Support NeoGAF

[EmiPrime]

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?

No. Please at the very least do a Google search to inform yourself. She is very good at talking out of one side of her mouth to seem more reasonable then reverting back to form.

For example calling trans women men and that she knows lots of [cis] women who agree with her but then saying she'd use female "speech forms" as a courtesy. Saying that she thinks people should be allowed to transition if that's what they want but then she'll go on about mutilation and that trans women often regret surgery (which isn't true).

She is transparent AF and using a public platform 2 days ago to say:

“Just because you lop off your d**k and then wear a dress doesn't make you a ******* woman. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a ******* cocker spaniel.

“I do understand that some people are born intersex and they deserve support in coming to terms with their gender but it’s not the same thing. A man who gets his d**k chopped off is actually inflicting an extraordinary act of violence on himself.”

Is advocating violence against trans women. It invites people to ridicule trans women, to not take their gender seriously and deny them access to things you take for granted like being able to go to the toilet without being harassed.

 

[Littlefang]

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?

It's not Greer that would use preferred pronouns, it's Dawkins. Greer has referred to transgender women within her books as men.

April Ashley was born male. All the information supplied by genes, chromosomes, internal and external sexual organs added up to the same thing. April was a man. But he longed to be a woman. He longed for the stereotype, not to embrace, but to be...He tried to die, became a female impersonator, but eventually found a doctor in Casablanca who came up with a more acceptable alternative. He was to be castrated, and his penis used as the lining of a surgically constructed cleft, which would be a vagina...He became a model, and began to illustrate the feminine stereotype as he was perfectly qualified to do, for he was elegant, voluptuous, beautifully groomed, and in love with his own image...April's incompetence as a woman is what we must expect from a castrate, but it is not so very different after all from the impotence of feminine women, who submit to sex without desire, with only the infantile pleasure of cuddling and affection, which is their favourite reward. As long as the feminine stereotype remains the definition of the female sex, April Ashley is a woman, regardless of the legal decision ensuing from her divorce. She is as much a casualty of the polarity of the sexes as we all are. Disgraced, unsexed Ashley is our sister and our symbol.

It might appear at the start of the passage that she is endorsing April Ashley, but she ultimately compares both transgender women and women that do not fit into her ideal as unsexed (i.e. not women).

When she worked at Newnham College, Germaine Greer tried to stop them from hiring Rachel Padman from being hired because she is a trans woman. I'd definitely say that's advocating for limiting the rights of transgender people.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

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.

She has a view were she is disgusting, dumb and vile.
But that was not what she was going to attend a lecture for you. You propose a olive branch in the sense that she could be asked about trans issues in the feminist issues, and that, should be enough of a reason for bar her from talking?
Many people who do good and have important information, have stances and positions on various things that are fueled out of some ignorance. Some more offensive than others. I suppose, what Snowman is arguing is that her transphobia does not outweight the important work that she has done, and so it should not be a characteristic of her from speaking.
You repeatedly propose that it is hate-speech. I am not convinced. I see it as bigoted, lame and childish, but I would not put in the same echelon as we talk about hate speech in the sense of wishing bodily harm on others. When KKK members instigate black people by running around with nooses and taunting, that is clearly defined hate speech.

And that matters. Because intent matters. There is a world of difference between someone who wishes people to die, and someone who has extremely petty views about certain people. Greer seems to be the ladder.


The university could have asked her to avoid the subject should it come up. It's not uncommon for guest lecturers to be horrible ignorant on things even within their field due to a narrow expertise.
Iron is forged through iron, progress is made by those who engage in it, and a university cannot preach if it refuses to engage in what is the status quo.
It's a feed-loop slippery slope to keep proposing these analogies to some idea that her giving a guest lecture will convert students. I'm convinced that won't happen. On the contrary.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

All y'all thinking that Germaine Greer could give a speech on feminism without bringing trans women into it, or suggest that the two subjects don't intersect, are making big assumptions about things you know nothing about. Also, the folk making it out like college speech = debate setting where people can intelligently challenge the views of the speaker have very clearly never been to a single one of these events.

But what gets me is all the people who think that trans people's human rights are a matter that should be up for public debate. and that hate speech is a necessary part of this 'debate'. That's depraved.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

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.

It's my contention that her bigoted bullshit is an extremely small part of her overall contribution, and the idea that she might utter something offensive during the course of her talk does not negate the potential intellectual benefits of the rest of the talk, nor the benefits others might derive from their own intellectual response to whatever she might say, positive or negative.

I say this, btw, despite thinking virtually all second-wave radical feminist authors I've read were mostly dopes, and assuming that Greer is likely similarly flawed. But I don't think intellectual freedom should be delimited by others' sensitivities, especially in college, where the goal of creating a safe space is utterly contrary to the real value colleges potentially offer, which is the development of intellectual muscularity and inner strength of character by being steeped in the ideas, good and bad, of both history and the present moment.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

All y'all thinking that Germaine Greer could give a speech on feminism without bringing trans women into it, or suggest that the two subjects don't intersect, are making big assumptions about things you know nothing about. Also, the folk making it out like college speech = debate setting where people can intelligently challenge the views of the speaker have very clearly never been to a single one of these events.

But what gets me is all the people who think that trans people's human rights are a matter that should be up for public debate. and that hate speech is a necessary part of this 'debate'. That's depraved.

It shouldn't but it is. There is no reason to burn down the entire house because things are not the way they are supposed to be.
You take what you got, you fight for progress. A lot of progress that has happened was because people engaged the terrible norms of their time. That's where it starts.
No leader or movement ever changed anything by refusing to engage in debate. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood something here.
It is fear-mongering and slipperly slope analogies. You're absolutely right that we make a lot of assumptions. So do you. That's all we have to go on because the lecture didn't happen. We can only entertain the hypothesis.
I believe the students could engage and overcome whatever Greer would throw at them. Why can't you? They are in the clear, they have information at their side, it is a event that is being hosted in the university. The speaker is on defensive for these reasons alone.
Also, I think it's important to acknowledge that pretty much everyone here is in agreement about the end-game. What we don't agree on is how to make that progress. You're essentially arguing that the problems will fix themselves if we just try to shut them out. Others are agreeing that direct confrontation through dialogue is what is needed.

People who have done this have changed their views on many topics many times. It does work. Not just in changing Greers view, but in also allowing the chips to fall were they may because you're confident in that you're on the right side.

 

[boiled goose]

Thanks for some of the posts and sorry i couldn't reply sooner.

She definitely has some terrible views. The question of what is OK on campus is a tricky subject.

I probably still lean on the side of letting the right side win out but i recognize that sometimes in the short run it can lead to violence and other issues.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

It shouldn't but it is. There is no reason to burn down the entire house because things are not the way they are supposed to be.
You take what you got, you fight for progress. A lot of progress that has happened was because people engaged the terrible norms of their time. That's where it starts.
No leader or movement ever changed anything by refusing to engage in debate. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood something here.
It is fear-mongering and slipperly slope analogies. You're absolutely right that we make a lot of assumptions. So do you. That's all we have to go on because the lecture didn't happen. We can only entertain the hypothesis.
I believe the students could engage and overcome whatever Greer would throw at them. Why can't you? They are in the clear, they have information at their side, it is a event that is being hosted in the university. The speaker is on defensive for these reasons alone.
Also, I think it's important to acknowledge that pretty much everyone here is in agreement about the end-game. What we don't agree on is how to make that progress. You're essentially arguing that the problems will fix themselves if we just try to shut them out. Others are agreeing that direct confrontation through dialogue is what is needed.

People who have done this have changed their views on many topics many times. It does work. Not just in changing Greers view, but in also allowing the chips to fall were they may because you're confident in that you're on the right side.

You're fundamentally twisting the reality to suit your own arguments, but it doesn't make it a logical argument. It's not as if there was a debate scheduled with her and people decided they'd rather chase her off than debate her. She was given a platform for a one-sided speech, there's not a chance that she'd be made to face off in debate with the people her hate speech has affected. You also, apparently, believe that bigots should be given a platform to tear down marginalized communities all the way up until those communities are accepted to some degree or another within society. That's pretty gross of you, but I couldn't expect otherwise--this isn't about a community you're a part of, it doesn't directly affect your life or the laws that govern it.

 

[CLEEK]

The point about the vast majority of transphobia is that it is born from ignorance. That external genitals somehow control a person's gender. Views that are not held by the biology, medical or psychological communities. It's the same ignorance that lead homosexuality to being viewed as a mental disease.

You combat ignorance with facts and education, not with silence.

There isn't a single one of Greer's arguments that wouldn't stand up to factual debate. Banning her from speaking due to her views being 'offensive' do nothing to address her statements or the anti-science bullshit she's peddling. It just make the opponents of her views seem like cry babies, and Greer a victim.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You're fundamentally twisting the reality to suit your own arguments, but it doesn't make it a logical argument. It's not as if there was a debate scheduled with her and people decided they'd rather chase her off than debate her. She was given a platform for a one-sided speech, there's not a chance that she'd be made to face off in debate with the people her hate speech has affected. You also, apparently, believe that bigots should be given a platform to tear down marginalized communities all the way up until those communities are accepted to some degree or another within society. That's pretty gross of you, but I couldn't expect otherwise--this isn't about a community you're a part of, it doesn't directly affect your life or the laws that govern it.

You're wrong Erin.
This extremism is a typical you-have-my-view-or-you're-a-bigot style of argument.
Of course there is a chance that students would call her out on it during a lecture. This is just you projecting your own fundamentally twisted reality to suit your own agenda. You forget the nuance, and you seem unable to entertain the possibility that something good could from it.


I'm not being gross. You're the one who seems hateful, calling out people you don't know, using I-know-better-than-thou-rhetoric-so-shut-the-fuck-up. I don't believe the things you accuse me off. The difference is just that I believe the solution to making progress is different than yours. That is the thing we disagree on, not that Greers views are terrible, and I think it's a shame that in your toxic anger outward lashing Dawkins, and other posters who don't hold your beliefs, that you seem to forget that.

 

[besada]

Let's bring down the level of personal animosity. If you can't have this discussion without attacking each other as people, you should go elsewhere.

 

[Joni]

So how many teddy bears should we send him?

 

[Lowmelody]

You're wrong Erin.
This extremism is a typical you-have-my-view-or-you're-a-bigot style of argument.
Of course there is a chance that students would call her out on it during a lecture. This is just you projecting your own fundamentally twisted reality to suit your own agenda. You forget the nuance, and you seem unable to entertain the possibility that something good could from it.


I'm not being gross. You're the one who seems hateful, calling out people you don't know, using I-know-better-than-thou-rhetoric-so-shut-the-fuck-up. I don't believe the things you accuse me off. The difference is just that I believe the solution to making progress is different than yours. That is the thing we disagree on, not that Greers views are terrible, and I think it's a shame that in your toxic anger outward lashing Dawkins, and other posters who don't hold your beliefs, that you seem to forget that.

No yours and others glib and dispassionate assessment is completely lacking an ounce of empathy and before that post it was difficult to tell if it was willful or not. As if a problem has been at the heart of trans suicides (You know, questioning their humanity) can be navigated with cold discourse and endless reductive equivocation of other issues. You and others who blithely base your passing spectating of these issues on the premise that this is some new brave new paradigm to be hashed out and then feign bewilderment when it becomes clear that it's you who hasn't kept up, no everyone else who needs to slow down.

Just contrast the bolded with this

It shouldn't but it is. There is no reason to burn down the entire house because things are not the way they are supposed to be.You take what you got, you fight for progress.

Anyways things are pretty clear. No, no we most certainly do not have to take "what we got".


Edit - I didnt see Admin post.

 

[East Lake]

No yours and others glib and dispassionate assessment is completely lacking an ounce of empathy and before that post it was difficult to tell if it was willful or not. As if a problem has been at the heart of trans suicides (You know, questioning their humanity) can be navigated with cold discourse and endless reductive equivocation of other issues. You and others who blithely base your passing spectating of these issues on the premise that this is some new brave new paradigm to be hashed out and then feign bewilderment when it becomes clear that it's you who hasn't kept up, no everyone else who needs to slow down.

Just contrast the bolded with this



Anyways things are pretty clear. No, no we most certainly do not have to take "what we got".


Edit - I didnt see Admin post.

You know it doesn't go away if she doesn't give the talk right?

Like I can think of any numbers of issues I think are disgusting but that people will defend anyway that get no news coverage at all, even at the university safe place.

 

[Opto]

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

well bugger

 

[Lowmelody]

You know it doesn't go away if she doesn't give the talk right?

Like I can think of any numbers of issues I think are disgusting but that people will defend anyway that get no news coverage at all, even at the university safe place.

Not actively propagating hate speech is good enough. Of course she has a million other outlets for her shit but no body should be obligated to indulge her.

 

[Relativ9]

Yup sounds like a terrible person alright, but Dawkins is right.

 

[East Lake]

Not actively propagating hate speech is good enough. Of course she has a million other outlets for her shit but no body should be obligated to indulge her.

Nobody should be obliged to listen to Bill Clinton because of his "tough on crime" presidency or helping to starve a few hundred thousand Iraqi children either, but I don't see much outrage about it if he shows up at a university somewhere. He's progressive though!

I have a hard time time believing that in places where some speakers could actually defend unjust wars, economic policies that ruin lives, or actually be considered war criminals themselves and nobody bats an eye, that university will come crumbling down if some old bigot comes to give a talk.

 

[Lowmelody]

Nobody should be obliged to listen to Bill Clinton because of his "tough on crime" presidency or helping to starve a few hundred thousand Iraqi children either, but I don't see much outrage about it if he shows up at a university somewhere. He's progressive though!

I have a hard time time believing that in places where some speakers could actually defend unjust wars, economic policies that ruin lives, or actually be considered war criminals themselves and nobody bats an eye, that university will come crumbling down if some old bigot comes to give a talk.

Glad to see you don't give the slightest fuck about trans people or their well being. Moving on

 

[East Lake]

Ok, you see where I'm going with this though don't you? Germaine Greer is not a uniquely terrible person. In fact if some LGBT person were to show up at a Bill Clinton speech and enjoy it I could say, glad you don't give the slightest fuck about Iraqi children, or black people who were imprisoned through Clinton's policies.

 

[Lowmelody]

Ok, you see where I'm going with this though don't you? Germaine Greer is not a uniquely terrible person. In fact if some LGBT person were to show up at a Bill Clinton speech and enjoy it I could say, glad you don't give the slightest fuck about Iraqi children, or black people who were imprisoned through Clinton's policies.

Oh, I see where you're going with that alright.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

No yours and others glib and dispassionate assessment is completely lacking an ounce of empathy and before that post it was difficult to tell if it was willful or not. As if a problem has been at the heart of trans suicides (You know, questioning their humanity) can be navigated with cold discourse and endless reductive equivocation of other issues. You and others who blithely base your passing spectating of these issues on the premise that this is some new brave new paradigm to be hashed out and then feign bewilderment when it becomes clear that it's you who hasn't kept up, no everyone else who needs to slow down.

Just contrast the bolded with this



Anyways things are pretty clear. No, no we most certainly do not have to take "what we got".


Edit - I didnt see Admin post.

I have tremendous amounts of empathy for them. Empathy is not shielding people or thinking that they are weak. Having empathy, - as in the fundamental understanding of putting yourself in someone elses plight, whoever it may be, is not in conflict with believing in confrontation rather shielding.

I believe in the students, and I believe trans people, like other marginalized groups will carry the progress by facing it, with the support of others who empathize with them.
You are being unfair by exerting the idea that because we disagree on the course of action that, that difference equals in a semantic difference. Also, I or anyone else in this thread have not used that terrible suicide rhetoric. I'm aware of what it is, but I am puzzled as to why you're writing it like it is something I believe.


Iron is forged in fire. Don't think they can'T do it. As SPE said, it comes from ignorance. Dialogue, and putting a face to the realities of what it is about when push comes to shove is what will change it. Greer is not practicing hate speech. It is a terrible position she has one issue, and not to undermine it, it has to be weighted against her entire being which means, that like many many many other people who have terrible views on a broad array of subjects that she is not beyond being educated on it. And there is real value in that for everyone.
I don't think people are unreasonable or lack empathy for believing that progress comes from this path. I hope this further clarifies my position on this subject.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ok, you see where I'm going with this though don't you? Germaine Greer is not a uniquely terrible person. In fact if some LGBT person were to show up at a Bill Clinton speech and enjoy it I could say, glad you don't give the slightest fuck about Iraqi children, or black people who were imprisoned through Clinton's policies.

um

 

[East Lake]

um

Do you guys have rebuttals or what?

 

[jurgen]

Glad to see you don't give the slightest fuck about trans people or their well being. Moving on

I think they're making more of a point that people are narrow-minded with their cause du jour to the point that perceived bigotry is more likely to be protested than alleged war criminals.

I doubt anything Greer says in a lecture is going to have the same level of impact on a group of people as say, Henry Kissinger, who is still constantly speaking at colleges without the same bombastic outrage these days as that found when perceived bigotry rolls onto campus.

 

[Qblivion]

So only pay for speakers who agree with your point of view?

Saying trans women are men isn't a point of view. it is hate speech, and factually wrong.

 

[Lowmelody]

I think they're making more of a point that people are narrow-minded with their cause du jour to the point that perceived bigotry is more likely to be protested than alleged war criminals.

I doubt anything Greer says in a lecture is going to have the same level of impact on a group of people as say, Henry Kissinger, who is still constantly speaking at colleges without the same bombastic outrage these days as that found when perceived bigotry rolls onto campus.

Yes the struggles of trans people is a "narrow-minded cause du jour". For fuck sake why do people have to be as callous as possible? Do you expect that shit to be respected and replied to in good faith?

No I will not dance to beat of some shitty false equivalence to of trans issues and transphobia and mother fucking Dick Cheney.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

I have to admit that I think telling someone to go home and hug a teddy is an extremely amusing way to insult someone. I struggle with taking it seriously, though I know what Dawkins was after. I suppose this post has little to do with Dawkins, besides reading the god delusion as a teenager I don't follow him.

 

[Jakten]

Do you guys have rebuttals or what?

I get what you are trying to say but your example requires so much supposition that it no longer applies to this situation.

These people care enough to protest. You know nothing else about what they care about nor does it matter in this instance. Caring about one thing doesn't mean you don't care about other things.

 

[East Lake]

Yes the struggles of trans people is a "narrow-minded cause du jour". For fuck sake why do people have to be as callous as possible? Do you expect that shit to be respected and replied to in good faith?

No I will not dance to beat of some shitty false equivalence to of trans issues and transphobia and mother fucking Dick Cheney.

There's a reason I used Bill Clinton as an example, and it's not really a false equivalence. One reason is that Democrats are fairly LGBT friendly nowadays but could still also be reasonably called war criminals. This is a fairly progressive forum that seems to be extremely pro-clinton and pro-lgbt rights, although I can't speak for everybody obviously I imagine there's a lot of crossover support.

Another is that the Iraqi sanctions particularly are events most people do not know or care about. So the same progressives who think Germaine Greer should be stopped from speaking have a blind spot for actual war crimes. It's an extremely serious topic that they likely have not educated themselves on.

So a person who knows all about the sanctions (or pick any other topic) could take the moral high ground and claim that any university who hosts the Clintons, or any public figure who supported the sanctions, or tough on crime policies is guilty in giving a platform to these criminals, and then I can pat myself on the back instead of looking in the mirror.

 

[jurgen]

Yes the struggles of trans people is a "narrow-minded cause du jour". For fuck sake why do people have to be as callous as possible? Do you expect that shit to be respected and replied to in good faith?

No I will not dance to beat of some shitty false equivalence to of trans issues and transphobia and mother fucking Dick Cheney.

I think you may need to cool your jets here. I apologize that you misunderstood the wording and intent of my original statement. I hope you forgive me for your overreaction to the above statement and my implication that speech does not warrant levels of protest and outrage that commonly go beyond the levels received by things like war crimes, genocide, and systematic disenfranchising of entire races.

I use the phrase "cause du jour" in the sense that transgender issues have only recently begun to receive such large levels of attention from multiple parties. I use the phrase "narrow-minded" due to a narrow focus.

The onus of any offense lies solely on you in this situation.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

There's a reason I used Bill Clinton as an example, and it's not really a false equivalence. One reason is that Democrats are fairly LGBT friendly nowadays but could still also be reasonably called war criminals. This is a fairly progressive forum that seems to be extremely pro-clinton and pro-lgbt rights, although I can't speak for everybody obviously I imagine there's a lot of crossover support.

Another is that the Iraqi sanctions particularly are events most people do not know or care about. So the same progressives who think Germaine Greer should be stopped from speaking have a blind spot for actual war crimes. It's an extremely serious topic that they themselves have likely not educated themselves on.

So a person who knows all about the sanctions (or pick any other topic) could take the moral high ground and claim that any university who hosts the Clintons, or any public figure who supported the sanctions. or tough on crime policies is guilty in giving a platform to these criminals, and then I can pat myself on the back instead of looking in the mirror.

Not gonna lie, no-platforming the Clintons as part of creating a culture that's engaged about imperialism, white supremacy, male supremacy, and capitalism, a culture that won't stand for absolutely horrible human beings masquerading as friendly leftist politicians... would be pretty fantastic.

 

[Lowmelody]

I think you may need to cool your jets here. I apologize that you misunderstood the wording and intent of my original statement. I hope you forgive me for your overreaction

Just as I thought. Dismissed.

Baby ass games up in here.

 

[East Lake]

Not gonna lie, no-platforming the Clintons as part of creating a culture that's engaged about imperialism, white supremacy, male supremacy, and capitalism, a culture that won't stand for absolutely horrible human beings masquerading as friendly leftist politicians... would be pretty fantastic.

Maybe, but what I'm saying is that doing that is basically off the map politically even if you're right morally. So if there's basically nobody willing to pull their platform people are going to have to be convinced they're all those things you mentioned in another manner.

 

[jurgen]

Just as I thought. Dismissed.

Baby ass games up in here.

Your lack of self-awareness here is baffling.

Not gonna lie, no-platforming the Clintons as part of creating a culture that's engaged about imperialism, white supremacy, male supremacy, and capitalism, a culture that won't stand for absolutely horrible human beings masquerading as friendly leftist politicians... would be pretty fantastic.

That would require the rare levels of rational, ideological consistency that would also keep us from getting into messes like wanting to ban speakers due to disagreements. Unfortunately, I don't think that either are going to be resolved anytime soon.

I really don't see how anyone can call themselves liberal and support the Clintons.

 

[hateradio]

evolutionary biologist

Scust.

The views are awful, and they only spill hate. I completely would agree if it were something more mundane, but transphobia is disturbing.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

That would require the rare levels of rational, ideological consistency that would also keep us from getting into messes like wanting to ban speakers due to disagreements. Unfortunately, I don't think that either are going to be resolved anytime soon.

I really don't see how anyone can call themselves liberal and support the Clintons.

Oh, I can easily see how someone can call themselves liberal and support the Clintons. Liberal-identified folks tend to be major apologists for their media heroes and are completely unaware of how the world actually works--they expend so much time and energy on go-nowhere political causes that reinforce the two-party system, the state, and systemic oppression on a global level. Liberalism, especially in the context of the United States, tends to describe center-right authoritarian politics that are virtually indistinguishable from American conservative politics anywhere but under a finely-tuned microscope.

That said, if a university such as Cambridge wants to challenge the masses' ideas about trans people, they ought to have a trans guest--bringing out a TERF that hasn't been relevant in decades is a poor use of resources to that end, considering she's just mirroring the status quo of colonialist society.

 

[OuterLimits]

I agree with Dawkins here.

So do you guys think someone like Ann Coulter shouldn't be allowed to speak, say if she was coming to a college to do a speech on immigration policy, both legal and illegal?

She is obviously extremely controversial and makes a gazillion inflammatory comments, but I will acknowledge that she is smart and tries to back up her arguments with data and statistics. She isn't afraid to go on Bill Maher show, MSNBC, and other places that aren't exactly friendly territory.

Now wouldn't it make more sense to challenge her with a question/answer period, and/or have another speaker come that has the opposing viewpoint?

Trying to make a university a bubble that becomes an echo chamber of the like minded isn't a good idea in my opinion. College is about learning. So obviously gaining knowledge that enables you to debate and challenge those you strongly disagree with is important.

Btw, I thought it was cool that Sanders did a speech at the super religious Liberty University a month or two ago. Not exactly friendly territory.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Glad to see you don't give the slightest fuck about trans people or their well being. Moving on

Believing universities should be an open marketplace of ideas, not paternalistic safe space manufacturers, is not "not giving the slightest fuck about trans people or their well being", but about believing there's a higher ideal at stake than the claimed necessities of well-being of a single group.

 

[Iztli]

I agree with Dawkins here.

I was recently watching some Hitchens touch on the very subject.

Transcribed:

a short refresher course in the classic texts on this matter. Which are John Milton’s Areopagitica, Ariel Pogetica being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression. Thomas Paine’s introduction to the age of reason. And I would say John Stuart Mill’s essay on liberty in which it is variously said — I’ll be very daring and summarize all three of these great gentlemen of the great tradition of, especially, English liberty, in one go: What they say is it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.

In more modern times this has been put, I think, best by a personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxembourg, who said freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

 

[EmiPrime]

Those of you bringing up other people like the Clintons, Coulter and Kissinger, you do realise they would get protested if booked to speak at most British universities (not that they would be able to afford their speaker fees)? They wouldn't be welcome either. You're bringing your American values on free speech into a discussion about another country that would not allow the WBC to exist as it does. Freedom of speech is not freedom from being protested against and nobody is entitled to be paid for theirs.

 

[aeolist]

.

 

[Lime]

.

Dawkins needed to go hug his teddy bear instead of complaining so much.

 

[Arkeband]

.

An honorary degree and a guest speaking event are two very different things...

...but you know this, since it's been pointed out in this thread multiple times.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

.

Lol, oh Dawkins

An honorary degree and a guest speaking event are two very different things...

...but you know this, since it's been pointed out in this thread multiple times.

i would say this makes Dawkins more of a hypocrite, he's ok with someone giving their opinion but if that opinion is against his, then he has a problem..... Furthermore the guy is not guest speaking, right?! that means he's just giving like a pep talk to newly graduated students instead of spreading his bigoted opinions which should be ok and Dawkins shouldn't protest!

Edit:

I don't want to derail the thread so allow me to return to the topic at hand, I think Dawkins is not right in this context, transsexual rights are just as important as gay/lesbian and I think having a speaker who has bigoted views against them sends bad signals to the community at large

 

[Arkeband]

i would say this makes Dawkins more of a hypocrite, he's ok with someone giving their opinion but if that opinion is against his, then he has a problem..... Furthermore the guy is not guest speaking, right?! that means he's just giving like a pep talk to newly graduated students instead of spreading his bigoted opinions which should be ok and Dawkins shouldn't protest!

An honorary degree is "just a pep talk"..?

 

[aeolist]

An honorary degree is "just a pep talk"..?

it's a customary thing conferred to a commencement speaker. it's not a big deal at all and i have to imagine he'd have protested stein's presence at the graduation even if that weren't a part of it.

his problem is the man's views, which i agree with. students don't need to hear ben stein's insane brand of creationism and science denialism, and they don't need to hear greer's bigotry either. giving someone a platform to speak isn't inherently valuable and it shouldn't be defended 100% of the time, she can spew her hate elsewhere.

 

[Henkka]

An honorary degree is "just a pep talk"..?

Not to mention the commencement speech is probably mandatory to attend, no? And There's no audience questions or debate.

 

[Arkeband]

it's a customary thing conferred to a commencement speaker. it's not a big deal at all and i have to imagine he'd have protested stein's presence at the graduation even if that weren't a part of it.

his problem is the man's views, which i agree with. students don't need to hear ben stein's insane brand of creationism and science denialism, and they don't need to hear greer's bigotry either. giving someone a platform to speak isn't inherently valuable and it shouldn't be defended 100% of the time, she can spew her hate elsewhere.

I don't disagree with you, but the speech she would have given might not have (and may not, since it's apparently back on) even mentioned trans women.

While Ben Stein's commencement speech probably also didn't delve into the finer points of why he believes in unicorns, a university bestowing an honorary degree is a step above sponsoring them to speak. Honorary degrees can be revoked, and often do when the recipient brings dishonor upon themselves, and then by extension the university. Honorary degrees are usually given to people who have contributed to society or exemplify the ideals the university stands for.

Not all commencement speakers receive honorary degrees.

Dawkins doesn't protest every commencement speech Ben Stein does, because he'd be writing angry letters year round. He protested this one because of the honorary degree attached to it.

edit: I don't know how many commencement speeches Ben Stein actually does, but his personal website advocates that specifically, and actually, his commencement speech at Liberty University in 2009 (according to Wikipedia):

"Stein was the commencement speaker for the Liberty University 2009 graduation on Saturday, May 9, at Williams Stadium.[7] At this ceremony, the University awarded him an honorary degree. According to the school, Stein "delivered a message about creationism, patriotism, and value for humanity to graduates and their families." [8]"

So I take back my benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't use it to push his weird fantasy agenda.

 

[Nairume]

So do you guys think someone like Ann Coulter shouldn't be allowed to speak, say if she was coming to a college to do a speech on immigration policy, both legal and illegal?

If the student body is against it, then no, I think she shouldn't be paid and promoted to speak on campus by the university in an official capacity for a publicized campus event (clubs specifically raising money to bring her to club functions is another thing).