By @joglanville1: All writers & publishers should be speaking out in support of JKR, no matter where they stand on the transgender issue: whether they believe like Jeanette Winterson that ‘transwomen are women’ or, that ‘if sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women is erased’.
The treatment of JKR is an attempt to censor, by intimidation as well as by discrediting her opinions as hate speech & discrimination. While it may not be possible to silence one of the most successful writers in the world, there are others whose livelihoods are at risk
The idea of tolerating views that you may disagree with or find offensive has been abandoned. That act of toleration, however uncomfortable, is essential for safeguarding an open society where ideas can be freely expressed, challenged and tested.
JKR has attracted the most attention. But variations are being played out in journalism, publishing, the arts, academia and in the workplace. Censorship, once the barometer of a repressive society, is becoming more highly prized than free speech itself. We should all be worried
When the combined voice of @englishpen@ScottishPEN@pen_int come together to make a statement on freedom of expression and online harassment it should make a boom, not a whimper.
PEN's weak statement dropped like a tiny pebble barely leaving a ripple. How embarrassing.
@joglanville1 's excellent piece in the Bookseller on why all writers & publishers should speak out in support of JKRowling even if they don't agree with her, in order to resist censorship has had a bigger response
What is the point of PEN if it can't say something brave about freedom of expression and about the silencing of women (and men) who want to be able to say that #sexmatters ?
English pen says, apropos of nothing much in particular, that online harassment is bad, but "freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech"
They say "We support the right to hold and express strong views"....
" provided that such expression does not undermine the internationally recognised human rights of others, incite hatred, nor engender the threat or use of violence. "
Again what are they getting at??
What do they mean by "undermining the internationally recognised human rights of others" which isn't covered by "inciting hatred" and "engendering the threat or use of violence"??
What peaceful speech can undermine the human rights of others?
But the terms and conditions for entry for the 2021 Prize for Fiction (which opened on 14 September 2020 and closed this morning) are still the same as they were last year.
There is no sign of the promised policy on their website
Saying that the previous nomination had brought a "ton of violent shit their way" and angry that when their publisher has submitted their recent novel the prize had asked for "Akwaeke Emezi's sex as defined by law.”
Emezi interpreted this as meaning the prize was only for "cis women" (which does not make sense since Emezi does not identify as cis and was eligible)
They talked of transphobic violence "spearheaded" by their their favourite childhood author, calling her a "violent bigot"
Last year they shortlisted Akwaeke Emezi - who identifies as non binary, but who people and the law would recognise as a woman.
So far, so uncontroversial. Should identifying as non-binary exclude you from women's prizes?
Of course not: women are adult human females.
Still they played it for publicity w Chair of judges @KateWilliamsme in March 2019 calling “It a historic moment,” & another writing "I hope the...discussion not hijacked by gender politics "
All of this put under the "trans umbrella" and then switcheroo into the protected characteristic "gender reassignment" .... and from there into the idea of of self-ID as the opposite sex - and access to single sex services for the opposite sex.
This was how it happened.
This, from the case of Bellinger v Bellinger was what was meant by "transsexual" in 2003