Support NeoGAF

[Kadayi]

Both are noted for having, on multiple occasions and very visibly, engaged in hate speech. I am asking if Shirley Phelps was commenting on, say, the economy at a University, would you take issue with that she was given a platform considering her very extreme viewpoints otherwise?

I'm going to guess that Shirley Phelps isn't any kind noted expert on the world economy so we seem to have once more fallen into the world of the abstract, which is wholly irrelevant to the situation in hand given it is based on a real scenario involving a real person.

Also and I'll repeat this idea that Greer should be blackballed from ever talking at any event about feminism because of ideas expressed unrelated to the subject in hand is kind of ludicrous. What next? Should all of her books be banned? Burned? Excised from the feminist curriculum? Where does the outrage end and the common sense begin exactly?

 

[A Link to the Past]

No one's suggesting that she be blackballed from everything? People who pay the University tuition are protesting the University paying her money to speak there. The leap from "getting protested" to "book burning" is astonishing.

 

[Kadayi]

Firstly her views on trans are entirely irrelevant to the discussion she was due to attend. Secondly just because you (or more often the case your parents) are paying fees shouldn't have any bearing on what the university chooses to teach or those they might bring in. This idea that you're somehow a customer is a common misconception. Universities are institutions that accept your application and grant you access based on results, and charge a fee whilst you attend.

 

[A Link to the Past]

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't be able to protest her

 

[saucyrobot]

No one's suggesting that she be blackballed from everything? People who pay the University tuition are protesting the University paying her money to speak there. The leap from "getting protested" to "book burning" is astonishing.

And so is the leap from "making controversial remarks about transgender women", i.e. Germaine Greer, to "picketing the funerals of homosexuals and openly stating that they should burn in hell", i.e. Shirley Phelps. False equivalencies aren't any better when you're the one making them.

Regardless, none of this addresses the actual point that Dawkins is making. He isn't commenting on whether or not people should be offended by Greer's comments. He's pointing out an alarming trend in which young people in universities are simply unable to cope with the existence of ideas or beliefs that are different from their own. This has led to universities becoming increasingly insular and focusing more on reinforcing the current views of their students than challenging or expanding on them. This isn't a healthy environment for learning, and it certainly doesn't prepare students for the world they'll face once they leave their "safe spaces". The goal should be to challenge bad ideas through open, honest debate - not shame or bully people that don't agree with you into silence. Protest is fine, but it shouldn't be a replacement for discourse.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm with Dawkins on this. Same as a lot of people in this thread.

Regardless, none of this addresses the actual point that Dawkins is making. He isn't commenting on whether or not people should be offended by Greer's comments. He's pointing out an alarming trend in which young people in universities are simply unable to cope with the existence of ideas or beliefs that are different from their own. This has led to universities becoming increasingly insular and focusing more on reinforcing the current views of their students than challenging or expanding on them. This isn't a healthy environment for learning, and it certainly doesn't prepare students for the world they'll face once they leave their "safe spaces". The goal should be to challenge bad ideas through open, honest debate - not shame or bully people that don't agree with you into silence. Protest is fine, but it shouldn't be a replacement for discourse.

^ Agreed.

 

[Beelzebufo]

I don't understand this mindset at all. The students didn't threaten her or anything did they? They should be allowed to tell her to fuck off an go away. Theres no reason anyone should be criticized for refusing to listen to a bigot.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yeah, I guess "hate speech" and "hate speech" are different things.

It's all a matter of where you begin the line of whether you should be expected to answer for what you say. For me, it begins at when you are consistently, publicly dehumanizing people. Bringing up the Phelpses, the point is to ask "is there a point where you would look at someone and say that they are too bigoted and awful to be given a platform?

EDIT: Darn, Griss got banned. :/ I was gonna send him an apology for getting him riled up and some well wishes. I just worry that his poor mood at the end of the discussion got seriously exacerbated.

 

[Reishiki]

Remember, these are Greer's ideological bedfellows. They aren't very nice people.

 

[Littlefang]

Clearly they don't understand her views on the subject as a number of her books have received critical acclaim and are viewed as extremely insightful and informational. They contain no anti-trans viewpoints as far as I have read/learned.

In her book The Whole Woman she literally has a whole chapter dedicated to her views on transgender women. And her ideas and books are extremely controversial.She advocates for the liberation of women rather than equality between men and women. And she argues points like how the oppression of women is often brought on by themselves.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

In her book The Whole Woman she literally has a whole chapter dedicated to her views on transgender women. And her ideas and books are extremely controversial.She advocates for the liberation of women rather than equality between men and women. And she argues points like how the oppression of women is often brought on by themselves.

As I said earlier, that comprises maybe 2% or less of her total output, and would almost certainly NOT have come up in the specific talk she was scheduled to give.

If we want to talk about not inviting people who are bad thinkers and writers, I'm game, but as long as that's NOT in the cards, we should at least be internally consistent in our application and be willing to compartmentalize the bad from the good as necessary.

 

[dead souls]

I don't understand this mindset at all. The students didn't threaten her or anything did they? They should be allowed to tell her to fuck off an go away. Theres no reason anyone should be criticized for refusing to listen to a bigot.

But intolerance of intolerance is just as bad!

Spoiler

I'm kidding of course, in case anyone's sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

 

[daisysmurf]

Remember, these are Greer's ideological bedfellows. They aren't very nice people.

You do realise that both those links are by a trans woman named Cristan Williams right? She has in the past harassed several natal women doxxed and exposed their private identities, including harassing random women in an attempt to expose a gender critical feminist. That does not add to her credibility as a source. I as a woman , find that disturbing and scary. Also Greer has always identified as a Liberation Feminist. Those folks at that link are no more Greer's ideological bedfellows than these not so nice people are yours : http://terfisaslur.com/

 

[Risette]

You do realise that both those links are by a trans woman named Cristan Williams right? She has in the past harassed several natal women doxxed and exposed their private identities, including harassing random women in an attempt to expose a gender critical feminist. That does not add to her credibility as a source. I as a woman , find that disturbing and scary. Also Greer has always identified as a Liberation Feminist. Those folks at that link are no more Greer's ideological bedfellows than these not so nice people are yours : http://terfisaslur.com/

did you actually read that site you linked lmao

 

[daisysmurf]

did you actually read that site you linked lmao

Yep, it was to counter the previous links about "the Terfs", to show that both sides are equally as vile to each other. Why?

 

[Risette]

Yep, it was to counter the previous links about "the Terfs", to show that both sides are equally as vile to each other. Why?

http://terfisaslur.com/male-allies/
wow, look at all these vile people. this totally isn't a callout harassment blog targeting everyone who says anything bad about TERFs. nope. not at all.

 

[partyphone]

it's pretty funny that TERFs hate being called TERFs.

if you want to actually challenge students you don't invite a TERF. that shit is the status quo. you invite an intersectional feminist.

you also invite someone famous like Greer because she's a friend or a friend of a friend and you're helping her get paid.

 

[daisysmurf]

http://terfisaslur.com/male-allies/
wow, look at all these vile people. this totally isn't a callout harassment blog targeting everyone who says anything bad about TERFs. nope. not at all.

Then its no different from http://theterfs.com/terf-quotes-2/ then right? Different points of view, different callout sites.

 

[EmiPrime]

Yep, it was to counter the previous links about "the Terfs", to show that both sides are equally as vile to each other. Why?

TERF detected.

 

[Reishiki]

TERF detected.

'natal woman' is a massive dog-whistle in this instance.

 

[Risette]

Then its no different from http://theterfs.com/terf-quotes-2/ then right? Different points of view, different callout sites.

actually there is a big difference between "trans people are disgusting monsters that deserve to die and their identities are a joke" and "terfs are bad imo", yes. a lot.

 

[EmiPrime]

'natal woman' is a massive dog-whistle in this instance.

Yep, totally transparent.

 

[ElFly]

As I said earlier, that comprises maybe 2% or less of her total output, and would almost certainly NOT have come up in the specific talk she was scheduled to give.

If we want to talk about not inviting people who are bad thinkers and writers, I'm game, but as long as that's NOT in the cards, we should at least be internally consistent in our application and be willing to compartmentalize the bad from the good as necessary.

What if someone asks about what barriers transwomen faced when trying to rise in political power during the 20th century.

Suddenly her transphobia is relevant.

Can we stop pretending that her work in feminism and transphobia are unrelated?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

She didn't get blocked, she backed off. Don't see what's wrong.


This has nothing to do with safe spaces. The students protested and she ran away with the tail between her legs. This is exactly how it's supposed to go.

 

[daisysmurf]

TERF detected.

No point in saying anything, if you are going to dismiss it as me being a TERF.
BTW I thought Natal Woman was perfectly fine

When giving comparisons (often for medical reasons) between trans and non-trans people, the terms “bio-male” or “bio-female” or “natal male” or “natal female” refer to non-transgender people. Always allow your patients to define to you the way they see their identity, without making assumptions.

from http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/action-committees/gender-sexuality/transgender-health/

 

[ElFly]

TERFs are just as bad as people decrying TERFs?

you mean the side who is denying trans women of their womanhood is as bad as the side....that does not?

That sure is an equivalence.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't know about the accuracy, but its use is common among TERFs. It's kind of like if you're talking to someone about "ethics in games journalism" and they use phrases like "false flag" or "SJW", these are alarm bells.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

You do realise that both those links are by a trans woman named Cristan Williams right? She has in the past harassed several natal women doxxed and exposed their private identities, including harassing random women in an attempt to expose a gender critical feminist. That does not add to her credibility as a source. I as a woman , find that disturbing and scary. Also Greer has always identified as a Liberation Feminist. Those folks at that link are no more Greer's ideological bedfellows than these not so nice people are yours : http://terfisaslur.com/

You're serious attacking Cristan Williams? You know, she's a real human being who does really important work. I don't think she's ever "harassed several [cis] women" though she's been diligent as fuck with documenting trans history with lots of facts and evidence, and her work in pushing back against TERF-backed hate groups like PJI who engaged in harassing a minor trans girl has been invaluable. I've met her before, she's a wonderful person, and it's ridiculous that you're putting an ad hominem out on her.

 

[EmiPrime]

TERFs are just as bad as people decrying TERFs?

you mean the side who is denying transwomen of their womanhood is as bad as the side....that does not?

That sure is an equivalence.

Framing the oppressor as the victim is an old trick used by racists, homophobes and transphobes alike. It's gross but effective so it gets used a lot.

(please use a space between trans and women however!)

 

[A Link to the Past]

Considering she argued that calling people a term that literally means "you exclude trans women from feminism to extremes" is akin to wanting trans women dead (as one TERF was quoted as having said), I think it's fair to say that her assessment of events is skewed.

 

[daisysmurf]

My point was that no one cis or trans deserves to be attacked, have rape or death threats.
While all this arguing and calling each-other names is going on the very real threat to women’s safety everywhere is not being addressed and that is the actual violence that results in the deaths of women everywhere.

 

[Darksol]

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

Pretty much.

 

[Lime]

I wonder what some of these posters think of the 68 student revolution? Should all those students just have gone home and hugged their teddy bears instead of protesting power systems at universities?

 

[A Link to the Past]

My point was that no one cis or trans deserves to be attacked, have rape or death threats.
While all this arguing and calling each-other names is going on the very real threat to women’s safety everywhere is not being addressed and that is the actual violence that results in the deaths of women everywhere.

No, your point was "identifying someone by their behaviour" was just as bad as "being happy when trans people die."

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

What if someone asks about what barriers transwomen faced when trying to rise in political power during the 20th century.

Suddenly her transphobia is relevant.

Can we stop pretending that her work in feminism and transphobia are unrelated?

And what is the likelihood of that? Are we even sure that a large talk is going to have an uncharted Q&A? And since when did the mere possibility that someone might say something offensive become grounds to intellectually exclude them? And even if she did say something shitty while on stage, what is stopping intelligent adults from simply understanding that, hey, this person who has some good points is on the wrong side of history on this issue? That the goalposts can move endlessly is why "safe space" proselytizing is ridiculous, and why a vision of colleges as a forum for open discourse, even potentially offensive discourse, is a far more intellectually challenging, fruitful, and fair model.

 

[boiled goose]

Hmmm. To focus on the topic directly. Maybe protesting the speaker is bad in itself. This wasn't protesting a policy, it was protesting a speaker.

Maybe a better approach is invite and challenge and win. Good ideas will win in the end.

 

[daisysmurf]

No, your point was "identifying someone by their behaviour" was just as bad as "being happy when trans people die."

My point was saying "Kill every f**king TERF" or "Shoot a Terf Today" is just as bad as saying "being happy when trans people die." Violence against anybody is bad. But I am out of this thread now.

 

[partyphone]

Pretty much.

so you just went as far as the first reply and called it quits?

 

[partyphone]

Hmmm. To focus on the topic directly. Maybe protesting the speaker is bad in itself. This wasn't protesting a policy, it was protesting a speaker.

Maybe a better approach is invite and challenge and win. Good ideas will win in the end.

how would that even play out? the students have very little power to do anything aside from protest. universities very rarely capitulate in these instances. the only reason Greer isn't lecturing is because she voluntarily pulled out.

 

[EmiPrime]

Hmmm. To focus on the topic directly. Maybe protesting the speaker is bad in itself. This wasn't protesting a policy, it was protesting a speaker.

Maybe a better approach is invite and challenge and win. Good ideas will win in the end.

She wasn't coming to Cardiff to debate. She was likely just going to do her presentation followed by a short Q&A at the end. Nobody was going to be able to have a back and forth with her.

I get the impression that those of you making "challenge ideas" type posts don't have any experience with these sorts of talks. You don't get the chance to properly debate speakers in this sort of setting. You are not going to "win".

 

[boiled goose]

She wasn't coming to Cardiff to debate. She was likely just going to do her presentation followed by a short Q&A at the end. Nobody was going to be able to have a back and forth with her.

I get the impression that those of you making "challenge ideas" type posts don't have any experience with these sorts of talks. You don't get the chance to properly debate speakers in this sort of setting. You are not going to "win".

You can plan a student forum afterwards without the speaker. Im sure the University would totally support this.

You dont have to challenge the speaker directly, just the ideas.

Some issues have to be considered settled for efficiency. For example, you wont see kkk clan members giving talks about how some groups of people are sub human. With trans issues, however, there is still lots of education to be done. If your ideas are right, let them win.

 

[A Link to the Past]

My point was saying "Kill every f**king TERF" or "Shoot a Terf Today" is just as bad as saying "being happy when trans people die." Violence against anybody is bad. But I am out of this thread now.

I generally don't get down with the idea of advocating violence jokingly or as a form of venting, but the quoted TERFs are people with voice and authority within feminism, people who are encouraging violence against trans people to a large audience.

 

[Yrael]

According to Cardiff University the event is apparently back on and going ahead as planned.

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.

Describing it as an "essentially personal problem" that shouldn't be publicly addressed comes across as a little condescending (sorry if you didn't intend it that way), given how common it is for women to experience unwanted sexual advances from men that feel entitled to impose on them, despite every signal indicating that they shouldn't do it. (Watson's talk before that incident had actually been about how uncomfortable she feels receiving sexual advances at conferences, making the proposition even more inappropriate and clueless.) Women have every right to talk about these experiences; the widespread nature of them is an important conversation of its own.

(This is tangential to the thread I know, could move this to PM.)

 

[EmiPrime]

The goal posts are moving.

With trans issues, however, there is still lots of education to be done.

Don't need to pay TERFs money and give them a platform on university premises to promote their books to achieve that.

You go on about "winning" arguments like these debates haven't been had. Over and over. Never mind how dehumanising it is to have people debating your humanity, this shit has been done. All that's left on the other side is ad hominems and religious babble. Listening to what trans people have to say is more effective than trying to beat Greer in a debate she's not interested in having.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Honestly, considering how often Dawkins sticks his head into certain topics and makes very political, very problematic comments, he seems like the last person to be a critic of someone complaining about being propositioned in an elevator.

 

[ElFly]

And what is the likelihood of that? Are we even sure that a large talk is going to have an uncharted Q&A? And since when did the mere possibility that someone might say something offensive become grounds to intellectually exclude them? And even if she did say something shitty while on stage, what is stopping intelligent adults from simply understanding that, hey, this person who has some good points is on the wrong side of history on this issue? That the goalposts can move endlessly is why "safe space" proselytizing is ridiculous, and why a vision of colleges as a forum for open discourse, even potentially offensive discourse, is a far more intellectually challenging, fruitful, and fair model.

Well if the kids are well educated and did their research on the speaker, p high it will come up in the questions.

All the claims that "students should face controversial opinions to learn" go out the window the moment Greer demands to veto the questions.

This is not being "on the wrong side of the history". This is being on the wrong side of a very current issue. Potentially offensive discourse has to prove itself interesting. Potentially offensive discourse has the burden of proving itself valuable. Greer has not proven she can give an interesting angle on the issue, she is just plain old offensive. There is nothing of value to her transphobia.

You are saying letting her speak in the college would be, and I quote, "fruitful".

What are the fruits of letting her promote transphobia. What are the concrete benefits.

The students already figured out she is bigoted, and her views on the issue are old and uninteresting, they are just extremely insulting. So you cannot say that letting them face such ideas is of any benefit.

 

[boiled goose]

The goal posts are moving.

Don't need to pay TERFs money and give them a platform on university premises to promote their books to achieve that.

You go on about "winning" arguments like these debates haven't been had. Over and over. Never mind how dehumanising it is to have people debating your humanity, this shit has been done. All that's left on the other side is ad hominems and religious babble. Listening to what trans people have to say is more effective than trying to beat Greer in a debate she's not interested in having.

Hmmm ok.
I dont think greer has questioned the humanity of trans woman. She simply makes a distinction between cis and trans women (in a silly way that i largely disagree with).

We have creationists speak at universities. Id consider it irresponsible for the media to do this, but at a campus? I guess im comfortable listening to stupid ideas when i know my ideas are better.

Also, i fully admit this attitude comes from a position of priviledge.

That said, even her most offensive claims, i wouldnt considered "settled". They seem to be social issues, not scientific claims.

 

[EmiPrime]

Hmmm ok.
I dont think greer has questioned the humanity of trans woman. She simply makes a distinction between cis and trans women (in a silly way that i largely disagree with).

You need to acquaint yourself properly with what she has said then because she absolutely does dehumanise trans women.

We have creationists speak at universities. Id consider it irresponsible for the media to do this, but at a campus? I guess im comfortable listening to stupid ideas when i know my ideas are better.

There's a world of difference between a stupid idea like creationism and outright hate speech directed at a severely disadvantaged and oppressed group.

Also, i fully admit this attitude comes from a position of priviledge.

I'm glad you at least acknowledge this.

 

[East Lake]

Well if the kids are well educated and did their research on the speaker, p high it will come up in the questions.

All the claims that "students should face controversial opinions to learn" go out the window the moment Greer demands to veto the questions.

This is not being "on the wrong side of the history". This is being on the wrong side of a very current issue. Potentially offensive discourse has to prove itself interesting. Potentially offensive discourse has the burden of proving itself valuable. Greer has not proven she can give an interesting angle on the issue, she is just plain old offensive. There is nothing of value to her transphobia.

You are saying letting her speak in the college would be, and I quote, "fruitful".

What are the fruits of letting her promote transphobia. What are the concrete benefits.

The students already figured out she is bigoted, and her views on the issue are old and uninteresting, they are just extremely insulting. So you cannot say that letting them face such ideas is of any benefit.

That's a bit paternalistic though isn't it? If her transphobia is so toxic and dangerous that everybody knows it's not worth engaging, then who is being protected here?

There's also nobody who can say that they're such a beacon of moral purity that this type of tactic can't be abused. And it will be abused when students protest somebody who's on the right side of the argument but the wrong side of public opinion (or university), see Norman Finkelstein.

 

[boiled goose]

You need to acquaint yourself properly with what she has said then because she absolutely does dehumanise trans women.

There's a world of difference between a stupid idea like creationism and outright hate speech directed at a severely disadvantaged and oppressed group.

I'm glad you at least acknowledge this.

Im not defending her or her views and said i largely dont agree with them.

I agree lot of her views are definitely harmful for an already disadvantaged group.

From what I've seen in the thread.!! Basically she thinks trans women are not real women. But she does not advocate violence or limitation of rights and would use preferred pronouns out of respect.

Is that the gist of it?