A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities

[Alben Barkley]

https://www.economist.com/international/2021/06/05/a-backlash-against-gender-ideology-is-starting-in-universities

Basically the TL;DR for those who can’t get past the paywall is that in both the US and UK, more “gender critical” academics who reject “gender ideology” (the idea that self-identified gender trumps biological sex) are speaking out, facing censorship attempts and other sanctions from their universities, only to win subsequent appeals (legal and otherwise). Apparently even some student groups (mostly feminists) are now backing up “gender critical” professors at some universities, though both the students and staff face backlash and social ostracism for these views, describing a “culture of fear.”

I do think there’s been a slow but sure change in how this subject has been viewed lately, personally. It’s no longer 100% accept everything we say without question or get un-personed, some cracks are starting to form. Probably certain activists brought that on themselves by attempting to shut down anything and everything that suggests gender transition is always the right solution for every person with doubts, like trying to cancel a 60 Minutes special about people who detransitioned recently. Even though it was overall pro-trans. The backlash to that kind of radical and unreasonable dogmatism seems to finally be catching up to them.

[Red Velvet]

Great.

Not because there’s something wrong with it, I just think every idea should be open for criticism, discussions and if necessary improvements. If the idea is good, it will eventually spread through these conversations.

What I don’t like is how some people act like dissent is “being a bigot” as if everyone wasn’t constantly changing and transforming their views the more they learn and talk about things.

I don’t like stuff of the kind of “If you’re ____ then you can’t have an opinion”. Even if I’m discussing with a homophobe saying ignorant stuff that hurts me, I’ll more likely point where’s he’s wrong or better, simply ignore him because I’m not obligated to go through such conversations. But saying people can’t have an opinion about something as if there was some moral hierarchy sounds condescending as hell.

If someone says that to me, I’ll just hate their arrogant ass instead of trying to understand their positions.

[Horus]

A positive development, debate was getting far too stifled. What does it even mean to "feel" like a man or a woman? I have never "felt" like a man. I simply am a man. The only answer I ever get is that it varies from person to person. We are what we are and we like what we like.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

To be fair, some strands of activism on this issue don't exactly have a hard time sounding condescending...
Telling people they can't have an opinion besides your correct one and telling them they are x and y pejorative terms is not a way to convince them to join your cause.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The term "gender ideology" is only used by authoritarian crackpots who think that the idea of gender existing separately from sex is an affront to their reactionary views of social order. As a trans person myself I'm beyond sick of being made to constantly justify the bare nature of my existence when the parameters of my experience of living in the wrong body are already so harrowing, and facing discrimination on top of it is deeply offensive and existentially exhausting. Being told that my existence is "ideology" is patronizing, and I don't care whether braindead "academics" like Richard Dawkins or people like the OP of this thread with backwards noble-savage conceptions of working people or ethnic minorities are those dishing it out. Discrimination can only be ameliorated through greater understanding, not suppressing deviation from societal expectations.

I agree that transitioning isn't always the answer, and there are people here who can explain that better than I can, but it sounds like you're swinging too far in the other direction and trying to scare people off of even considering that another way is possible for them. I don't always have the most politically correct takes on issues related to gender or trans solidarity myself, depending on how my own experience has informed them, but you seem opposed to this for all the wrong reasons.

The Economist can be pretty ghoulish when it comes to covering issues that actually directly affect people rather than spheres of international theater and made-up numbers that are hardly relevant to most people.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

1% or less of the population is transgender and so it's never going to be understood by most people, whose brains match their bodies the second they are born.  Be grateful you do not have to go through all of the crap that comes with being trans.  It's not something any one would ever choose.

I for one am glad that rigid gender roles are being challenged by the youth of today.  If a girl is cheered for being a tomboy and playing football, a boy should never be bullied for wearing pink nail polish.

We never had "gender ideology" when I was in college.  Lately everything colleges teach are being criticized by right-wing conservatives.  Yet many of them are wealthy enough to send their kids to these overpriced schools.

There is always been backlash to LGBTQ people and 2021 seems to be a year of anti-trans attitudes.

[Horus]

1% or less of the population is transgender and so it's never going to be understood by most people, whose brains match their bodies the second they are born.  Be grateful you do not have to go through all of the crap that comes with being trans.  It's not something any one would ever choose.

I for one am glad that rigid gender roles are being challenged by the youth of today.  If a girl is cheered for being a tomboy and playing football, a boy should never be bullied for wearing pink nail polish.

We never had "gender ideology" when I was in college.  Lately everything colleges teach are being criticized by right-wing conservatives.  Yet many of them are wealthy enough to send their kids to these overpriced schools.

There is always been backlash to LGBTQ people and 2021 seems to be a year of anti-trans attitudes.

I don't see how any of this challenges gender roles. If anything it solidifies them. "Oh, you like wearing dresses, you must be a girl in a boy's body." Or vice versa for the girl that likes to play football.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

1% or less of the population is transgender and so it's never going to be understood by most people, whose brains match their bodies the second they are born.  Be grateful you do not have to go through all of the crap that comes with being trans.  It's not something any one would ever choose.

I for one am glad that rigid gender roles are being challenged by the youth of today.  If a girl is cheered for being a tomboy and playing football, a boy should never be bullied for wearing pink nail polish.

We never had "gender ideology" when I was in college.  Lately everything colleges teach are being criticized by right-wing conservatives.  Yet many of them are wealthy enough to send their kids to these overpriced schools.

There is always been backlash to LGBTQ people and 2021 seems to be a year of anti-trans attitudes.

I don't see how any of this challenges gender roles. If anything it solidifies them. "Oh, you like wearing dresses, you must be a girl in a boy's body." Or vice versa for the girl that likes to play football.

That's true.  One can be a boy who is very feminine and for that boy, he might never feel like he wants to live as a girl.

It's becoming muddled, which I think is where some of the confusion is coming from.

[Battista Minola 1616]

I have never heard the expression "gender ideology" used by anyone who wasn't a Christian rightist very absorbed by the culture wars, frequently in combination to a rather liberal use of the term "political correctness" and support to disparate right-wing strongmen, so at a minimum this is a novel development to me.

[Geoffrey Howe]

The term "gender ideology" is only used by authoritarian crackpots who think that the idea of gender existing separately from sex is an affront to their reactionary views of social order. As a trans person myself I'm beyond sick of being made to constantly justify the bare nature of my existence when the parameters of my experience of living in the wrong body are already so harrowing, and facing discrimination on top of it is deeply offensive and existentially exhausting. Being told that my existence is "ideology" is patronizing, and I don't care whether braindead "academics" like Richard Dawkins or people like the OP of this thread with backwards noble-savage conceptions of working people or ethnic minorities are those dishing it out. Discrimination can only be ameliorated through greater understanding, not suppressing deviation from societal expectations.

I agree that transitioning isn't always the answer, and there are people here who can explain that better than I can, but it sounds like you're swinging too far in the other direction and trying to scare people off of even considering that another way is possible for them. I don't always have the most politically correct takes on issues related to gender or trans solidarity myself, depending on how my own experience has informed them, but you seem opposed to this for all the wrong reasons.

The Economist can be pretty ghoulish when it comes to covering issues that actually directly affect people rather than spheres of international theater and made-up numbers that are hardly relevant to most people.

I’ve read the article and it’s mainly not about “gender ideology” or anything around the merits of various views about transgender issues. It’s about the culture in universities that surrounds discussion of it.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I have never heard the expression "gender ideology" used by anyone who wasn't a Christian rightist very absorbed by the culture wars, frequently in combination to a rather liberal use of the term "political correctness" and support to disparate right-wing strongmen, so at a minimum this is a novel development to me.

Hey it's also used by ... Secular people who are also conservative to reactionsry on trans issues, like Dawkins and some posters on this thread

[Хahar 🤔]

This article is a big nothing. The strongest argument it can actually muster is as follows:

In Britain most outspoken gender-critical academics are left-leaning, atheist feminists. Some in America are, too.

It then provides no substantive evidence that this is the case in America, while saying a great deal about British trans discourse. The idea that this British trans discourse has any kind of impact in this country is probably very appealing to readers in Britain, but it's also an obvious lie. I could say more about this but really it's not worth anyone's time.

[Battista Minola 1616]

I have never heard the expression "gender ideology" used by anyone who wasn't a Christian rightist very absorbed by the culture wars, frequently in combination to a rather liberal use of the term "political correctness" and support to disparate right-wing strongmen, so at a minimum this is a novel development to me.

Hey it's also used by ... Secular people who are also conservative to reactionsry on trans issues, like Dawkins and some posters on this thread

Interesting. It goes without saying that I have never paid an ounce of attention to Richard Dawkins.

[LM Brazilian Citizen]

Another person who talked a lot about “gender ideology” was the current president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who in the 2018 campaign spoke exactly the same words in the title of this thread, which “gender ideology” was dominating Brazilian public universities, and Bolsonaro  associated this with the candidate of PT (Worker’s Party), Fernando Haddad.

He said that if Haddad won, there would be books teaching masturbation in schools, as well as “gay kit” and “dick bottle” that would be “implanted” in schools if the PT candidate won.

All of this was powered by massive fake news sent en masse by WhatsApp, with the secret support of people like Steve Bannon.

And it seems that there are people on this forum who call themselves a “progressive” but they could agree with the expressions above if I didn’t say about their origins.

[John Dule]

Oh no, these conservatives are trying to eliminate the influence of documented child abuser and quack pseudoscientist John Money on our academic institutions. How could we possibly live in such an intolerant society

[Geoffrey Howe]

This article is a big nothing. The strongest argument it can actually muster is as follows:

In Britain most outspoken gender-critical academics are left-leaning, atheist feminists. Some in America are, too.

It then provides no substantive evidence  that this is the case in America, while saying a great deal about British trans discourse. The idea that this British trans discourse has any kind of impact in this country is probably very appealing to readers in Britain, but it's also an obvious lie. I could say more about this but really it's not worth anyone's time.

? It’s mainly a report on the state of discourse in British universities. Is it not very likely that “some,” to use their words, “gender-critical” academics are left-leaning feminists?

[Ferguson97]

The term "gender ideology" is only used by authoritarian crackpots who think that the idea of gender existing separately from sex is an affront to their reactionary views of social order. As a trans person myself I'm beyond sick of being made to constantly justify the bare nature of my existence when the parameters of my experience of living in the wrong body are already so harrowing, and facing discrimination on top of it is deeply offensive and existentially exhausting. Being told that my existence is "ideology" is patronizing, and I don't care whether braindead "academics" like Richard Dawkins or people like the OP of this thread with backwards noble-savage conceptions of working people or ethnic minorities are those dishing it out. Discrimination can only be ameliorated through greater understanding, not suppressing deviation from societal expectations.

I agree that transitioning isn't always the answer, and there are people here who can explain that better than I can, but it sounds like you're swinging too far in the other direction and trying to scare people off of even considering that another way is possible for them. I don't always have the most politically correct takes on issues related to gender or trans solidarity myself, depending on how my own experience has informed them, but you seem opposed to this for all the wrong reasons.

The Economist can be pretty ghoulish when it comes to covering issues that actually directly affect people rather than spheres of international theater and made-up numbers that are hardly relevant to most people.

Wonderfully said.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The OP's article appears to hold a rather biased (and decidedly unfriendly) viewpoint when it comes to trans rights.

For example, the article's author considers "terf" a slur - a position typically held only by anti-trans advocates:

They complained that Ms Phoenix was a “transphobe” likely to engage in “hate speech”. A flyer with an image of a gun and text reading “shut the  up, TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) was circulating.

TERF (from Wikipedia)

Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur; some identify themselves as gender critical.[4] Critics of the word TERF say that it has been used in an overly-broad fashion, in insults, and alongside violent rhetoric.[5][6][7][8] In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether or not TERF constitutes a slur.

It also uncritically repeats the (false) claim that the "LGB Alliance" (an anti-trans, and arguably anti-LGB, group and sockpuppet for the socially conservative right) "split from Stonewall". (For context, Stonewall is the biggest LGBT rights organization in Europe and Great Britain.)

The influence of pressure groups exemplifies the other big reason trans ideology has gained a foothold in academia: its elision with the rights of gay people. Many organisations established to defend gay rights have morphed into trans-rights groups. Tamsin Blaxter, a research fellow at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge and a trans woman, says that academia has become a lot more welcoming to trans people, thanks largely to Stonewall. But some gay people disagree with its new focus. In 2019 some supporters split from the group, in part owing to concerns that its stance encourages gay people to redefine themselves as trans (and straight), to form the LGB Alliance. Similar groups have sprung up around the world.

From Stonewall's own site:
Stonewall response to inaccurate reports of splitting

'There is no truth to reports of Stonewall ‘splitting’, so please ignore the alarmist headlines'.

'These stories don’t refer to any current Stonewall staff or trustees.

When it came to recent British elections, the LGB Alliance wasn't concerned about any LGB issues, but had a very keen interest in opposing any trans-supportive positions.
The ‘LGB Alliance’ has 12 questions for potential MPs and none of them are about lesbian, bi or gay issues

But this brave new “gender-critical” alliance doesn’t want you to ask prospective parliamentary candidates about any of those pressing concerns.

In brief, the ‘LGB Alliance’ thinks that the most important questions for LGB people to be concerned with are: stopping children being taught about different gender identities (“confusing and potentially harmful”); removing any references to gender identity or trans issues from schools’ LGBT+ lessons; asking candidates if they are aware of the “dangers of giving experimental medical treatment” to trans kids; banning puberty blockers for trans kids; agreeing that lesbians and gay men should have “the right” not to have sex with trans people; ban trans women from women-only spaces; support LGB groups like the Alliance, who are doing such vital work for the LGB community, to hold meetings; and finally – for Lib Dem candidates only – ask if they still want your vote if you “do not believe that humans can change biological sex”.

One of the LGB Alliance's founders, Bev Jackson, has previously worked with the Heritage Foundation, as did the Gary Powell who spoke at their launch.

While I do not see any author attributed on the page I can read, I will note that Helen Joyce (executive editor at The Economist) has written in defense of the LGB Alliance, and is a noted transphobe.

Those were just the bit where I had some passing knowledge. Whether or not the rest of the claims made are equally inaccurate, I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't care to place a wager in favor of the article's overall accuracy or objectivity.

[Хahar 🤔]

This article is a big nothing. The strongest argument it can actually muster is as follows:

In Britain most outspoken gender-critical academics are left-leaning, atheist feminists. Some in America are, too.

It then provides no substantive evidence that this is the case in America, while saying a great deal about British trans discourse. The idea that this British trans discourse has any kind of impact in this country is probably very appealing to readers in Britain, but it's also an obvious lie. I could say more about this but really it's not worth anyone's time.

? It’s mainly a report on the state of discourse in British universities. Is it not very likely that “some,” to use their words, “gender-critical” academics are left-leaning feminists?

This thread is in the US General Discussion board, the first post in the thread makes claims about "both the US and UK," and the first paragraph of the article makes claims about "universities around the English-speaking world." I am profoundly uninterested in what TERF academics in Britain think and do not think that it is of any relevance to the US General Discussion board.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

This forum can get pretty cringy when it comes to certain areas of discussion, but the general discourse around LGBT & gender issues has to be at or near the top of the list.

Especially when it comes to the T portion.

[DaleCooper]

The conversation on almost anything related to gender in universities has been a disaster for years now, and not just surrounding gender identity issues; in fact, I think it was much worse on the subject of interactions between the sexes, at least when I was in school. I was finishing my undergraduate degree during the initial wave of MeToo stuff, and the narrative was about as cartoonish as the stereotypes would indicate.

Basically, every man is part of the problem. No women can ever do wrong and if they do it's best to ignore it so we don't let anyone think that they're flawed. If a man is accused of something then that accusation is true, no questions asked. Innocent until proven guilty is a sexist principle. If you have any questions then you're part of the problem because you should already know. Every single woman on earth is underprivileged and needs special treatment. Men are taught from birth to be aggressive. I could go on and on, but these were all things that I was first exposed to by activists on campus, not conservative fear-mongering.

Now, I want to make very clear that very very few people on campus actually believed this sh!t. But the people who did were very vocal and, more importantly, had the institutional backing behind them. Conservatives have overstated the amount of people that believe this nonsense, but they didn't invent these issues out of thin air. The reason this argument works for conservatives is because it resonates, and resonates because it's real and it's ridiculous.

[Hammy]

Now, I want to make very clear that very very few people on campus actually believed this sh!t. But the people who did were very vocal and, more importantly, had the institutional backing behind them. Conservatives have overstated the amount of people that believe this nonsense, but they didn't invent these issues out of thin air. The reason this argument works for conservatives is because it resonates, and resonates because it's real and it's ridiculous.

You think conservatives who spend every waking minute saying everyone who isn't them isn't a real American or is some cultural threat and tried to stage a violent coup and let a virus run rampant--all based on conspiracy theories--wouldn't make stuff up about the most marginalized groups of society? This stuff resonates with conservatives not because it has credibility, but because conservatives are living in their own alternate reality where they're the victims and everyone who doesn't fit their view of 'normal' is the oppressor.


It's amazing how quickly Dems have forgotten this a mere five months after Trump left office and treat this garbage that they've been spewing for years--often accompanied by sock-puppet 'activist' groups that are created solely to agree with them--is suddenly true and valid just because it's no longer coming from a Trump white house.

[afleitch]

Well in the UK we have anti-trans newspaper articles daily (and that's not an exaggeration), a new media assault on Stonewall the biggest LBGT rights charity, the government disbanding it's own LGBT task force, stalling on banning conversion therapy, 'Gender Criticals' calling trans supporters 'anti-women', attacking charities for supporting Pride month and sending threats to one of Scotland's biggest cis gay male trans advocates that he's now in a safe house, radicalised feminists calling gay men paedos and attacking adoptive or surrogate same sex parents.

This is where it leads. This is the least safe I've felt for twenty years.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jefflez/status/1396733962509225984

[JA]

It’s transphobia. It’s really that simple. The LGB community was the primary target of these sorts of accusations until they were overtaken by the focus on trans rights. Remember how LGB identities weren’t “real?” You were LGB because you wanted attention, had a mental disorder, or simply chose to be that; they were perceived as invalid identities and not inherent to a person. Supporting acceptance and normalization of these identities could have you accused of pushing the “gay agenda.” Remember that?

“Gender ideology” is just today’s “gay agenda.” If you believe being transgender isn’t real - why? Why would millions of people make this up? Why would all of those people invite so much personal confusion, prejudice, discrimination, alienation from family, and unwanted attention? The problem, like with LGB folks, isn’t with the people who belong to those identities - it’s with the people who mistreat others for having those identities. If being trans wasn’t a genuine internal state of being, then people wouldn’t be trans. We wouldn’t be having this discussion. But we are having it and that’s because our culture rejected and discriminated against anyone that falls outside of our socially constructed gender binary.

Citing a minority of scientists (especially ones who don’t even specialize in the social sciences) to discredit transgender identities is as valid as citing a minority of scientists to discredit anthropogenic climate change. You’re a denier of reality standing on unsupported ground and being led by your personal prejudices, which you happily have affirmed by other prejudiced people.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Just a thought:

For the vast majority of people all this transgender stuff is incomprehensible. Like it or not, there is a mountain to climb in gaining public understanding and sympathy. This, like most things, will only come gradually. The vicious discourse around the issue - which most people do not really understand - can only turn people off. Calling people "transphobic" at every opportunity is not going to help. Many, myself included, now refuse to go anywhere near the discussion; abjuring the possibility to be, as you might say, "enlightened."

To paraphrase slightly, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance.