Support NeoGAF

[Metrotab]

I don't agree with giving a platform to hate speech. The bile this woman spews is no different from questioning the evolutionary status of [insert race]. I don't accept the latter as a valid subject for fucking "debate" any more than the former.

The only thing occurring with these types of "talks" is sanctioned and powerful false equivalence that places pure hatred and ignorance on the same level of the victims of said hate and ignorance. As if " trans women are “some kind of ghastly parody”" is an idea that could do anything but hurt others.

Giving such bigotry a platform to directly speak to people only increases the number who share and repeat such tripe. Any body who agrees with her was already a piece of shit whom long ago abandoned any rational thought and the idea that people can "debate" them is naive to the nth degree, hate doesn't a shit about facts. There is no meaningful debate here, the bigots will take in what she is saying and the rational people will dismiss it. However that leaves out those who haven't given the subject much thought or perhaps don't have much exposure to the issue. When exposed to a "respected speaker" at their college, at least a fraction of the uninitiated are going to give this shit the benefit of the doubt and side with her. Those convinced by the rational people could have very well been found such edification in an actual classroom without paying some loser to the school to preach and justify hate.

The only possible outcome is that more students will walk out agreeing with her than went in. That's a net loss for the school and humanity at large.

Such an ugly cynical view. As if people in college aren't able to critically examine opinions at all, and just eat it up and promote it without further thoughs. Especially in 'softer' fields such a gender studies, where this critical approach towards text is a core toolset.

Gender studies experts should be able to show the holes in her rhetoric and inform people why she is wrong. It's part of their job. This woman gave them an opportunity to inform and shape views, again through leaflets, publications, folders, counter-lectures...

But instead you'd rather put a lock on it.

 

[Hellwarden]

Um no it wasn't. I think the fact that she herself chose not to come and all the media attention that shed light on her views to some people who probably weren't aware of it more than challenged her.

But her core argument wasn't challenged really. With Greer leaving, it was challenged on a purely emotional basis. Not in any intellectual way.

 

[tomtom94]

Such an ugly cynical view. As if people in college aren't able to critically examine opinions at all, and just eat it up and promote it without further thoughs. Especially in 'softer' fields such a gender studies, where this critical approach towards text is a core toolset.

Gender studies experts should be able to show the holes in her rhetoric and inform people why she is wrong. It's part of their job. This woman gave them an opportunity to inform and shape views, again through leaflets, publications, folders, counter-lectures...

But instead you'd rather put a lock on it.

I can't decide what I hate the most about this post, the idea that trans people's identity is up for discussion or the belief that denying a platform is removing critical analysis.

 

[Griss]

I'm with Dawkins on this.

I also find the idea that a 76-year-old woman - one whose entire viewpoint was pretty much that gender is a social rather than a biological matter - would be as bien pensant as a bunch of college kids on the subject of transgenderism absolutely bizarre.

She's old and out of date. Painfully so. She also said a lot of important things in her time. I'm not going to sit here and demonise her. The whole trans acceptance movement has only gained any kind of cultural traction in the last 5-10 years, anyway. Long after a leopard like her could change her spots, especially when accepting transpeople would be accepting that fundamental parts of her ideology are flawed.

I can't decide what I hate the most about this post, the idea that trans people's identity is up for discussion or the belief that denying a platform is removing critical analysis.

Like it or not, the nature of transgenderism is not a settled matter in modern society. Many people are still completely ignorant about it.

 

[partyphone]

Dawkin's remains an uncaring shithead...............

Buuuuuuut.

You can protest the ideas that Greer represents but I can't get behind trying to bar her from speaking them in what is basically a public forum. So while I wouldn't say "go home and hug a teddy" I wouldn't say "let's keep her from speaking" either.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut.

She was the one that chose not to speak, so in the end it's kinda on her right?

it's totally on her. very few people actually get disinvited to these types of things.

I'm super unclear on how it's a public forum, though. tossing in the word "essentially" doesn't seem to work.

 

[Delusibeta]

Even if colleges in the UK aren't extorting students to the degree that American schools do, this shit ain't free.

To be fair, if you're a UK resident, the government effectively picks up the tab. If you graduate and go onto get a well paid job, you pay some of your income as a contribution, but it's not like the US where you *have* to pay off your student debts. If you don't get a well paid job, you don't have to pay anything back and the slate gets wiped after 30 years or so. No damage to your credit rating, no threatening letters (unless you go self-employed in which case you'll have to make repayments manually, although the same terms apply), no fuss, no muss.

If you're not a UK resident, then the previous paragraph does not apply to you and you'll be backing up Toxi here. Additionally, the link doesn't apply to you either (you'll be paying a lot more, probably).

 

[HariKari]

Well I completely disagree

You're disagreeing with the intended function of a public forum.

 

[MUnited83]

No. A university is a neutral place. A place where these sorts of views are to be heard, dissected, and ultimately confronted. Creating an imaginary safe space that isn't reflective of the real world is an endorsement of being intellectually lazy by the university. It's denying an actual education, is what it is.

No it isn't. By the very definition it can't be.

Universities are not open forums where literally anyone can come and do a organized lecture while using the university's rooms.
They invite the people that they think should be heard, which automatically implies that there's a selection process and there will be people that won't be able to express their opinions on their platform because they deemed that those opinions weren't worth it.

This is not what "neutral" means in the slightest.

You're disagreeing with the intended function of a public forum.

It wasn't, so...

 

[Metrotab]

I can't decide what I hate the most about this post, the idea that trans people's identity is up for discussion or the belief that denying a platform is removing critical analysis.

Please quote me where I stated that trans-identity is up for discussion.

And I don't see what's wrong with the second. It's hard to critically examine a lecture that was never given.

 

[freeofgreed]

The lecture was on Women and Power Historically and there was no indication she was going to speak on trans issues. Maybe she was, maybe not. But the protest was because of views she had that the students were not even certain were going to be discussed. The entire rationale was because they didn't like this particular opinion and so wanted her to not have the ability to speak on anything.

Which is a reason I take some issue with this(amongst others I listed). Which is partly why I made the Palestinian analogy and brought up the LSU incident.

Furthermore bringing on a lecturer does not mean a university endorses any and certainly not all opinions the speaker holds.

Again I don't see why this is a bad thing, and you have yet again neglected to explain why (which is why I initially stopped replying to you).

I'm black and say for example my school brought a white supremacist to speak. You can be dam sure that I am going to protest this speaker. Not only his views but also his ability to speak at my school. Why? Because that is giving his views legitimacy. Him being allowed to speak means my school thought his views were valid enough to be given air time. Also many people are ignoring the possible effects of this speech. People keep saying that the students will debate her/him but what about the ones who are convinced by the speakers words? Now you have a situation where even more bigots are created and this does have an impact on the students as they could face more bigotry or even violence. Which is why it's perfectly within their rights to protest the speaker the speaker coming at all.

 

[freeofgreed]

You're disagreeing with the intended function of a public forum.

No I'm not I'm disagree with your view that a school inviting a speaker to speak isn't an endorsement. First off all a school isn't a public place, and second of all in a public forum anyone has the right to speak, here only the speaker would have that right.

 

[Toxi]

To be fair, if you're a UK resident, the government effectively picks up the tab. If you graduate and go onto get a well paid job, you pay some of your income as a contribution, but it's not like the US where you *have* to pay off your student debts. If you don't get a well paid job, you don't have to pay anything back and the slate gets wiped after 30 years or so. No damage to your credit rating, no threatening letters (unless you go self-employed in which case you'll have to make repayments manually, although the same terms apply), no fuss, no muss.

If you're not a UK resident, then the previous paragraph does not apply to you and you'll be backing up Toxi here.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this. It seems like a much better arrangement than what we have in the US.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Greer was so upset by a trans woman being hired at her university that she protested the hire.

The ironing is basically Heisenberg purity.

 

[Jonm1010]

There is no dialogue tree because every time I call you out you ignore me. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

I have put forward two counter-arguments to arguments that you have made in this thread, and you have ignored them, then claimed that I was creating a strawman to justify your decision.

Here, let me find you examples of things you have said, and my responses to you, which you claimed were a strawman:





I don't see how my arguments are a strawman at all. I think that they are a valid counter-argument to your point, which I feel I represented fairly.

Thats nice and all but I am still not seeing where you are responding much to what I am saying.

Lets make this crystal clear here: They have a right to protest however they want, I however do not have to find their form of protest right or endorse it.

 

[Jonm1010]

Again I don't see why this is a bad thing, and you have yet again neglected to explain why (which is why I initially stopped replying to you).

I'm black and say for example my school brought a white supremacist to speak. You can be dam sure that I am going to protest this speaker. Not only his views but also his ability to speak at my school. Why? Because that is giving his views legitimacy. Him being allowed to speak means my school thought his views were valid enough to be given air time. Also many people are ignoring the possible effects of this speech. People keep saying that the students will debate her/him but what about the ones who are convinced by the speakers words? Now you have a situation where even more bigots are created and this does have an impact on the students as they could face more bigotry or even violence. Which is why it's perfectly within their rights to protest the speaker the speaker coming at all.

I am not upset with the notion of canceling a speaker due to unrelated opinions but more so the way it is often being achieved. I don't like protestors making pressuring the university their go to avenue of disagreement and I don't like universities bending to it more and more.

 

[tomtom94]

Please quote me where I stated that trans-identity is up for discussion.

Gender studies experts should be able to show the holes in her rhetoric and inform people why she is wrong.

You are placing the onus on gender studies experts to disprove Greer, which assumes that her views deserve scrutiny. Why? Why can I not simply say "You are wrong. You are arguing against the scientific consensus, you are contributing to a negative stigma against trans people, and you are not entitled to speak here."

I am sure you would agree with me that there are certain principles that we can take for granted in a debate; if we were to debate evolution then we probably don't need to first confirm that animals and humans actually exist. Why should this not come under similar grounds?

And I don't see what's wrong with the second. It's hard to critically examine a lecture that was never given.

Again, she would be giving a lecture. Not a debate. Again, the university did not invite pro-trans speakers, or scientists, to counteract her viewpoint - only Greer. Even if I accept the hypothesis that her views are up for critical analysis, that is not a level playing field.

You are basically saying that students have to be exposed to counterfactual viewpoints in order to understand critical theory, which is bizarre. Especially in the context of an optional lecture where I would argue that the vast majority of the audience would go along at least looking to be persuaded if not persuaded already.

 

[uncelestial]

So who decides what is acceptable and not acceptable?

Every person decides that for themselves and can either make their opinions known, or not. They either protest, or don't. They can also attend the lecture, or not. Everything seems fine to me.

 

[Metrotab]

Again I don't see why this is a bad thing, and you have yet again neglected to explain why (which is why I initially stopped replying to you).

I'm black and say for example my school brought a white supremacist to speak. You can be dam sure that I am going to protest this speaker. Not only his views but also his ability to speak at my school. Why? Because that is giving his views legitimacy. Him being allowed to speak means my school thought his views were valid enough to be given air time. Also many people are ignoring the possible effects of this speech. People keep saying that the students will debate her/him but what about the ones who are convinced by the speakers words? Now you have a situation where even more bigots are created and this does have an impact on the students as they could face more bigotry or even violence. Which is why it's perfectly within their rights to protest the speaker the speaker coming at all.

So college students should never be exposed to white supremacist ideas and thoughts in an educational setting because "they might be convinced". That's not a very hopeful perspective for the progressive moment, if racists can't be properly framed or contextualized (as in, "here"s why they're wrong", not "let's have a discussion about it") even in a university setting, where you've got the experts and the tools to do so.

 

[tomtom94]

Thats nice and all but I am still not seeing where you are responding much to what I am saying.

Lets make this crystal clear here: They have a right to protest however they want, I however do not have to find their form of protest right or endorse it.

Funny thing, if you ignore people's arguments and just reiterate your central thesis, it doesn't make it more right.

 

[Jonm1010]

Every person decides that for themselves and can either make their opinions known, or not. They either protest, or don't. They can also attend the lecture, or not. Everything seems fine to me.

Except we have a case where 2600 students of 26,000 lobby to cancel a speaker and while the university didn't agree, people seem to be completely fine if they had. Taking away many of those free will choices from everyone else and people in this thread seemingly ok with that.

Im just not as cool with it.

 

[Karsticles]

Has Dawkins spoken to trans issues before?

 

[Jonm1010]

Funny thing, if you ignore people's arguments and just reiterate your central thesis, it doesn't make it more right.

Which part isnt right? The part where I say they have a right to protest or the part where I say I have a right to disagree with their methods and goals?

 

[Delusibeta]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this. It seems like a much better arrangement than what we have in the US.

Yeah. It's called a "student loan", but the name is a complete misnomer in that payments are a) automatically taken from your income (if you aren't self-employed) and b) dependant on your income (9% of any money earned above a certain threshold. The precise threshold depends on which bit of the UK you're from and when you've started, but for an English undergraduate starting now it currently stands at £21k). And it's all written off after 30 years from the tax year you graduate anyway.

Additionally, you can also get a "maintenance loan" which is intended for day-to-day things, which are provided on the same terms. Combined with the tuition fee "loans", this is where most of the "students come out with £90k debts" headlines come from. The headlines are mostly bollocks, although there's also an increase in actual genuine debts being racked up by students, resulting in demands for... bigger student loans. Funny how it works.

 

[JesseEwiak]

So college students should never be exposed to white supremacist ideas and thoughts in an educational setting because "they might be convinced". That's not a very hopeful perspective for the progressive moment, if racists can't be properly framed or contextualized (as in, "here"s why they're wrong", not "let's have a discussion about it") even in a university setting, where you've got the experts and the tools to do so.

Again. First World country with the most open speech laws = The First World country with the most open racists and the most structurally racist nation. If you have a society where a lot of people are given a platform to say that certain people are lesser than them, the very fact they have a platform for their views will convince many people, because humans aren't all that great critical thinkers overall.

 

[Littlefang]

So college students should never be exposed to white supremacist ideas and thoughts in an educational setting because "they might be convinced". That's not a very hopeful perspective for the progressive moment, if racists can't be properly framed or contextualized (as in, "here"s why they're wrong", not "let's have a discussion about it") even in a university setting, where you've got the experts and the tools to do so.

There's a difference between contextualizing and criticizing a viewpoint and providing a bigot with an open platform to speak.

 

[Jonm1010]

Again. First World country with the most open speech laws = The First World country with the most open racists and the most structurally racist nation. If you have a society where a lot of people are given a platform to say that certain people are lesser than them, the very fact they have a platform for their views will convince many people, because humans aren't all that great critical thinkers overall.

So who decides who gets to speak? How do we go about this process? Walk me through it. Is 2600 signatures(some of which are outside of the university) decrying any speaker a proper avenue?

 

[freeofgreed]

I am not upset with the notion of canceling a speaker due to unrelated opinions but more so the way it is often being achieved. I don't like protestors making pressuring the university their go to avenue of disagreement and I don't like universities bending to it more and more.

But is this actually happening though. I'm perfectly fine with the way this situation played out. Had the school actually banned her, maybe i'd be more inclined to agree with you. but in the last thread we had on this subject we found out that it was what? like a total of 9 speakers across all colleges in the entire US in 2014 that were actually banned by schools from speaking. and that schools were actually more resistant to speakers being banned as time went on.

So college students should never be exposed to white supremacist ideas and thoughts in an educational setting because "they might be convinced". That's not a very hopeful perspective for the progressive moment, if racists can't be properly framed or contextualized (as in, "here"s why they're wrong", not "let's have a discussion about it") even in a university setting, where you've got the experts and the tools to do so.

They can still be exposed to it without actually having one speak there for an hour.... Why do so many of you think that not be allowed to speak at a school suddenly means that everything about the speaker suddenly disappears?

 

[tomtom94]

Which part isnt right? The part where I say they have a right to protest or the part where I say I have a right to disagree with the methods?

Your right to disagree is not being infringed upon.

What you are doing is saying "I have the right to disagree, therefore I do" rather than putting forth any arguments in favour of your proposal, simply saying "well I have the right to disagree", and ignoring those who point out reasons why the protest could be a good thing.

There is a difference.

 

[MUnited83]

So college students should never be exposed to white supremacist ideas and thoughts in an educational setting because "they might be convinced". That's not a very hopeful perspective for the progressive moment, if racists can't be properly framed or contextualized (as in, "here"s why they're wrong", not "let's have a discussion about it") even in a university setting, where you've got the experts and the tools to do so.

.. but that's not what would happen. There wouldn't be any framing or contextualization. People aren't going to fill you in on why she's wrong, provide context or framing it in any way. It's a lecture. It's them giving her free reign to say whatever she wants to, and there will be no one explaining her points or putting context or framing what she says. It wouldn't be used as a educational tool by the school's staff like you think it would.

 

[Jonm1010]

But is this actually happening though. I'm perfectly fine with the way this situation played out. Had the school actually banned her, maybe i'd be more inclined to agree with you. but in the last thread we had on this subject we found out that it was what? like a total of 9 speakers across all colleges in the entire US in 2014 that were actually banned by schools from speaking. and that schools were actually more resistant to speakers being banned as time went on.



They can still be exposed to it without actually having one speak there for an hour.... Why do so many of you think that not be allowed to speak at a school suddenly means that everything about the speaker suddenly disappears?

Im not sure the volume of the occurrences has too much bearing on the premise though. We can take off that last part and it still stands on its own.

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

I got an idea which solves all of this, have two people giving the lecture with different opinions and so you are expose to both viewpoints at the same time. Essentially just have it be like a presidential debate.

 

[Metrotab]

You are placing the onus on gender studies experts to disprove Greer, which assumes that her views deserve scrutiny. Why? Why can I not simply say "You are wrong. You are arguing against the scientific consensus, you are contributing to a negative stigma against trans people, and you are not entitled to speak here."

I am sure you would agree with me that there are certain principles that we can take for granted in a debate; if we were to debate evolution then we probably don't need to first confirm that animals and humans actually exist. Why should this not come under similar grounds?



Again, she would be giving a lecture. Not a debate. Again, the university did not invite pro-trans speakers, or scientists, to counteract her viewpoint - only Greer. Even if I accept the hypothesis that her views are up for critical analysis, that is not a level playing field.

You are basically saying that students have to be exposed to counterfactual viewpoints in order to understand critical theory, which is bizarre. Especially in the context of an optional lecture where I would argue that the vast majority of the audience would go along at least looking to be persuaded if not persuaded already.

Well, scrutinizing creationism was successful in discrediting the movement and a lot of people learned exactly how it was wrong and what the right answer is, and how evolution works. Why can't gender studies do the same with TERFs? You could write a book about it, like Dawkins did about evolution, where he went through all criticisms and disarmed those. Especially in the current political climate, such a book would be successful, and it would be nice to have a layman's manual to how exactly gender identity works, with all the information, evidence and history compiled.

I don't see how you could compile a body of knowledge without scrutinizing those who are wrong about it anyhow.

Racial theory was not only dismissed because it implied morally wrong things, but also because it simply wasn't correct.

 

[freeofgreed]

Im not sure the volume of the occurrences has too much bearing on the premise though. We can take off that last part and it still stands on its own.

The volume of occurrences has a bearing because you brought it up. As a part of your argument you literally said...

I am not upset with the notion of canceling a speaker due to unrelated opinions but more so the way it is often being achieved. I don't like protestors making pressuring the university their go to avenue of disagreement and I don't like universities bending to it more and more.

 

[Jonm1010]

.. but that's not what would happen. There wouldn't be any framing or contextualization. People aren't going to fill you in on why she's wrong, provide context or framing it in any way. It's a lecture. It's them giving her free reign to say whatever she wants to, and there will be no one explaining her points or putting context or framing what she says. It wouldn't be used as a educational tool by the school's staff like you think it would.

I would not be the liberal I am today if it weren't for the challenging conservatives I had in my life from yesterday.

From reading Ayn Rand, The Communist Manifesto, hearing Austrian economics professors speak at my school, hearing friends regurgitate conservative talking points and then hearing good professors academically challenge some of the pre-conceived opinions I held.

Part of critical thinking is developing the tools to disseminate good information from bad and weighing differing opinions. If you aren't exposed or challenged it is hard to ever develop those tools properly.

There seems to be an undercurrent that you don't trust people and therefore we need carefully present everything to them in a politically calculated way or else they will go down the path of the dark side.

 

[Scarecrow]

Free speech is to protect the rights of those who's opinions you don't like. All speech must be free.

It's scary how we're moving to thought crime territory.

 

[Jonm1010]

The volume of occurrences has a bearing because you brought it up. As a part of your argument you literally said...

It was an aside to my main point. A separate worry attached to my main point. One I wasn't really interested in getting into because it's a side issue.

 

[danm999]

Free speech is to protect the rights of those who's opinions you don't like. All speech must be free.

It's scary how we're moving to thought crime territory.

The students protesting her appearance is also exercising free speech you realize?

 

[MUnited83]

Free speech is to protect the rights of those who's opinions you don't like. All speech must be free.

It's scary how we're moving to thought crime territory.

I don't think you know what free speech actually means then.

 

[Zaptruder]

Sure. Greer is terribly wrong in this instance.

Now go and listen to the lecture and articulate just how and where she's wrong.

That's the point of a higher education. Then you can take those skills and apply it to other issues in the future.

"It's wrong, therefore I don't want to hear it", simply serves to diminish the mind and coddle one's own emotional biases.

Have the wherewithal to confront those that challenge your views, and learn from it by either changing your own views, or reaffirming them by better articulating the defense for them.

With that said, if you know it all already (the kinds of arguments that will be brought up and the refutations to them), then there's no need to engage in that opportunity - leave it to others.

If that's true for most of the university, then simply let the market forces of demand determine as much (i.e. not enough people are turning up to the lecture to justify holding it).

 

[freeofgreed]

I would not be the liberal I am today if it weren't for the challenging conservatives I had in my life from yesterday.

From reading Ayn Rand, The Communist Manifesto, hearing Austrian economics professors speak at my school, hearing friends regurgitate conservative talking points and then hearing good professors academically challenge some of the pre-conceived opinions I held.

There seems to be an undercurrent that you don't trust people and therefore we need carefully present everything to them in a politically calculated way or else they will go down the path of the dark side.

I swear I've brought this up a thousand time but you never answered it. Just because a speaker is banned doesn't mean students aren't being taught about other views. You guys are acting like guest speakers are the end all be all of college education when they're actually a very small minority. Having this taught in a more traditional setting is much better way to teach this, here you can have framing and context and actual debate. Some asshole not being able to give a 1 monologue that no more than 5 people would've went to isn't the collapse of our educational system.

 

[tomtom94]

Well, scrutinizing creationism was successful in discrediting the movement and a lot of people learned exactly how it was wrong and what the right answer is, and how evolution works. Why can't gender studies do the same with TERFs? You could write a book about it, like Dawkins did about evolution, where he went through all criticisms and disarmed those. Especially in the current political climate, such a book would be successful, and it would be nice to have a layman's manual to how exactly gender identity works, with all the information, evidence and history compiled.

I don't see this as a zero-sum game where trans activists either shut down speech or put out their own, I see this as part of a larger game where the "old order" of the world is gradually broken down (and make no mistake - the old order is still very transphobic, just as it is sexist and homophobic). That involves both trying to make incorrect voices quieter as well as making correct ones louder.

My point being, they have written. Pamphlets and articles and books and everything. The difference is, Germaine Greer keeps getting invited to platforms like this one, and trans people aren't. And thus the general background noise of the world continues to be negative towards trans people.

To be honest a trans activist would probably be a better person to talk about this than me, but I think the old adage is true: "Why didn't you speak up?" "We did. You didn't listen."

 

[The Technomancer]

I would not be the liberal I am today if it weren't for the challenging conservatives I had in my life from yesterday.

From reading Ayn Rand, The Communist Manifesto, hearing Austrian economics professors speak at my school, hearing friends regurgitate conservative talking points and then hearing good professors academically challenge some of the pre-conceived opinions I held.

Part of critical thinking is developing the tools to disseminate good information from bad and weighing differing opinions.

There seems to be an undercurrent that you don't trust people and therefore we need carefully present everything to them in a politically calculated way or else they will go down the path of the dark side.

I mean...what is the point of speaking if not to sway others to your side? She clearly intents to try and change some people's opinions or knowledge on something, that's literally the point of engaging with an audience

 

[freeofgreed]

It was an aside to my main point. A separate worry attached to my main point. One I wasn't really interested in getting into because it's a side issue.

Then don't bring it up at all if your going to act like it's irrelevant when someone comments on a point you made.

 

[Zaptruder]

I mean...what is the point of speaking if not to sway others to your side? She clearly intents to try and change some people's opinions or knowledge on something, that's literally the point of engaging with an audience

Was she actually going to speak about how trans women weren't women? Or is that simply a view that she holds, while going to talk about some other issue?

 

[daisysmurf]

As many other people have echoed, not in support of Greer but in support of Dawkins, your tuition is payment for an education. That education includes having to listen to people who have differing, often terrible, opinions and learning to recognize why someone has that opinion and ways to deal with others who share their opinion.

And instead of doing that, we're moving more and more towards immediate vilification and avoidance rather than acknowledgement and confrontation.

Avoiding the confrontation entirely solves nothing. If anything, everyone just doubles down on their own opinions, reinforced by the opposing sides unwillingness to engage or eagerness to insult without debate. And having a confrontation of ideas generally doesn't change the opinion of either of those engaged in the debate ... but it does influence the opinions of those watching and listening to it.

For example, calling for a ban - that was ultimately effective - against Greer has actually made outside observers sympathetic to her, rather than transgender individuals. Whereas, letting her speak, but then taking her to task about her comments, would have done the exact opposite.

This right here, I have been following the debate over the last few days after watching Greer on Newsnight last week.
https://youtu.be/7B8Q6D4a6TM

Here in the UK all the major papers have run multiple stories about the petition and although the editorial may be critical of Greer, the general consensus is that the public seem to broadly agree and are sympathetic to her. This is whether it is the left wing Guardian or right wing Mail.

Furthermore, although it is moot now as Greer has decided not to there is/was a counter petition for allowing Greer to speak that has also reached 2500 signatories.
https://www.change.org/p/cardiff-university-counterpetitioning-cardiff-university-s-hosting-of-germaine-greer

 

[Citadelofmythoughts]

Let me sum up the arguments supporting Greer.

"My ignorance is just as important as your knowledge, and should be given not only a audience, but I should be paid to do so."

 

[freeofgreed]

Was she actually going to speak about how trans women weren't women? Or is that simply a view that she holds, while going to talk about some other issue?

No one knows. She was presumably going to give a talk about feminism, and her thoughts on trans people very much fall under that umbrella. It is not unreasonable for people to assume that it could've been brought up.

 

[Jonm1010]

I swear I've brought this up a thousand time but you never answered it. Just because a speaker is banned doesn't mean students aren't being taught about other views. You guys are acting like guest speakers are the end all be all of college education when they're actually a very small minority. Having this taught in a more traditional setting is much better way to teach this, here you can have framing and context and actual debate. Some asshole not being able to give a 1 monologue that no more than 5 people would've went to isn't the collapse of our educational system.

I am not claiming this is the death of education. I am not arguing this is the end of the world. I am not saying this is the only way to learn of her views. My criticism is solely centered on the methods of the protestors and the people ok with universities bending to the will of a vocal minority and the trouble of normalizing the idea of banning unpopular views.

Your argument seems to almost be that because they can still find her stuff elsewhere that it is ok to pressure universities to cancel speakers the university thinks has educational value? Is that what you are saying?

 

[tomtom94]

Was she actually going to speak about how trans women weren't women? Or is that simply a view that she holds, while going to talk about some other issue?

I don't think it's possible to describe her transphobia as "just a view she holds". It's going to affect the way she speaks on a lot of issues, especially if she's there to give a talk about women in power and feminist topics - if she believes that only women who were born biologically women are women and that that is the height of feminist discourse, that will inform her views on everything else, no?

 

[marrec]

it's totally on her. very few people actually get disinvited to these types of things.

I'm super unclear on how it's a public forum, though. tossing in the word "essentially" doesn't seem to work.

What I mean is that you don't have to show up to hear her speak. No one is forcing you to listen to her archaic ideas.