Free speech at university: Intolerance of intolerance

[AlphaMonster 1,806]

You made very valid point especially regarding the first part, some association on campus that pretend to provide safe space are sometimes policing way too much and in a way being exclusive instead of inclusive. Ideally the idea of a safe space is that people feel safe to express their opinion even if they are different as long as they don't spread any hatred. But sometimes people will jump to the excuse of you being offensive when you simply have a diverging opinion. I think the student union should make public the criteria they have to allow speaker or not and how they may differ from laws of the country (as long as respecting them but for example some could say they don't invite any religious group to speak as you mentioned)

Regarding religion it's interesting, I don't know what to think, at my uni for example the different union such as muslim or sikh and such are free to organise event that people can choose to attend. I guess as long as the event is focusing on religion it's ok but if you would invite a christian group to a talk about homos-xuality indeed it could spread a message of exclusion towards homos-xuals.. I don't know it's quite complex. 

But overall my point was just that sjw are sometimes guilty of censoring others in the name of being tolerant.

I am a University of Toronto student. To give an example of what you just said... I once went to an LGBT event on campus, and I said boy at some point, and one the executive board members of that specific group told me that it was very offensive, I should've said male-bodied... =D 

For the second part, religion is especially a more delicate issue. Of course, they are able to say whatever they want among themselves... But I don't know to what extent religions dogmas should be spoken in the public. I remember couple years ago US or in a european country there was a discussion about priest's not being allowed to share their opinions about homos-xuality ... 

There was theatre piece playing on campus last year, it was called Jesus Christ Superstar, University Council banned it because it was homophobic. At this point, I don't know what to say. I know their belief does not represent anything scientific, rational, or substantiated but they should still be able to share their opinions. On the other hand, if I was watching it, I wouldn't hesitate to yell "Go back to 15th century you medieval peasants" depending on level of homophobia it has =D

[TiphEret 1,320]

I am a University of Toronto student. To give an example of what you just said... I once went to an LGBT event on campus, and I said boy at some point, and one the executive board members of that specific group told me that it was very offensive, I should've said male-bodied... =D 

For the second part, religion is especially a more delicate issue. Of course, they are able to say whatever they want among themselves... But I don't know to what extent religions dogmas should be spoken in the public. I remember couple years ago US or in a european country there was a discussion about priest's not being allowed to share their opinions about homos-xuality ... 

There was theatre piece playing on campus last year, it was called Jesus Christ Superstar, University Council banned it because it was homophobic. At this point, I don't know what to say. I know their belief does not represent anything scientific, rational, or substantiated but they should still be able to share their opinions. On the other hand, if I was watching it, I wouldn't hesitate to yell "Go back to 15th century you medieval peasants" depending on level of homophobia it has =D

Ahh cool I a student in Montreal and well I know this kind of experience I have been to the queer event of the uni and these people are censoring you more than the traditional catholic in France lol, what an irony! 

Well it's funny what you say in the latter because I have seen that play and even if one character is depicted as overly feminine (which could imply homos-xuality) I don't think it's homophobic and even if it was well homophobia existed then I mean we don't forbid 12 years old slavery saying it's racist right? 

[politicqxs 358]

 

Incident on a Moscow Streetcar

“During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility. It was on a Moscow streetcar. Several of us Black students had boarded the car…It was after rush hour and the car was only half filled with Russian strangers. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the car. It was a citizen’s arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country?”
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. It was decided to take the culprit to the police station, which was a few blocks ahead. Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges. 
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens”, said a young man, “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the station and press charges against this man.” 
…The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and was apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station. The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he’d said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gentlemen.” We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter. “No,” said the commandant, “we’ll keep him here overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him.” 

Harry Haywood, Black Bolshevik: Autobiography of an Afro-American Communist. 

 

[field 98]

 

Harry Haywood, Black Bolshevik: Autobiography of an Afro-American Communist. 

Year?

[Bebe 17,289]

I agree that there should be different pointviews, but radical feminism understood as Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is not acceptable at all. Developing a trans-hate propaganda, as well as trans people shaming is absolutely, utterly wrong and -it's obvious- that she should be banned. Come on, it's useful for people to know about different point of views - even those who aren't unacceptable, but promoting transphobia in an university where people gets taught, apart from its degree, at tolerance and real world issues is not the right way to do it. 

The Internet is, somehow, kind of free, as you can write almost whatever you want in a blog. Free books of these ideas could be available in order for these people to express their disgusting ideas

Imagine this is about gay people being enslavered and promoting gay people slavery. Would you be in favour? That's how most transgendered people feel towards people not @accepting their real gender and getting them inside a box

Promoting transphobia is as bad as promoting racism, homophobia or able ism.

I hate when people try to use "freedom of speech", "we live in a free country, man" as an argumnent when it comes to defend their XVI century oppressive ****. You're free to express yourself but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose people your point of views through manipulation' skills or events held as places like schools or universities.

P.S.: Real world isn't a safe place but Universities / education are, in general,  the centerpiece of sharping the human behaviour and making people see the real world and fight against these issues. How are you going to be able to make people fight oppression if they receive f**** transphobia propaganda 

 

 

Look, I don't like Germaine Greer's opinions on Trans individuals and I don't support them one bit.

In fairness to her though, she has had a long and incredible career fighting for women and she has penned many incredible books such as The Female Eunuch which I recommend reading. While it's fair to argue her position is wrong, calling her transphobic is a little bit much.

She is a valuable intellectual with a lot to offer, her remarks on trans people seem horrendous and outdated at first look but it's not really representative of what she is saying. People are painting her as if she is some radical anti-trans activist who hates trans people and spends her life debating on them. That is not representative of what she does.

This is what she said “JUST because you lop off your **** and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a ****ing woman” What people are interpreting that as is "Trans women are not women!!" While ignoring the next part of her statement "‘I just don’t think that surgery turns a man into a woman. (…) I mean, an un-man is not necessarily a woman."

Greer is not saying that MTF people are stuck being men, no matter how they feel, what they choose, how they are seen, or how they are treated. She is not saying that the oppression of transgendered people has nothing in common with the oppression of women.  She is saying that ceasing to be a man does not make one a woman. These things aren’t black or white.

Germaine Greer does not think new clothes, new hormones, or s-x-reassignment surgery can turn men into women, she is in line with the school of thought of Simone de Beauvoir.  Gender is not fixed at birth and no one is born a woman. Possibly, no one is even born female. Sex is cluster-concept, a bundle of attributes, some of which do not develop until puberty or later. And gender is another cluster-concept. Gender is constituted by norms and values that are conventionally considered appropriate for people of a given s-x. Gender is a lot more vague than s-x, and a lot more historically and geographically variable.

But gender has another interesting feature.  It is path dependent.  To be a woman is for the pertinent norms and values to apply a result of a certain life history. Being a woman is not only ‘socially constructed’, as they say, it is also constructed by the path from one’s past to one’s present.  In our society, to be a woman is to have arrived there by a certain route: for instance, by having been given a girl’s name, by having been made to wear girl’s clothes, by having been excluded from boys’ activities, by having made certain adaptations to the onset of puberty, and by having been seen and evaluated in specific ways. That is why the social significance of being a penis-free person is different for those who never had a penis than it is for those who used to have one and then cut it off.

She is basically saying that a lack of a penis is not what makes a woman a woman, wearing a dress does not make a woman a woman. What makes a woman a woman is far more complicated than that. Germaine did say that she calls Trans people by their proper pronouns out of respect and I am sure she is able to recognise trans discrimination as much as the next person. Whether you agree with her or not, to label her as transphobic and exclusionary is misleading.

She used to be the only female in debates against the most misogynistic and s-xist men around in universities. Those men were never banned for misogyny even though the debates were actually about women's liberation. Germaine Greer doesn't give speeches on Trans people, so to ban her on one remark taken out of context and twisted into something it's not is just silly.

If people find offence in her comments, It is not their job to call for her to be silenced, but to explain how and why Greer’s ideological framework, which was once radical, fails to position her consistently as a champion of the oppressed.