Academic Freedom and Cancel Culture

[mahagonny]

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

Being white, male and cisgender bothers plenty of people. I used to be one and I know.

ETA: But then, they deserve to be bothered. And I kind of appreciate how they're making it impossible for the democrats to win.

...

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

'''

Completely agreed.

OTOH, you can say this and I can believe you, because since you're a libertarian, this is part of a coherent view.

[marshwiggle]

I just cannot figure out why that would be a legitimate commentary.  There is no legitimate, quantifiable proof that the concept of trans-women harms women.

What about the case of the biological male sex offender who identified as trans, was placed in a women's prison and then assaulted women inmates?

[downer]

It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons
--are women put at risk in safe spaces for women-only, such as shelters for women who have experienced spousal and partner abuse, when males who self-ID as women are allowed in
--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

The big conceptual question is whether innate gender identity is something that makes any sense, as distinct from assigned gender roles and gender stereotypes.

There are also more political issues of balancing rights of groups of females who don't want to share traditionally female-only spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms with males, with the rights of trans girls and women. The basis of the aversion to sharing the space may also be an issue, and sometimes religious beliefs and practices come in. Some religions make a very big deal about sex differences. Lots of societies are very protective of religious rights. Religious practices also shade into cultural practices.

[mahagonny]

--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

Or lefty-activist music teachers who have the kid in private and delve into transgender discussion when they should be learning scales or sonatinas, laying the groundwork for the problem you identify.

I can't find it now, but I believe a congressman (Tom Cotton?) has some new legislation in the works to address this. Bringing those deplorables, er, I mean parents, into the situation for input.

[Wahoo Redux]

OTOH, you can say this and I can believe you, because since you're a libertarian, this is part of a coherent view.

Uh...what!?

[Wahoo Redux]

It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons
--are women put at risk in safe spaces for women-only, such as shelters for women who have experienced spousal and partner abuse, when males who self-ID as women are allowed in
--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

The big conceptual question is whether innate gender identity is something that makes any sense, as distinct from assigned gender roles and gender stereotypes.

There are also more political issues of balancing rights of groups of females who don't want to share traditionally female-only spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms with males, with the rights of trans girls and women. The basis of the aversion to sharing the space may also be an issue, and sometimes religious beliefs and practices come in. Some religions make a very big deal about sex differences. Lots of societies are very protective of religious rights. Religious practices also shade into cultural practices.

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

This sounds to me like a very typical catalogue of hypotheticals to justify prejudice. 

Religions may make a big deal about sexuality all they want----and tell their adherents to keep their beliefs out of my, and everyone else's, way.  Worship on your own time.

We might balance your paranoia with some REAL issues-----men assaulting women at college parties (obviously, since gender is a thing here); the many problems having to do with automobiles; guns; having alcohol readily available (isn't it something like 60% of crime is alcohol related? what happens at college parties when men and women drink together?)------and see how they stack up with the list overhead and its paranoid non sequiturs. 

[mahagonny]

OTOH, you can say this and I can believe you, because since you're a libertarian, this is part of a coherent view.

Uh...what!?

White cisgender straight males are walking systems of oppression. It doesn't pay to trust them. So how can you say

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

[Parasaurolophus]

It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons
--are women put at risk in safe spaces for women-only, such as shelters for women who have experienced spousal and partner abuse, when males who self-ID as women are allowed in
--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

The big conceptual question is whether innate gender identity is something that makes any sense, as distinct from assigned gender roles and gender stereotypes.

There are also more political issues of balancing rights of groups of females who don't want to share traditionally female-only spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms with males, with the rights of trans girls and women. The basis of the aversion to sharing the space may also be an issue, and sometimes religious beliefs and practices come in. Some religions make a very big deal about sex differences. Lots of societies are very protective of religious rights. Religious practices also shade into cultural practices.

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

This sounds to me like a very typical catalogue of hypotheticals to justify prejudice. 

Religions may make a big deal about sexuality all they want----and tell their adherents to keep their beliefs out of my, and everyone else's, way.  Worship on your own time.

We might balance your paranoia with some REAL issues-----men assaulting women at college parties (obviously, since gender is a thing here); the many problems having to do with automobiles; guns; having alcohol readily available (isn't it something like 60% of crime is alcohol related? what happens at college parties when men and women drink together?)------and see how they stack up with the list overhead and its paranoid non sequiturs.

Or, indeed, the base rate of rape and sexual assault in prisons. (Hint: it's omnipresent.)

[marshwiggle]

We might balance your paranoia with some REAL issues-----men assaulting women at college parties (obviously, since gender is a thing here); the many problems having to do with automobiles; guns; having alcohol readily available (isn't it something like 60% of crime is alcohol related? what happens at college parties when men and women drink together?)------and see how they stack up with the list overhead and its paranoid non sequiturs.

These issues are "non-sequiturs"?

It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women

From the guardian:

The lawsuit centers on two trans sprinters, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, who have frequently outperformed their cisgender competitors.

Miller and Andraya have combined to win 15 girls' state indoor or outdoor championship races since 2017, according to the lawsuit.

The three plaintiffs have competed directly against them, almost always losing to Miller and usually behind Yearwood. Mitchell finished third in the 2019 state championship in the girls' 55-meter indoor track competition, behind Miller and Yearwood.

Now if you'll show me the transmen athletes who are similarly crushing biological men, I'll be glad to reconsider. (Or, alternatively, support eliminating separate "mens" and "womens" sports, and just have everyone compete together since biology is irrelevant.)

--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons

From https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

This is the report we published in October 2017. Since that time the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have confirmed by Freedom of Information requests that 60 of the 125 transgender prisoners known to be in prison in England and Wales are convicted sex offenders.

Paranoid non-sequitur?

[Parasaurolophus]

Perhaps I was wrong about Stock's resignation: looks like she's in on a big grift.

[financeguy]

None of these arguments are relevant.  Biology is a fact regardless of your feelings, the result of a sporting match, someone's desire for an inclusive environment, or someone else's religious dogma.

[history_grrrl]

Perhaps it's too late, but can we get back to the issue of whether a faculty member whose views some/many find objectionable - but who hasn't treated people badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc. - should be "allowed" to keep working? In this way, the Stock and Sheng cases differ in that Sheng actually *did something* in his classroom that angered some students; I don't know if Stock did anything specific in her classes to achieve that result. But does it matter? In the cases that occurred on my campus, one involved a faculty member who published something obnoxious in a journal.

I'm still stuck on the idea that removing people from their jobs - or creating conditions that make it impossible for them to function in their workplace - isn't acceptable even if those who want them out think they are dicks. Where do we draw the line, if that is even possible?

[mahagonny]

Perhaps it's too late, but can we get back to the issue of whether a faculty member whose views some/many find objectionable - but who hasn't treated people badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc. - should be "allowed" to keep working? In this way, the Stock and Sheng cases differ in that Sheng actually *did something* in his classroom that angered some students; I don't know if Stock did anything specific in her classes to achieve that result. But does it matter? In the cases that occurred on my campus, one involved a faculty member who published something obnoxious in a journal.

I'm still stuck on the idea that removing people from their jobs - or creating conditions that make it impossible for them to function in their workplace - isn't acceptable even if those who want them out think they are dicks. Where do we draw the line, if that is even possible?

Right. Or if someone thinks they are cunts. There has to be a valid reason.

[marshwiggle]

I'm still stuck on the idea that removing people from their jobs - or creating conditions that make it impossible for them to function in their workplace - isn't acceptable even if those who want them out think they are dicks. Where do we draw the line, if that is even possible?

The historical record on places where this is/was normal speaks pretty much for itself about what kind of society this produces.

[downer]

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020