as she set out proposals to ban the practice.

www.gov.uk

Anybody have an idea what if anything is actually going on?

Conversion therapy to be restricted but not banned in proposed bill

Equalities minister Liz Truss will consult on plans to allow counselling for non-vulnerable adults

www.theguardian.com

 

[SpookyFrank]

In no other walk of life would you expect to shell out over £27000 to be treated like an annoyance.

Except maybe at the dentists.

 

[bimble]

Yep that makes it more likely it’s just the Times has lost it.

 

[teuchter]

If anyone wants a fairly long read from the other side of the story:

The UK Media Has Seriously Bungled the Kathleen Stock Story

This is a long essay. It has to be, because the errors made in reporting the Stock story are many and consequential. The upshot is: Adam Tickell, the VC of Sussex University, should be fired; the UK media desperately needs to hire trans editors; and Kathleen Stock has this week conspired to...

grace.substack.com

I've just read that and find it unconvincing.

I don't know lots about Kathleen Stock, and have only become aware of her since this Sussex University thing came up. In the bits of reporting I've read, the impression I've got is that the objections to her are based on particular interpretations of things she has said, rather than clearly stated positions that she has expressed. That article reinforces that impression.

Just to take one example of something in that article - it says

The LGBA supports conversion therapy: an extremely controversial and dangerous practice whereby Christian ministers encourage gay people to “pray the gay away.”

and

As their website makes very clear, they believe that ministers should be free to conduct “therapeutic” relationships with cisgender gay patients, aimed at helping those patients to suppress their homosexual desires:

Then they quote some text from the LGBA website. If one were following up these arguments thoroughly, it would be necessary to check the source and make sure that what they quote does not selectively exclude other stuff that is important. But there's not even any need to do that, because what they quote contains this statement:



This just leaves me .

That and several other bits of the article make me feel it's an unreliable account of other things including what it says were the main reasons for the students' objection to KS.