So, I finally delivered my long-delayed talk Changing “Sex” in the College. All seemed to go well (no demonstrations or what have you) and I was gearing up to finish the article version (yes, it’s “peer-reviewed” work) when I starting receiving emails from students informing me that my name was appearing on chat groups that they were members of. One of these also pointed out that a group of postgraduate students had sent an Open Letter to the Vice Chancellor and Principle (same person) and College Secretary denouncing my talk as transphobic (what else?!). In case you’d like to add your name to the growing list of “co-signatories” it’s here. I’m all for young people venting their rage against a world they can do little to influence, let alone control, but a couple of points from the letter are worth noting.
As LGBTQ+ members of the academic community at Royal Holloway and concerned allies, we are writing to express our profound objection to events being held on campus by academic staff that advocate “scepticism” towards our trans colleagues and students.
In the talk I outlined a position I called “gender scepticism”. My aim in doing so was to demonstrate that it’s incumbent upon those who wish to change the meaning of “sex” to offer arguments (reasons) that demonstrate its benefits. And I motivated that point by going through the recent ruling from the Supreme Court concluding that the common sense understanding of “sex” is binary and biological. I also pointed out that the presumed right to “self-identify” has no basis in law. However, since it appears to have become the de facto standard for qualifying for the protected characteristic of “transsexual person” it has undermined the status of the very people that the Gender Recognition Act was introduced originally to protect (post-operative transsexuals). Of course, this was all unknown to the framers of this letter because they didn’t attend the seminar and I doubt many if any of the co-signatories did either (students not attending lectures?!). But that’s ok, apparently, because:
our academic critique of Dr Gascoigne’s argument is less important than the fact that hosting such events on campus contributes to an environment of hostility towards trans people.
They don’t feel obliged to provide an “academic critique” of my argument because they adhere to the principle that to engage in dialogue of any sort on this topic is to betray the cause. I would actually welcome being shown I was wrong because scepticism comes from skepsis, meaning inquiry. But they are not interested in inquiry. They are—simply put—fundamentalists, issuing statements “ex cathedra” and offering dire warnings about the price of failing to heed their wailings and moanings! They seem quite happy contributing towards an environment of hostility towards people who disagree with them (most importantly, other students).
The attempt to position a campaign against rights and freedoms as serious academic enquiry is shameful and undermines the college’s reputation for rigorous research. It not only harms the academic standard of the research conducted at the college as a whole, it also explicitly undermines the rigorous research conducted by feminist and gender scholars across the college.
Ohh? So it is about “serious academic enquiry” and “rigorous research” after all! One might have thought that confidence that someone’s research wasn’t “rigorous” might issue from having some sort of familiarity with that research. Ahh, but you can’t expect that familiarity because of the “no engagement” principle. That’s a rather paradoxical position to adopt. I should add that I didn’t campaign for anything (I argued for certain points and against others), and certainly not against anyone’s “rights and freedoms”. But that is for my readers’ benefit of course, since those who signed the letter can’t risk discovering that their “leap of faith” is into an abyss of discursive darkness:
despite Dr Gascoigne’s attempts to distinguish his work as trans-sceptical, we see no reason not to characterise it as transphobic.
Of course they see no reason! The elect don’t need reason because they have access to truth beyond reason.
I don’t want to go on about this for too long but I’ll add two related points. The first appears here:
Dr Gascoigne is an active member of teaching staff and thus in a position to influence students’ progression or degree awards. We have therefore allowed the option for anonymous signatures. We would encourage initials for those who are comfortable, or otherwise a description of the co-signatory’s relation to the college, e.g. “first year Philosophy student”.
Yes, can you believe it! These students think that I’m going to punish anyone who disagrees with me! I’m going to “influence” their progression or degree awards. This would be a touching insight into how little students know about academic procedures if it didn’t demonstrate yet again the dangers of absolutism. These students don’t know me and I don’t know them, but because they are in possession of the only truth which in their eyes has a bearing on how to evaluate someone’s character they feel empowered to assume that I am malevolent and vindictive (again, like all the other folk in the world who take a different view).
It saddens me a little, I confess, that 30 years of teaching have lead to this. But… only saddens and only a little. What angers me is the fact that three of my colleagues apparently signed this open letter, endorsing in the process not just the ludicrous anti-intellectualism of its message but also by implication (they chose not to name themselves but to make a point of giving their titles) its assessment of my character. Thanks guys. I don’t know who you are as once again I find myself on the wrong end of a cowardly smear. But I’d hazard your names probably also appear on this list.
I love u pookie MWAH MWAH
The use of the word "shameful" by these activists is interesting. The Pride movement tells us that we must not kink-shame or slut-shame. But it seems we are encouraged to mind-shame people for asking obvious questions.