Thank you so much this Dr Barnett! I note that the campaign against Holly has been waged for years. There were complaints against her first in 2019 when she helped organise, as part of the Victorian Women's Guild, an event at Melbourne Uni. Then there were the protests against her on campus, led by Senator Janet Rice and Dr Hannah McCann, last year I think.
There you go, I wasn’t aware that the protests went back that far. Peaceful protesting is one thing; damage to property, and protests which require the police to be called for the safety of staff and students, are another.
LOL - I just got to a point this week where I thought - I can’t stand this any more. There’s no point doing this job if I can’t debate matters. Worse comes to worst, I’ll go back into private practice,
☺️ Yes, well, there’s good reasons I was trying out practice again - as you know, my damned health put a stop to it. Putting a rain check on it. Latest thing is - recover fully from COVID, and get fit again - I am finding I am still quite tired.
Sorry, I've haven't yet read your post to the depth it deserves -- you cover a lot of ground -- though I've been following what has been happening with Lawford-Smith over the years. Right from the time she was defenestrated at Medium possibly some 4 years ago for asking "unpopular" questions:
Latter shows her account deleted and "under investigation"🙄. So I commend her courage and tenacity -- and that of many others in the battle. That "no debate" seems something of a mantra among TRAs:
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".
Though I'm not entirely sure that that "no debate" is unique to "the other side". A great many of us supposedly on the right side of history seem equally dogmatic on many issues, equally unwilling to debate perspectives that may lead to unflattering conclusions, to "inconvenient truths". I'm in the midst of gathering evidence, writing up a "bill of particulars" 🙂, but you might have some interest in my latest on the topic of "Lysenkoism and the Ideological Subversion of Biology", something of a review of a post by physicist Lawrence Krauss on the same topic:
Yes, I recall when Lawford-Smith was thrown off Medium. That impelled several other people who have unconventional approaches to leave the platform too, if I recall correctly.
Lawford-Smith has her good points, but kinda think much of her "feminism" is a large part of the problem. I see that Lorenzo Warby liked your post, but you may not have seen his own on Helen Dale's Substack where he, apparently, called "the transcult the bastard child of feminism":
Don't think many feminists -- Lawford-Smith in particular -- are much willing to consider how they've contributed to the current problems with transgenderism.
"When academics fear that an academic institution’s reputation will be tarnished by good faith intellectual questions, it’s time to worry. Surely the ability to ask good faith questions is a sign of the health of the institution, and a credit to its reputation?"
I agree with your premise, but does this not then ask us to question if the questions and arguments made by Dr. Lawford-Smith are actually made in good faith?
I have no reason to doubt her good faith, unless given reason to suppose otherwise. Independent university investigations have cleared her of wrongdoing.
Do you then believe that an anti-Semite or someone who espouses anti-black race 'science' is operating and engaging in discourse in good faith? Your framing suggests that Lawford-Smith and other gender critical academics are largely supported institutionally (by academic institutions, the media and by the government) are the ones being silenced or mistreated. Dr. Grace Lavery has recently demonstrated that the GC figures that posit themselves as being suprressed are largely the parties suppressing speech that dissents from their views: https://www.gracelavery.org/undermining-academic-freedom/ .
Her arguments are fundamentally ones that support the restriction of rights of a minority group while she also seeks to paint them as predatory and dangerous for simply existing. I do not understand how this is a position that you or anyone else can claim to be in good faith, especially if one (hopefully) believes that bigotry is not a good faith argument.
But aren’t the incidents she documents actually less egregious than what Katy is commenting on? She’s commenting on rudeness on twitter and legal threats. Katy is commenting on actual vandalism and threats of violence.
I actually think the threats to academic freedom come from both sides of this debate but I’m not sure why you’re not very bothered about a professor doing research and teaching suffering vandalism of her classroom and threats of violence... the question here is fundamentally one of process. Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely? Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?
I suppose I believe the threat and social harm done by her nominal research contains a greater threat/harm than the vandalism. We have seen increased violence against LGBT people, as well as waves of anti-LGBT legislation and discrimination, the later having clear ties to transphobic 'research' and activism that resembles Dr. Lawford-Smith's. I guess I disagree with the framing of bigotry as being an issue of academic freedom. Maybe I also disagree with the framing of vandalism as violence - or violence comparable to what gender critical ideology produces and inspires.
Some would say this goes against academic freedom, but I don't think she should be put in jail for what she says or be restrained from saying it. However, I question the fact that she is given the institutional support of a public university - I don't believe the academy should be used to launder bigotry disguised as research and I think academic freedom is being used here to enable it to continue.
"Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely?"
I don't know. Dr. Lawford-Smith is pursing a fairwork case against the university, seemingly because some students, including some of her former students (you can see their claims here: https://fighttransphobiaunimelb.tiiny.site/), have criticized her publicly.
"Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?"
Is there any evidence to the contrary? No one has been prevented from speaking or been fired here. It seems to me that some believe they are entitled to conduct their inquiries without any criticism or critique of the research or even of the actual value of the inquiry itself.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but I figured I'd lay out my thinking anyway.
Thank you so much this Dr Barnett! I note that the campaign against Holly has been waged for years. There were complaints against her first in 2019 when she helped organise, as part of the Victorian Women's Guild, an event at Melbourne Uni. Then there were the protests against her on campus, led by Senator Janet Rice and Dr Hannah McCann, last year I think.
There you go, I wasn’t aware that the protests went back that far. Peaceful protesting is one thing; damage to property, and protests which require the police to be called for the safety of staff and students, are another.
We had to be escorted by security into the Asia Centre for our talk, because of concerns about our safety!
Here is a student article about it. Content warning: there is a content warning...
https://umsu.unimelb.edu.au/news/article/7797/2019-09-24-petitions-protests-and-sex-based-events/
Enjoyed my shoutout
I did hope you might!
Wonderful piece in general. I agree with you that self-censorship is a significant problem atm
Now you've done it ... 😉🙂
But a quick skim reminds me of a classic quote of Pascal:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/blaise_pascal_133606
Thinking we've got gawd in our back pockets tends to give free rein to our worst impulses.
LOL - I just got to a point this week where I thought - I can’t stand this any more. There’s no point doing this job if I can’t debate matters. Worse comes to worst, I’ll go back into private practice,
Would welcome you back in private practice, Katy! Our clients pay us to ask the difficult questions rather than shut us down :)
☺️ Yes, well, there’s good reasons I was trying out practice again - as you know, my damned health put a stop to it. Putting a rain check on it. Latest thing is - recover fully from COVID, and get fit again - I am finding I am still quite tired.
So wishing you good health isn't just the usual platitude, Katy!
Sorry, I've haven't yet read your post to the depth it deserves -- you cover a lot of ground -- though I've been following what has been happening with Lawford-Smith over the years. Right from the time she was defenestrated at Medium possibly some 4 years ago for asking "unpopular" questions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190502004710/https://medium.com/@aytchellis/is-it-possible-to-change-sex-8d863ce7fca2
https://medium.com/@aytchellis/is-it-possible-to-change-sex-8d863ce7fca2
Latter shows her account deleted and "under investigation"🙄. So I commend her courage and tenacity -- and that of many others in the battle. That "no debate" seems something of a mantra among TRAs:
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/15/unreasonable-ideas-a-reply-to-alison-phipps/
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".
Though I'm not entirely sure that that "no debate" is unique to "the other side". A great many of us supposedly on the right side of history seem equally dogmatic on many issues, equally unwilling to debate perspectives that may lead to unflattering conclusions, to "inconvenient truths". I'm in the midst of gathering evidence, writing up a "bill of particulars" 🙂, but you might have some interest in my latest on the topic of "Lysenkoism and the Ideological Subversion of Biology", something of a review of a post by physicist Lawrence Krauss on the same topic:
https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-17712944
Yes, I recall when Lawford-Smith was thrown off Medium. That impelled several other people who have unconventional approaches to leave the platform too, if I recall correctly.
"unconventional" ... 🤔😉🙂
Lawford-Smith has her good points, but kinda think much of her "feminism" is a large part of the problem. I see that Lorenzo Warby liked your post, but you may not have seen his own on Helen Dale's Substack where he, apparently, called "the transcult the bastard child of feminism":
https://helendale.substack.com/p/a-common-humanity-or-bust
Don't think many feminists -- Lawford-Smith in particular -- are much willing to consider how they've contributed to the current problems with transgenderism.
"When academics fear that an academic institution’s reputation will be tarnished by good faith intellectual questions, it’s time to worry. Surely the ability to ask good faith questions is a sign of the health of the institution, and a credit to its reputation?"
I agree with your premise, but does this not then ask us to question if the questions and arguments made by Dr. Lawford-Smith are actually made in good faith?
I have no reason to doubt her good faith, unless given reason to suppose otherwise. Independent university investigations have cleared her of wrongdoing.
Do you then believe that an anti-Semite or someone who espouses anti-black race 'science' is operating and engaging in discourse in good faith? Your framing suggests that Lawford-Smith and other gender critical academics are largely supported institutionally (by academic institutions, the media and by the government) are the ones being silenced or mistreated. Dr. Grace Lavery has recently demonstrated that the GC figures that posit themselves as being suprressed are largely the parties suppressing speech that dissents from their views: https://www.gracelavery.org/undermining-academic-freedom/ .
Her arguments are fundamentally ones that support the restriction of rights of a minority group while she also seeks to paint them as predatory and dangerous for simply existing. I do not understand how this is a position that you or anyone else can claim to be in good faith, especially if one (hopefully) believes that bigotry is not a good faith argument.
I am relying on the independent report of the uni legal department, which found Lawford-Smith had no case to answer: https://www.smh.com.au/national/university-closes-book-on-lecturer-transphobia-complaints-20230518-p5d9c4.html
I trust an independent lawyer’s report over the representations of activists on either side. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
But aren’t the incidents she documents actually less egregious than what Katy is commenting on? She’s commenting on rudeness on twitter and legal threats. Katy is commenting on actual vandalism and threats of violence.
I actually think the threats to academic freedom come from both sides of this debate but I’m not sure why you’re not very bothered about a professor doing research and teaching suffering vandalism of her classroom and threats of violence... the question here is fundamentally one of process. Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely? Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?
I suppose I believe the threat and social harm done by her nominal research contains a greater threat/harm than the vandalism. We have seen increased violence against LGBT people, as well as waves of anti-LGBT legislation and discrimination, the later having clear ties to transphobic 'research' and activism that resembles Dr. Lawford-Smith's. I guess I disagree with the framing of bigotry as being an issue of academic freedom. Maybe I also disagree with the framing of vandalism as violence - or violence comparable to what gender critical ideology produces and inspires.
Some would say this goes against academic freedom, but I don't think she should be put in jail for what she says or be restrained from saying it. However, I question the fact that she is given the institutional support of a public university - I don't believe the academy should be used to launder bigotry disguised as research and I think academic freedom is being used here to enable it to continue.
"Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely?"
I don't know. Dr. Lawford-Smith is pursing a fairwork case against the university, seemingly because some students, including some of her former students (you can see their claims here: https://fighttransphobiaunimelb.tiiny.site/), have criticized her publicly.
"Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?"
Is there any evidence to the contrary? No one has been prevented from speaking or been fired here. It seems to me that some believe they are entitled to conduct their inquiries without any criticism or critique of the research or even of the actual value of the inquiry itself.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but I figured I'd lay out my thinking anyway.