Your mistake here is the idea that this was some kind of mandatory lecture that people had to show up for.
Your goal in university is to learn, for sure, but that doesn't mean you have to be forced to listen to all the drivel available out there to listen too. In fact, classes have highly curated curriculum that are controlled by the teacher so it's not like it's a 100% free thought zone of idea exchange.
So, again, this is completely on her for abandoning her "teaching" opportunity simply because student were exercising their right to free speech.
That's ridiculous. There are people in society who would be given no platform no matter what they are talking about. Do you think Shirley Phelps, if she was an economist, would be given a platform at Universities? Would you consider it a travesty that she was not?
You wouldn't allow people who's goal in coming to the university was to spread hate, or people who refused to listen to facts/debate properly.
She was NOT coming to the university to speak on her views on transphobia.
If a WBC "patron" wanted to come and talk about woodworking as a professional carpenter, they can go right ahead! An anti-vaxxer coming to talk about their experience in a war? Absolutely useful.
Your mistake here is the idea that this was some kind of mandatory lecture that people had to show up for.
Your goal in university is to learn, for sure, but that doesn't mean you have to be forced to listen to all the drivel available out there to listen too. In fact, classes have highly curated curriculum that are controlled by the teacher so it's not like it's a 100% free thought zone of idea exchange.
So, again, this is completely on her for abandoning her "teaching" opportunity simply because student were exercising their right to free speech.
In fairness, Dawkins is pretty fucking transphobic himself.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.
I disagree entirely with what Dawkins is saying. University funds shouldn't be going towards spreading ignorance. A speaker at a school doesn't come just to have a laugh, they get paid fairly well for their appearances. In that context a group of students has every right to protest a decision like this one.
I said if she was an economist.
What drivel are you talking about? She was going to make a speech on "Women and Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century." That isn't drivel and it would come from one of the foremost experts on feminism. She backed out because people would have thrown things at her, like they did in New Zealand. She explicitly said that, I don't know why people keep ignoring it.
She was afraid people would throw things at her, yes. The protesters didn't seem to threaten to throw things at her though, unless I missed that part.
So for you, there's a certain bigotry threshold that makes it unacceptable for someone who is qualified to speak?
Is this really from a position of hate, though? I see a scientist making a distinction and then stating he respects women who self identify as such, though "courtesy" is a very Dawkins word and probably isn't the best one to use here.
So for you, there's a certain bigotry threshold that makes it unacceptable for someone who is qualified to speak?
I think that there's a difference between simply having some shitty ideas and being defined by shitty ideas, yes. I think that college students should be able to intellectually compartmentalize and weigh each case on its own merits, yes.
If you don't want to hear someone speak then don't go hear them speak. What's so difficult for you to comprehend about that? It's like peoples' whole existence these days is to feel offended and they thrive off that. And if they're getting paid? So you're going to dictate what universities spend every single cent on?
I know. There is a big difference, however, between someone who is not just bigoted, but FAMOUSLY bigoted, and known only for that bigotry, and is so bigoted that they are virtually unable to contribute substantively in any other way because nobody will ever look past that bigotry, and someone who is well-known for their intellectual contributions but who happens to have said some bigoted things. I'm pretty sure that Phelps IS a lawyer, but I'd not invite her to speak at a law conference because, in all likelihood, she doesn't have much to contribute because the only reason anybody has ever heard of her is that she's a bigot. With Greer, her bigotry is like 2% or less of her overall writings and opinions, and excluding the other 98% on the basis of that 2% is pretty much the opposite of the kind of robust intellectual curiosity that makes colleges places of such potential for bettering the world.
You actually edited in order to add this false equivalence?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?
You actually edited in order to add this false equivalence?
So you would allow a WBC member to speak. That's fine! You're a small minority. People are rightly interested in ostracizing trash like that.
Trash like this gets much more support from moderates who want to sit somewhere in the middle of a human rights debate.
Trust me, we have no shortage of people saying the exact same things about trans people. This kind of hate speech gets all of the exposure it could possibly ask for.
Also, do you really not understand the problem with paying her to speak at a University?
You actually edited in order to add this false equivalence?
The harm of giving a platform to someone with hateful beliefs is that people may subscribe to them, and we already see enough people who already do that.
And that brings me to the real root of my arguments. ALL information, no matter the source, should be put through your BS filter.
Ignoring people because they might express something, to be completely blunt, hateful does yourself a massive disservice.
Having a persons beliefs unjustly taint information they present is you refusing to accept facts because of your own unfounded beliefs. It means you learn less and will never be able to overcome your own biases.
She was afraid people would throw things at her, yes. The protesters didn't seem to threaten to throw things at her though, unless I missed that part.
Also, Greer's made her TERF bed and has to sleep in the consequences of it.
Any view she has about women is accompanied by an asterisk that reads "trans women not included."
Therefore, I don't think the students were protesting against something so completely unrelated to the talk.
Do you really need a speaker to come to your school to express transphobia?
Will your education be incomplete if you lack that experience?
It's not like transphobia is a weird, rare, controversial position. It is super widespread, cheap to have. It is not interesting, and people are exposed to it every day.
They will get a platform, even with protests. Like-minded people will be drawn to it anyway, which is why if she were to get a public platform, she can at least be intellectually humiliated for her stone age positions.
Leaving these people to their echo chambers creates Fox News-esque bubbles, which become almost so big reality can't even break them. Glenn Beck and Alex Jone have audiences for these exact reasons as well.
Which is why it's pretty unsurprising that he chose this hill to die on.
You know what? You're right, at least partly. I didn't really know who she was. I also changed my mind after reading about her and this issue more. More on that at the end of my post.Yes
I read the rest of your post and it's clear that you have no idea who this woman is. I'm actually relatively sure that a lot of people saying she shouldn't speak haven't known anything about Greer until today, she is not some sort of outwardly multi-phobic bigot who has been at this for years, a lot of people are genuinely surprised that she would say something like this. The idea that we should lobby against someone speaking at a University because they have said one thing that we disagree with out of a 45 year career, it's ridiculous. The comparisons with people like David Duke are absolutely outstandingly ignorant as well.
Anyone ready to jump at me for defending her, my post is the second reply on the first page.
Her opinions on this matter is still pretty bigoted, but she wasn't going to talk about those things and while in many cases I don't think that would correct the situation (because in many cases I wouldn't want to support a person in another thing if the person is hugely bigoted in some thing I consider important), in this situation I think it can be sort of.. not forgiven but ignored (the inviting wise that is, not in general) as she has a tremendous amount of life experience and a lot of relevant things to tell even today. She should be heavily challenged though.Risking sounding like Yoda, it's definitely hate and ignorance brought on by anger. She's an incredibly sharp women who has written some important things, but her strict focus and the righteous anger she uses as fuel clouds her.
I take back what I said earlier after consideration, she shouldn't be denied a platform just because she's said some hateful things. She should be oven a platform and contested by the intelligent, open-minds of a new generation.
Not only to put these new minds to the test, but also for the potential of the debate doing some good for Greer and everyone involved.
I understand the protest, but I think it was short-sighted.
She's not talking about trans woman, which is why I don't have a problem with her speaking in the first place. True it's excluding trans woman, but she's in no position to speak about them regardless.
EDIT:
Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. She's should be able to talk because she's NOT coming to the school to express transphobia.
I think Dawkins is very, very bad at making his point in situations like this, but the more general point about modern feminism's inability to distinguish between essentially personal problems - like discomfort in a, frankly, pretty ambiguous situation, in which a variety of emotional responses is obviously possible - and objective problems needing correction. The way in which he actually went about addressing that was hyperbolic and made him look like an arrogant ass, but he was essentially right that little "offhand comments" like that (and when you have as large a platform as she did, even "offhand comments" end up with weight), and the more general "the personal is political" mantra that fuels much of modern activism, only dilute feminism and feed into stereotypes.
.
How is giving a talk about women while endorsing transphobia not expressing transphobia.
You bring up Fox News, but we don't see far-right figures getting more powerful in society following the consistent push into these ech ochambers. I can't remember when Republicans have been this weak. I'd sooner there be an echo chamber of transphobes rather than a world where people are constantly harassing trans people and it being considered a fair opinion, or to have people ask of trans people to have a healthy debate and to stop avoiding things just because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
Are you kidding? Every single Republican candidate is considered far right, and the house and the senate are both Republican controlled. Far-right voters have outfitted our government in this way. It's possible that you live in your own echo chamber, so you're insulated from these facts, but you greatly underestimate the right. The bubble is growing, not shrinking.
I don't see the problem with this. He approached it as a biologist (which he is) and said that he would call the person a 'she' if that's what they want, out of respect.
Holy shit 18 pages. I look at the thread when it first posted and didn't see anything controversial but apparently there is. Welp, have to read through the thread to see what is up.
Have a source on her plans to do that? Because that would very much change the arguments in this thread.
Short version is:
some people think even someone who has said something bigoted but has had many good contributions elsewhere should get a platform to discuss the good things they've done but still get challenged on the bad things she's said, because universities are about learning for all and challenging ideals and beliefs
Others think if you say something bigoted it invalidates any positive contributions you've ever had on something and should not be given a platform to spout hate
I don't see the problem with this. He approached it as a biologist (which he is) and said that he would call the person a 'she' if that's what they want, out of respect.
Growing? What are you even talking about? Right-wing beliefs have never been less acceptable than they are today. And the fact that Fox News is the only real right-wing media on TV hasn't done anything as far as reducing the frequency of rebuttals to what they say. The people who subscribe to their views would do so no matter if they were on CNN or in their bubble.
The talk she was going to give was called 'women & power: lessons from the 20th century'.
The talk she was going to give was called 'women & power: lessons from the 20th century'.
Growing? What are you even talking about? Right-wing beliefs have never been less acceptable than they are today. And the fact that Fox News is the only real right-wing media on TV hasn't done anything as far as reducing the frequency of rebuttals to what they say. The people who subscribe to their views would do so no matter if they were on CNN or in their bubble.
So you saw a biologist approach not-biology in the context of biology and decided "eh, no problem here"?
Also, a person shouldn't do it out of respect, they should do it. It implies that being called by the proper pronouns is something earned.
You bring up Fox News, but we don't see far-right figures getting more powerful in society following the consistent push into these ech ochambers. I can't remember when Republicans have been this weak. I'd sooner there be an echo chamber of transphobes rather than a world where people are constantly harassing trans people and it being considered a fair opinion, or to have people ask of trans people to have a healthy debate and to stop avoiding things just because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
