Support NeoGAF

[SkeptiMism]

I'm just utterly baffled at the first few pages with so many agreeing with Dawkins. Did they actually give any thought to it? Like, where does the crap about free speech and coddling to emotionally weak students come from?

This reminds me of an incident here in Finland a couple of weeks ago. A far right political party was organizing a discussion panel about feminism and they invited several well spoken people to it. Nothing wrong with that, the people accepted the invitation. But then they found out that the party had also invited a well known misogynist who continuously throws slurs at women in public and threatens to rape them and such. After finding out about that the feminists immediately told that they wouldn't come to the event (and made sure to rebut the person's "arguments" at the same).

The party obviously was like "oh that's a shame but we think it's important to give the voice to the other side too and if it is so ridiculous then it's easy to rebut". But the thing is, by doing that you are putting the misogynist crap on the same level as the feminists (and the persons invited were very reasonable). The other side is painted as a legitimate opinion that should also be remembered. There is discussion to be had about feminism and the feminists who accepted the invitation originally weren't expecting to talk without having people disagreeing. But there's no discussion to be had when "the other side" yells and thinks you should be raped and such.

University students should be willing to confront and beat down these kinds of people's ideas with debate and discussion, it's a bit disappointing to see them react like this.

They can do it elsewhere. University shouldn't have to pay for a lecture (you know, they pay for them) spreading obviously bigoted shit. What would you say about KKK getting invited to have a lecture? How much debate do you think there's to be had about such matters?

And besides as Opto pointed out, the students protested with arguments. She was the one to bail.

 

[Opto]

No, because I believe the education and discourse is the fastest route a world that is behind transgender rights.

You can't have education if you present something, and then present something completely wrong.
"The Magna Carta was written in 1215"
"Or it was written by space aliens in 2099"

 

[Lowmelody]

No, because I believe the education and discourse is the fastest route a world that is behind transgender rights.

You do not need give bigots money to give a lecture on the legitimacy of their hate speech in order for there to be "education and discourse" on the matter. A causal link does however exist between allowing a transphobe bigot to convert more minds to her cause and delaying "a route [to] a world that is behind transgender rights"

 

[Staccat0]

Well, it looks like Dick Dorkins' ignorance and hatred toward marginalized communities continues to know no bounds.

Edit: For those thinking it's appropriate to give Greer a platform at a university, would you have a similar response to David Duke being given forum in the same venue?

I mean... the ACLU defended the KKK. There are scenarios where I would. We could really really really use real honest and contentious conversations about prejudice and all we get is people throwing tomatoes.

Dawkins is a cunt, but right.

I will listen to a murderer talk about his crimes. A Child molester talk about his fantasies... there isn't many things lurking in the dark that I'm gonna ignore and think that it'll get better. College is not a place to go and hear people agree with you for 8 hours a day.

I CERTAINLY, will go watch a lecture from Woody Allen or Tarintino on filmmaking and I really doubt I agree with those guys 100% socially.

 

[Sheroking]

You do not need give bigots money to give a lecture on the legitimacy of their hate speech in order for there to be "education and discourse" on the matter. A causal link does however exist between allowing a transphobe bigot to convert more minds to her cause and delaying "a route [to] a world that is behind transgender rights"

No, you don't need to pay Greer to speak to debate her arguments or discredit her mindset. At no point have I suggested she should.

I don't think there is a "casual link" between allowing a transphobe convert minds and delaying a "world that is behind transgender rights". I think there's a clear link in defeating a transphobe's ideas and notion and producing a world that is armed with the facts and understanding to create that better world.

Once again, treating people like they are morons. The truth always wills out, if not on the schedule you would like it too.

You can't have education if you present something, and then present something completely wrong.
"The Magna Carta was written in 1215"
"Or it was written by space aliens in 2099"

People often believe lies and misinformation. Educating them on why they're lies and misinformation is a lot more effectual than calling them idiots and sending them to their corner.

 

[jorma]

You do not need give bigots money to give a lecture on the legitimacy of their hate speech in order for there to be "education and discourse" on the matter. A causal link does however exist between allowing a transphobe bigot to convert more minds to her cause and delaying "a route [to] a world that is behind transgender rights"

She wasn't being paid to talk about her opinions of trans people.

 

[Citadelofmythoughts]

I mean... the ACLU defended the KKK..

Not remotely equivalent circumstances. The KKK were trying to put handbills on cars, not be PAID to lecture.

 

[Lowmelody]

I don't think there is a "casual link" between allowing a transphobe convert minds and delaying a "world that is behind transgender rights". The world is already transphobic. Tell them why they are wrong.

I mean damn, I can't even think of a way to reword that actively creating new bigots delays a "world that is behind transgender rights"

what in the fuck?

 

[Staccat0]

Not remotely equivalent circumstances. The KKK were trying to put handbills on cars, not be PAID to lecture.

Ok feel free to ignore that sentence if you're going to ignore my obvious intent in mentioning it. Doesn't change the point.

 

[Mistouze]

Greer and Dawkins are both dumbasses.

One is transphobic and the other tries to argue that we need to argue with hate speech. Fuck both of them.

 

[inky]

You can't have education if you present something, and then present something completely wrong.
"The Magna Carta was written in 1215"
"Or it was written by space aliens in 2099"

Yes you can. Teaching people to discern between the two is the basis of education.

Your argument would hold true if their provided education was designed to test their knowledge in both subjects accepting both as universal truths at the same time and students being wrong if they didn't use both answers in a test. Instead, of asking them to use rational thought and discussion to understand why one is right, backed by evidence and fact, and the other is the wild, incorrect, even unethical (or worse) opinion backed only by bigoted views of some, and WHY they even got there in the first place, other than "they are just bigots, let's pretend they don't exist". Probably shouldn't give those people that big of a platform, that is a questionable choice, but they must be acknowledged and discussed because that is a part of society we face every day.

 

[Sheroking]

I mean damn, I can't even think of a way to reword that actively creating new bigots delays a "world that is behind transgender rights"

what in the fuck?

You're not actively creating more bigots by engaging, your creating more educated people to oppose them. Suggesting that giving Greer or anyone like her the stage is empowering her viewpoint is to treat people like they are morons.

Once again: You are not as smart as you think you are, and people are not as dumb as you think they are.

 

[Sheroking]

It's 1:30AM and I have to be up at 5:30. I'm going to have to call it.

I'm happy to have to discussed this with some of you. I can see a lot of the points you make and I think we all agree that the end-goal is to make the world a better place for transgender men and women, even if we don't agree with how to accomplish that.

 

[RoadHazard]

She sounds awful. And I agree with Dawkins. Nice and simple.

.

 

[The Technomancer]

You're not actively creating more bigots by engaging, your creating more educated people to oppose them. Suggesting that giving Greer or anyone like her the stage is empowering her viewpoint is to treat people like they are morons.

Once again: You are not as smart as you think you are, and people are not as dumb as you think they are.

Normally I'm all on the "people aren't as dumb as arrogant people think they are" wagon, but your argument is seriously that amplifying the voices of bigots isn't a problem because people are too smart to learn new bigoted ideas? People learn new dumb things all the time. Six months ago no-one knew who Ben Carson was and now he's high in the polls because people like his ideas about how Hitler rose to power because of gun control

EDIT: Perhaps more pointedly, the anti-vaccine movement actually is fairly novel.

 

[pants]

She sounds awful. And I agree with Dawkins. Nice and simple.

Jesus, I had no idea Greer was saying such offensive shit.

Dawkins is right though, shutting people up isn't the way to win an argument.

OP backfire incoming.

Greer is awful and Dawkins is still right.

Greer sounds like an ass, but Dawkins isn't wrong here. Every point of view deserves to heard, no matter how bigoted it might be.

Can't argue with that.

If you can't be challenged at a university then they are pointless.

Also agree with Dawkins.

I really don't understand what Greer has been doing. It is fucking terrible and she should be ashamed.

Dawkins, in this particular case, is correct though.

Pretty much agree with the first few posters.

 

[Amalthea]

Honestly he should give such answers to the fundamentalists he argues with, instead he will spend his remaining days trying to talk to people who believe that the hallucinations some homless guys thousands of years ago had were real.

 

[Staccat0]

Normally I'm all on the "people aren't as dumb as arrogant people think they are" wagon, but your argument is seriously that amplifying the voices of bigots isn't a problem because people are too smart to learn new bigoted ideas? People learn new dumb things all the time. Six months ago no-one knew who Ben Carson was and now he's high in the polls because people like his ideas about how Hitler rose to power because of gun control

Those are people excersizing confirmation bias though.. That's the thing. If those people were in a university setting and had been exposed to Carson's bullshit properly... it'd be a different story. Instead, people just consume people who say stuff that confirms what they already believe in a culture custom tailored by both sides of the political aisle for more and more of that behaviour to run rampant going forward.

 

[Lowmelody]

You're not actively creating more bigots by engaging, your creating more educated people to oppose them. Suggesting that giving Greer or anyone like her the stage is empowering her viewpoint is to treat people like they are morons.

Once again: You are not as smart as you think you are, and people are not as dumb as you think they are.

Some percentage of the uninitiated students, ones that haven't had much exposure to the issue will give this "respected speaker" the benefit of the doubt to her seemingly academic approach to bigotry and hate.

"But others will be educated to why she is wrong!" I can see you saying now.

My point is you can have the latter occur through the same ways every other topic is taught without needing to resort to the former, which will, invariably, bring more bigots to her cause by virtue of giving her a platform to people that lack a firm understanding of the subject.

At to the bolded, get the fuck over yourself, you're not above any of us.

 

[legend166]

The idea that the only danger to free speech is government mandated censorship is probably the biggest danger to free speech.

 

[The Technomancer]

Those are people excersizing confirmation bias though.. That's the thing. If those people were in a university setting and had been exposed to Carson's bullshit properly... it'd be a different story. Instead people just consume people who say stuff that confirms what they already believe.

Yeah the anti-vaccine movement might be a better example. I don't think people have been harboring a longstanding mistrust of vaccines that they've only now found the excuse to vocalize

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Dawkins was in the right on Elevatorgate. Politely propositioning a woman and receiving her rebuke in good stead is not remotely "bad behavior" worthy of being "called out" in a video.

"Calling out"? She off-handedly mentioned she felt uncomfortable with someone propositoning her at 4 AM in an elevator without specifying who it was.

The fact that Richard Dawkins, out of everything he could've possibly decided to react to within the atheist movement, decided to write his cringeworthy dear muslima letter speaks volumes about his priorities.

 

[Gravy Boat]

I might not agree with Greer's opinions, but Dawkins is right. The coddling that some students seem to demand these days is getting tiresome. Don't agree with someone's views? Rebut them, debate them, campaign against their views, but don't demand that they be silenced.

She's not being silenced though, she has a plethora of other platforms to spread her views. Students are just asking that their university doesn't sponsor her hateful views, which is a fair enough request I think. I don't see how it's different than not wanting a racist to give a speech.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Please kindly point to where I am supposed to have moved goalposts. Or have you just waited for an opportunity to drop a knee-jerk attack regardless of what people actually argue?

Sure.

Wading into the row, evolutionary biologist and atheist author Richard Dawkins has lashed out at people who tried to get Greer blocked from speaking over her comments.

“Those who think it’s nonsense are entitled to stay away. Or come and argue. They should not censor views they think are nonsense.

“A university is not a ‘safe space’. If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university.”

This doesn't equal this:

There is a significant different between a despicable opinion and flat-out lying and deception. Ben Stein falls into the latter category. He purposefully deceived people when he was making his film, and he is deliberately lying in order to push an agenda. He is not interested in having an honest conversation. But universities are places for having conversations and criticizing all sorts of opinions, not for giving deliberate and dishonest liars a platform.

What sounds like an argument against censorship at a university, is converted, by you, to be an argument about censorship at a university, about certain types of speech. As long as the speaker believes what they are saying a truth, it's okay to be spoken. And as long as we can't prove the speaker is lying, it's okay.

I don't agree.

 

[Staccat0]

Yeah the anti-vaccine movement might be a better example. I don't think people have been harboring a longstanding mistrust of vaccines that they've only now found the excuse to vocalize

Yeah, that's a good example and an interesting point.

Still, if Jenny Mcarthy was an expert in say - Bioengineering - I would listen to her speak on the subject knowing that she is an idiot in reagards to vaccines. I don't really live my life worrying how stupid people spend their time and I'm never gonna fix them or stop them from finding dumb shit to latch onto.

I wouldn't deny someone the chance to hear Germaine Greer in an academic setting. I woudn't blame someone from protesting or not going, but I wouldn't try to stop them. I'm just not the right person to make those calls and I can't think of anyone who is.

 

[SkeptiMism]

Pretty much agree with the first few posters.

That's not very constructive (no offense). Did you bother to read any arguments against it?

The idea that the only danger to free speech is government mandated censorship is probably the biggest danger to free speech.

Pardon me if I understand you wrong (might well be the language barrier too), but are you saying that the students protesting the university from having the person as a paid lecturer is a danger to free speech?

 

[Yrael]

As mentioned by numerous others, ultimately Greer was the one who cancelled her own lecture because she couldn't handle the criticism: "I'm getting a bit old for all this, I'm 76, I don't want to go down there and be screamed at and have things thrown at me. Bugger it."

Dawkins was in the right on Elevatorgate. Politely propositioning a woman and receiving her rebuke in good stead is not remotely "bad behavior" worthy of being "called out" in a video.

She made an offhand remark in a longer video to say that she is uncomfortable with that behaviour (which many women would feel threatened by; being propositioned in an elevator at 4am is pretty creepy). She did not name the person who propositioned her, or describe him, so he was not personally publicly shamed. The "Dear Muslima" response and its appeal to the fallacy of relative privation was ridiculous.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Well, it looks like Dick Dorkins' ignorance and hatred toward marginalized communities continues to know no bounds.

Color me soooo surprised that GAF is mostly in favor of paying people to speak at a university who cause material harm to marginalized people. So surprised.

Spoiler

Surprised no one's defending Greer's hate speech yet--but totally certain it's coming.

Please grow up.

 

[jorma]

As mentioned by numerous others, ultimately Greer was the one who cancelled her own lecture because she couldn't handle the criticism: "I'm getting a bit old for all this, I'm 76, I don't want to go down there and be screamed at and have things thrown at me. Bugger it."

She's a 76 year old feminist. I'm pretty sure she can handle critique. She probably just feels she is too old to have to deal with manchildren who don't want to hear her talk because she said things they don't like on a different subject altogether.

 

[SkeptiMism]

She's a 76 year old feminist. I'm pretty sure she can handle critique. She probably just feels she is too old to have to deal with manchildren who don't want to hear her talk because she said things they don't like on a different subject altogether.

Are you saying people who don't want a University to pay and give a platform for obvious bigotry and hatred are manchildren?

And what altogether different subject? How is it a "different subject"? Sorry, I really don't understand something here.

 

[Lowmelody]

She's a 76 year old feminist. I'm pretty sure she can handle critique. She probably just feels she is too old to have to deal with manchildren who don't want to hear her talk because she said things they don't like on a different subject altogether.

Only the privileged could be so reductionist about bigotry and hate.

You really can't be assed to feel even a little bit of empathy for trans people? Man children? Damn you need some self reflection bad.

 

[Nerokis]

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but in this instance, I agree with him. If you find her views distasteful, refusing to hear them does nothing to diminish them. I would like to see hosting someone like her not as an endorsement of her views, but as an endorsement of the intellect and character of our students. From that perspective, seeing her pressured to bow out does not speak well of the latter. The refusal to feel uncomfortable is saddening to me, because that rarely originates from your most worthwhile impulses.

All the "how about hosting a racist, then?" argumentation rings hollow to me, as well. She is far from the first person to be pressured into refusing an invitation to speak (it requires purposeful blindness at this point to somehow not realize this is happening more often these days), and the common thread there isn't really distasteful views about this or that group of people. And besides, Germaine Greer has an undeniable place in the feminist movement (or at least she did), and there is a clear case to be made hearing her point of view could enlarge the mind. Some of her conclusions will be quite jarring to most, but it might be worth knowing how she arrived at them. I mean, I'm fairly sure she's not going to convince anyone to be anti-trans or anything along those lines, and there is obvious utility in knowing how someone with her history managed to develop such rigid views on trans identity. Understanding that should be a worthwhile thing overall, perhaps especially if you care about LGBT issues.

If not, whatever. In the bigger picture, I don't think giving people like her a mic slows progress. I think the willingness to give people we find distasteful a mic is, in and of itself, a mechanism for progress. I feel those of us passionate about LGBT issues have started to win the argument in that context.

 

[uncleniccius]

This is actually my university and while her cancelling it is OK, the idea that people suggested to ban her sets a dangerous precedent.

Warwick had a similar situation recently, but they actually did ban the speaker and then reverse the decision. University is all about a variety of views, and while I agree that she's bigoted that isn't enough to ban someone. Tell her when she finishes - there's nearly always questions at the end. As said by others, letting someone speak sure as hell doesn't endorse their views. This is a university, people should be able to say what they want AS LONG AS those who disagree are given a platform to explain why.

 

[Amalthea]

You know, sometimes I wish reality and evolution were as fair as his idea of open discourse, I wish the meteorite who wiped out the dinosaurs would have had a balanced discussion and would have respected the dinosaurs opinions about 'wanting to live' and 'we're too awesome to be reduced to birds' or 'those pesky mammals will be much worse for earth in the long run', he surely would have let the dinosaurs live because he understood that their opinions were worth more than his own since they were already accepted and etablished on this planet but alas here we are...

 

[uncleniccius]

Yup, Dawkins is right.

For reference, this is a guest lecture and thus unrelated to any course. Nobody has to go, I wanted to get tickets but they were gone.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but in this instance, I agree with him. If you find her views distasteful, refusing to hear them does nothing to diminish them. I would like to see hosting someone like her not as an endorsement of her views, but as an endorsement of the intellect and character of our students. From that perspective, seeing her pressured to bow out does not speak well of the latter. The refusal to feel uncomfortable is saddening to me, because that rarely originates from your most worthwhile impulses.

Forgive me for mostly ignoring the rest of your post at the moment (gotta go in just a minute), but why do you interpret this as such (the boldened part).

I'd imagine majority of people protesting this are of the opinion that the university shouldn't pay to give a platform to bigotry and hate. Really, I don't think it has anything to do with refusal to feel uncomfortable.

Very briefly touching upon the last paragraph of your post, it has already been pointed out in the thread that giving the mic to bigotry in fact does slow progress. See the last page for graph about vaccines.

 

[mrklaw]

Greer is clearly continuing her push for sexual equality by demonstrating that women can also be completely mindless idiots.

Well done her.

 

[Zampano]

Broadly agree with Dawkins.

The David Duke analogy is not really accurate. Duke is known only for his appalling views, and would not be speaking on anything other than hatred. Greer has contributed enormously toward the progressive agenda over the decades and is a respected scholar.

She is still very much a mainstream voice in the UK - she was on Question Time (the BBC's main political discussion show) a couple of weeks ago, holding court on all kinds of things - her opinions on the state of the steel industry were particularly baffling. My point being, it's not like she's known first and foremost for her views on trans issues.

Given that her planned talk wasn't about trans issues, but her actual area of expertise, it seems odd to try to silence her altogether.

Also, interesting piece on this situation here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/lehmann-greer-and-the-no-platforming-scourge/6887576

It is important to note that while Greer has answered questions on transgenderism during interviews and panel discussions, she has not published any comment about transgenderism for over 15 years. (This is not true - see post from Yrael below) It is "not my issue", she says.

While Greer is indeed famous for being a feminist activist, she is also a serious scholar who specialises in early English literature. The last time she broached transsexualism was in her 1999/2000 book The Whole Woman, and her most recent book was about the restoration of rainforests.

...

Meanwhile, there has been an alarming amount of vitriol and hatred expressed towards Greer on Twitter.

In her Newsnight interview with Kirsty Wark, Greer said that while she did not think that post-operative male-to-female transsexuals were "women", this was not a prohibition. If people wanted to pursue sex reassignment surgery, they should "carry on".

"It happens to be an opinion," she said, visibly exasperated.

 

[Earthpainting]

I know people take ire when the "would you be okay with a blatantly racist speaker was invited" analogy in these conversations but in this case what Greer is saying really is comparable to "black people are just mentally deficient" and would we really be upset at students protesting a speaker with views that offensive?

I think the issue with the racism analogy is that TERF people use the same one, but with the tables turned. They compare trans people to white people trying to ask for the right to put on blackface and stereotype subcultures, which they see as an affront to men's historical treatment and subjugation of women. You especially saw a lot of analogous arguments pop up about during Dolezal threads. This realisation upset a lot of folks on both sides of the argument, as a lot of folks clearly felt really strongly about it, but they were unable to formulate their reasons in a manner that was consistent with their other beliefs. It usually just ended up deflecting the grander subject for character assassination of Dolezal, so it could go away.

I guess what I'm getting at is that appropriating the struggles associated with racism is probably not a good idea. It's a pendulum that easily swings both ways, because both people try to use it as an open and shut case for why the other side is incontestably the wrong one.

I'm leaning towards Dawkins on this, as engaging in discussion on the subject will do more than trying to shut discussion down through protest. Greer probably could find vindication with her opinions getting oppressed rather than contested, and that's not going to be of use to anyone. The financial angle does not strike me as something too egregious either. She'd get compensated for her time speaking about "‘Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century", and being subjected to Q&A dog piling both on the subject, and on the seemingly unrelated TERF subject.

 

[Zaptruder]

Broadly agree with Dawkins.

The David Duke analogy is not really accurate. Duke is known only for his appalling views, and would not be speaking on anything other than hatred. Greer has contributed enormously toward the progressive agenda over the decades and is a respected scholar.

She is still very much a mainstream voice in the UK - she was on Question Time (the BBC's main political discussion show) a couple of weeks ago, holding court on all kinds of things - her opinions on the state of the steel industry were particularly baffling. My point being, it's not like she's known first and foremost for her views on trans issues.

Given that her planned talk wasn't about trans issues, but her actual area of expertise, it seems odd to try to silence her altogether.

Also, interesting piece on this situation here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/lehmann-greer-and-the-no-platforming-scourge/6887576

And that's why it's important to not adopt this heuristic of shutting everyone out who has or could maintain any sort of highly disagreeable view point, whether or not it's right or wrong.

The other reason is, even if you achieve the one goal of whatever your cause is, you diminish the broader mindset of critical thinking and engagement that allows people to more reliably across a broader range of issues select or even move to the correct side of the debate.

 

[ambientric]

One more vote for Dawkins. Increasingly it appears that both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum are openly shrill and hostile towards a dissenting opinion or debate.

The swilling cesspit of the internet has silenced and continues to silence those whose views do not follow the prescribed orthodoxy of the bipolar view point.

Regardless of what the issue may be.

Time and again you see it repeated, be it global warming, immigration, gay marriage etc... There is an already formulated accepted position that must be taken if you are either one camp or the other.

I weep for the death of free thought, dissacoiated from ideology.

Forming your own opinion, changing it over time, learning from personal experience, listening to others, reading and researching...these used to be our foundations.

 

[Thornton Reed]

I came on here to see if Greer's comments had it's own thread, I'm for one not at all surprised by her comments and i would imagine there is a lot of feminists out there who totally agree with her.

It's an argument no one can ever win as it raises theological questions about existence and feelings that can't be answered.

I also totally agree with Dawkins on this one.

 

[tomtom94]

One more vote for Dawkins. Increasingly it appears that both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum are openly shrill and hostile towards a dissenting opinion or debate.

The swilling cesspit of the internet has silenced and continues to silence those whose views do not follow the prescribed orthodoxy of the bipolar view point.

Regardless of what the issue may be.

Time and again you see it repeated, be it global warming, immigration, gay marriage etc... There is an already formulated accepted position that must be taken if you are either one camp or the other.

I weep for the death of free thought, dissacoiated from ideology.

Forming your own opinion, changing it over time, learning from personal experience, listening to others, reading and researching...these used to be our foundations.

The truth is not somewhere in the middle between "trans women are women" and "trans women are monstrous rapists out to deceive women".

 

[Yrael]

Also, interesting piece on this situation here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/lehmann-greer-and-the-no-platforming-scourge/6887576

From the ABC article, this:

It is important to note that while Greer has answered questions on transgenderism during interviews and panel discussions, she has not published any comment about transgenderism for over 15 years. It is "not my issue", she says.

Is incorrect. In 2009, in response to the Semenya controversy, she published a piece in The Guardian calling trans women "ghastly parodies" of real women:

Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women's names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn't polite to say so. We pretend that all the people passing for female really are. Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man's delusion that he is female.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/aug/20/germaine-greer-caster-semenya

 

[Cindres]

I think Dawkins is right, BUT, I also wouldn't agree with my University paying this person a substational amount of money to come spread their hate...

 

[Zampano]

From the ABC article, this:



Is incorrect. In 2009, in response to the Semenya controversy, she published a piece in The Guardian calling trans women "ghastly parodies" of real women:



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/aug/20/germaine-greer-caster-semenya

Yuck. Thanks for correcting. Pretty hateful stuff. She could have made her entire argument without the horrid "Ghastly parody" bit too.

Dawkins is still right.

 

[Chozolore]

Well, it looks like Dick Dorkins' ignorance and hatred toward marginalized communities continues to know no bounds.

Edit: For those thinking it's appropriate to give Greer a platform at a university, would you have a similar response to David Duke being given forum in the same venue?

Erin S Kittens needs a safe space.

 

[Xun]

I've never been a fan of Greer at all.

She's pretty vile on many of her "feminist" opinions.

 

[ambientric]

The truth is not somewhere in the middle between "trans women are women" and "trans women are monstrous rapists out to deceive women".

Challenging a viewpoint, even if distasteful, is nothing to silence or be afraid of. If someone promotes a viewpoint I disagree with on ethical and moral grounds, i will shrug and dismiss it. If they present interesting arguments I accept it and add it to my knowledge of the subject. If they are able to convince me of the intellectual reasoning behind their argument I am likely to change my own thinking on the subject matter.

Greer comes across as somewhat distasteful and hateful..so I am inclined to dismiss her opinion on the subject...however i would not accept her being prevented from attending a university on this basis.

You believe she should be silenced and prevented from speaking on this subject ?

 

[Nabbis]

I don't really like the concept of university paying visiting lecturers. If it were not so, i would agree with Dawkinds. But then again, a university is the place where critical thinking skills should matter. I dunno... I feel that if universities would be succesful at forstering proper argumentation and critical thinking then the students would not even think of doing this even if there was some bias in hiring her.