Another Seuss Cancellation Thread (Summer 2023)

[Parasaurolophus]

But, as Puget explained upthread, you're the one denying biological reality here, and pretending it is what you want it to be.

[marshwiggle]

But, as Puget explained upthread, you're the one denying biological reality here, and pretending it is what you want it to be.

Really?

Most people are unambiguously biologically male or female.
A tiny *fraction of people have intersex conditions.
Most trans people don't have biological intersex conditions.

What biological reality am I denying?



*source:
Key Issues Facing People With Intersex Traits

It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.

[Parasaurolophus]

Really?

Most people are unambiguously biologically male or female.
A tiny *fraction of people have intersex conditions.
Most trans people don't have biological intersex conditions.

What biological reality am I denying?

Oh boy, this is so far off on the biology that I don't know where to begin. The fact that biological sex is complex and not entirely binary is very well established and not controversial in biology, and has nothing to do with in-between gametes. Even if we set aside sex chromosome assortments other than XX and XY (which do indeed happen), primary and secondary sex characteristics arise through a complex cascade of developmental events that don't play out in the same way in everyone. If you actually want to learn about this (which I seriously doubt, but I try to think the best of people), I'd highly recommend this as a starting point: https://radiolab.org/series/radiolab-presents-gonads/

[Wahoo Redux]

What does that have to do with being able to describe biological reality?

Just because there are airplanes and wingsuits doesn't mean it makes any sense to say that humans are avian. To say that humans can fly, but not like birds do, doesn't "harm" humans who want to be able to fly. And if a toddler thinks they can fly like Superman, no parent is going to let them jump off the roof to "support" their superhero identity. But a parent may pay for the kid's flying lessons a few years later. Ambiguating language so that there's no distinction between being able to fly like Superman and being able to fly in an airplane would be stupid and dangerous.

It doesn't help anyone to pretend that reality can be whatever they wish it to be.

Ah, another gratuitous analogy.  Did you take the Canadian equivalent to composition 101 back in the day?

Let's put it this way: so what?  Who cares if a dude transitions to woman or a woman transitions to man?  So what?  Who cares if a man changes into women's clothing and says, "I'm in the wrong body?"

Certain people will exercise their bigotry despite the science.  Puget did say:

he fact that biological sex is complex and not entirely binary is very well established and not controversial in biology, and has nothing to do with in-between gametes. Even if we set aside sex chromosome assortments other than XX and XY (which do indeed happen), primary and secondary sex characteristics arise through a complex cascade of developmental events that don't play out in the same way in everyone. If you actually want to learn about this (which I seriously doubt, but I try to think the best of people),

And here you are, pretending science does not exist because it is inconvenient.  Aren't you a scientist?

Part of my afternoon was spent at a talk delivered by an author on the current Texas book ban list.  He is, of course, gay, and his books, while never pornographic, have gay characters in them.  He's won awards and published with major houses----but nope, gay!  Wingnut heads explode.

Let's try an analogy: Let's say there is a fella (an otherwise intelligent, pleasant, and sensitive dude) who makes an analogy.  Our fella argues that "If one can be freaked out by clowns, why can't I be freaked out by a man in a dress?"  Well, on the one hand, our fella is right in that we are allowed to have our own opinions and beliefs in this society.  He can be afraid of both clowns and transvestites if he wants.

The question in this analogy is: is this sane?  Or is this wingnutty?

A clown is simply a performer in a costume and a little bit of greasepaint.  She or he / him or her may have a disquieting appearance, but that is the just part of the act.  There is no rational reason to be freaked out by a clown without some actual threat (say, a clown with a gun or Stephen King's Pennywise).  But some people are.  Doctors call that "Coulrophobia."  A "phobia" is defined as "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something."  People can get treatment for clown-fear.  It is good to quash an irrational belief.

So, in our analogy, clowns equate to men in dresses; fear of clowns is an irrational phobia; ergo, fear of men in dresses must also be a phobia, an extreme and irrational fear.

Clinging to an extreme and irrational fear because of political or religious reasons is a wingnutty thing to do because wingnuts, by definition, are more susceptible to propaganda and alternative facts than they are to actual facts. 

Wingnuts tend to see what they want to see because they are in the throes of a phobia, and there is a weird facet of phobias which cause sufferers to cling to their irrationality, probably out of fear (but who knows?).


One can say the same thing about homophobic people who insist that men wearing dresses "sexualize" the situation----even though there is nothing more inherently sexual about an everyday dress than there is about a business suit. 

So, do you kind of see where this is going and how it answers your questions about "wingnuts?"

[Puget]

But, as Puget explained upthread, you're the one denying biological reality here, and pretending it is what you want it to be.

Really?

Most people are unambiguously biologically male or female.
A tiny *fraction of people have intersex conditions.
Most trans people don't have biological intersex conditions.

What biological reality am I denying?



*source:
Key Issues Facing People With Intersex Traits

It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.

How about this-- you listen to the podcasts I linked to (they are entertaining! you don't even need to read!) and THEN you can come back and talk biology. If you just keep shouting the same things without bothering to educate yourself even a little, there really is no point in any further discussion with you.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Florida Professors Win Court Costs After Being Silenced as Witnesses

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Texas College Wins Free Speech Lawsuit

[marshwiggle]

IHE: Texas College Wins Free Speech Lawsuit

A somewhat ironic point from the article in the The Dallas Morning News

Phillips claimed his contract was not being renewed after speaking up about Collin College's COVID-19 protocols, encouraging students to take precautions against the virus and his involvement in efforts to remove Confederate statues from Dallas.

The article in Inside Higher Ed refers to the covid protocol part, but not the removing statues part. It seems at least possible that the latter played at least somewhat of a role.

(And, as I noted, arguing for free speech while arguing for the removal of statues is complex, to say the least.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Just curious, how is removing a statue from public land a complex free speech issue? 

[apl68]

Just curious, how is removing a statue from public land a complex free speech issue? 

Well, a monument is a form of embodied speech.  Those who don't like it may feel oppressed or threatened by it.  Those who consider the monument a part of their heritage will consider the removal of the monument a threat and an effort to deprive them of a part of their heritage. 

This is why I've felt that we would do better simply to add monuments in our public places to those in society who've been slighted or under-represented in the past, instead of insisting that our existing monuments be removed in the process.  That would create less of an all-or-nothing, you-must-lose-so-that-I-can-win struggle.

[marshwiggle]

Just curious, how is removing a statue from public land a complex free speech issue? 

I'm with the people who favour adding information for context. So, instead of removing a statue, add a plaque that explains how the situation is more complex that past generations might have thought, especially if the person's "problematic" views were common at the time, and if the person did not personally encourage or engage in things like genocide. For instance, if there is a statue in Germany of a soldier who, during WWII, rescued a bunch of people from a bombed building, then I would be for keeping it, even though the person was technically a Nazi, and on other occasions killed people for his country. On the other hand, a statue of Hitler or one of his colleagues I would have no problem being removed.

[Wahoo Redux]

AAUP Statement: Polarizing Times Demand Robust Academic Freedom

Today, the integrity of research, teaching, and learning in US higher education is under sustained attack. In the aftermath of the events of October 7, 2023, powerful campus outsiders—including donors, legislators, and well-funded political organizations—have escalated demands that institutions crack down on what can be said or expressed on campus.

Since its founding in 1915, the American Association of University Professors has been the most prominent guardian of academic freedom for faculty and students. The AAUP has developed and promulgated standards to define, defend, and strengthen that freedom within the world of higher education. In our recent statement on academic freedom in the context of the current crisis in the Middle East, Academic Freedom in Times of War, the AAUP reasserted those standards, stressing that "institutional authorities must refrain from sanctioning faculty members for expressing politically controversial views and should instead defend their right, under principles of academic freedom, to do so." Yet today, many colleges and universities are not only failing to protect academic freedom, they are actively undermining its scope and meaning.

By acceding to external political pressures and demands for political censorship instead of encouraging the utmost freedom of discussion, college and university administrations abandon their own responsibility for protecting the academic community's central mission of education, research, and service to the broader society and to the public good. Administrators who claim to defend academic freedom and then condemn the content of faculty and student speech and expression that it should protect risk chilling speech and expression and eroding the very academic freedom that they claim to protect.

As recent AAUP statements, investigations, and reports have made clear, much current suppression of faculty and students' rights of expression and association is tied to political campaigns "to restrict the public education curriculum and to portray some forms of public education as a social harm" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). Attempts to ban critical race theory, as well as efforts to discredit the teaching of US history—particularly histories of empire, slavery, gender, and sexuality—thus form the context within which the current controversies surrounding the turmoil in the Middle East unfold on college and university campuses. The political climate of fear those campaigns produced has prompted some college and university administrations to constrain faculty autonomy and academic freedom. They have unilaterally changed curricula, created academic programs and advisory/policymaking bodies without faculty consultation, and canceled classes, speaker invitations, and public events. After October 7, as external demands for action escalated, academic administrators criticized, investigated, suspended, or fired outspoken faculty and staff members who expressed unpopular views. These violations of academic freedom and shared governance now undermine the ability of faculty members to make educational decisions about their teaching and research without fear of outside intervention or reprisal.

The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic. As institutional leaders combat discrimination and uphold principles of community, they should not lose sight of how "[p]roponents of overly broad definitions of antisemitism and proponents of eliminating teaching about the history of racial and other violence share a desire to mobilize the government to enforce particular, emaciated accounts of history, harm, and injury" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). These efforts to control what is thought, said, taught, and researched are antithetical to the educational mission of a university and the democratic values upon which it rests.

The AAUP therefore calls on college and university administrations to:

Recommit themselves to fully protecting the academic freedom of their faculties to teach, conduct research, and speak out about important issues both on and off campus, as called for in Academic Freedom in Times of War.
Protect the freedom of students to express their positions on such issues on and off campus. Students should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests, and students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately, in the words of the AAUP's Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
Safeguard the independence of colleges and universities by refusing to comply with demands from politicians, trustees, donors, faculty members, students and their parents, alumni, or other parties that would interfere with academic freedom.
Just as we condemn all incursions on academic freedom by overzealous institutions or external actors, the AAUP condemns the climate of intimidation that now attempts to silence people who express unpopular views on the current conflict in the Middle East. College and university leaders have no obligation to speak out on the most controversial issues of the day. Their duty is to protect the academic freedom, free speech, and associational rights of faculty and students to speak on all topics of public or political interest without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or punishment.

Publication Date:
Wednesday, November 15, 2023

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Iowa Regents Approve DEI Cuts

The Iowa Board of Regents voted last week to cut back on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the state's three public universities, KCRG.com reported.

The regents approved a slate of 10 recommendations from a study group formed to review current policies at the behest of Governor Kim Reynolds, which essentially eliminate all DEI efforts that are not essential for the institutions' compliance or accreditation.

<snip>

In approving the recommendations, the board disregarded the results of a forum that found the overwhelming majority of students and faculty consider DEI programs "critically important."

[marshwiggle]

AAUP Statement: Polarizing Times Demand Robust Academic Freedom

Today, the integrity of research, teaching, and learning in US higher education is under sustained attack. In the aftermath of the events of October 7, 2023, powerful campus outsiders—including donors, legislators, and well-funded political organizations—have escalated demands that institutions crack down on what can be said or expressed on campus.

Since its founding in 1915, the American Association of University Professors has been the most prominent guardian of academic freedom for faculty and students. The AAUP has developed and promulgated standards to define, defend, and strengthen that freedom within the world of higher education. In our recent statement on academic freedom in the context of the current crisis in the Middle East, Academic Freedom in Times of War, the AAUP reasserted those standards, stressing that "institutional authorities must refrain from sanctioning faculty members for expressing politically controversial views and should instead defend their right, under principles of academic freedom, to do so." Yet today, many colleges and universities are not only failing to protect academic freedom, they are actively undermining its scope and meaning.

By acceding to external political pressures and demands for political censorship instead of encouraging the utmost freedom of discussion, college and university administrations abandon their own responsibility for protecting the academic community's central mission of education, research, and service to the broader society and to the public good. Administrators who claim to defend academic freedom and then condemn the content of faculty and student speech and expression that it should protect risk chilling speech and expression and eroding the very academic freedom that they claim to protect.

As recent AAUP statements, investigations, and reports have made clear, much current suppression of faculty and students' rights of expression and association is tied to political campaigns "to restrict the public education curriculum and to portray some forms of public education as a social harm" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). Attempts to ban critical race theory, as well as efforts to discredit the teaching of US history—particularly histories of empire, slavery, gender, and sexuality—thus form the context within which the current controversies surrounding the turmoil in the Middle East unfold on college and university campuses. The political climate of fear those campaigns produced has prompted some college and university administrations to constrain faculty autonomy and academic freedom. They have unilaterally changed curricula, created academic programs and advisory/policymaking bodies without faculty consultation, and canceled classes, speaker invitations, and public events. After October 7, as external demands for action escalated, academic administrators criticized, investigated, suspended, or fired outspoken faculty and staff members who expressed unpopular views. These violations of academic freedom and shared governance now undermine the ability of faculty members to make educational decisions about their teaching and research without fear of outside intervention or reprisal.

The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic. As institutional leaders combat discrimination and uphold principles of community, they should not lose sight of how "[p]roponents of overly broad definitions of antisemitism and proponents of eliminating teaching about the history of racial and other violence share a desire to mobilize the government to enforce particular, emaciated accounts of history, harm, and injury" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). These efforts to control what is thought, said, taught, and researched are antithetical to the educational mission of a university and the democratic values upon which it rests.

The AAUP therefore calls on college and university administrations to:

Recommit themselves to fully protecting the academic freedom of their faculties to teach, conduct research, and speak out about important issues both on and off campus, as called for in Academic Freedom in Times of War.
Protect the freedom of students to express their positions on such issues on and off campus. Students should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests, and students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately, in the words of the AAUP's Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
Safeguard the independence of colleges and universities by refusing to comply with demands from politicians, trustees, donors, faculty members, students and their parents, alumni, or other parties that would interfere with academic freedom.
Just as we condemn all incursions on academic freedom by overzealous institutions or external actors, the AAUP condemns the climate of intimidation that now attempts to silence people who express unpopular views on the current conflict in the Middle East. College and university leaders have no obligation to speak out on the most controversial issues of the day. Their duty is to protect the academic freedom, free speech, and associational rights of faculty and students to speak on all topics of public or political interest without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or punishment.

Publication Date:
Wednesday, November 15, 2023

It's kind of ironic that, in arguing for free speech, the only examples they give of endangered speech in the current climate are those which are against Israel. There are surely numerous examples that could be given from supporters of both sides in the conflict wishing to silence their opponents. Presenting examples of both would be much better for bolstering their arguments as a matter of principal, rather than simply as support of what they identify as a particular unpopular position.

[nebo113]

The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.

Marshy????