What's the truth about the @ucu and @DrJoGrady? Here's my take:
We are in the middle of a very difficult and important dispute with the employers. There's been some progress, but it's not going brilliantly and there have been several missteps by the leadership...
... and @DrJoGrady in particular - misjudging the mood and misrepresenting a proposed settlement.
Nevertheless, the union provides an indispensable insurance policy for members in day to day conflicts with management. Many union people know this and are excellent
...case workers, who understand the sector, the law, and basic employment rights, and work hard for members. There are good arguments for staying in, and for getting stuck into the dispute over pay pensions, and against casualisation and discrimination...
... But @DrJoGrady knows that she is losing the confidence of the membership in that industrial struggle. She has a political obsession with 'trans rights' and is turning on people in the sector, inside and outside the union, in an attempt to deflect from her poor leadership...
... the successful libel case brought by @PaulEmbery is monumentally embarrassing for her, aside from widespread concerns about the leadership of the dispute...
... and the deflection from that is also obvious: "look, I'm vilified for defending trans rights, not for behaving like an idiot on Twitter"
In all this, Grady is taking members for a ride. The truth is that, whilst the mechanisms of some UCU branches are captured, there is ...
... very widespread disquiet in the sector *and amongst union members* about the treatment of (eg) @Docstockk and many others.
Grady can't articulate her position on trans rights and academic freedom properly, and may not be around for much longer. These are difficult...
... times to be a @ucu member who thinks carefully about sex and gender, and it is more than annoying to have a failing GS who doesn't understand the job. But I think these time will pass, and also that we need desperately need a union that fights *seriously* ...
... for the collective interests of academic and academic-related staff in the sector.
One day we will get it back.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I expect @cyclingweekly and @Cyclingnewsfeed to run sanctimonious pieces about 'toxic conversations' in the next few days. They will justify closing comments on the pieces as a result of 'abuse'. So let's get this right...
... the two pieces by @amrook and @pippa_york were *terrible journalism*. Each piece contained *abuse* of female cyclists that was not even thinly veiled, falsely attributing prejudice and bigotry to identifiable people - @ithompsonfdn and the signees of the UCF letter ...
... and this doesn't just show that 'they started it' - (thought they did). It also exemplifies the bullying and intimidation of female cyclists that marks this issue. This will, I think, get worse...
So @pippa_york has written a piece for @Cyclingnewsfeed and it's worth taking a look. I don't think you'll find it persuasive, but I hope some cycling journos check it out...
... Let's look for some points of agreement. I agree that people need education on the realities of trans athletes. And I agree that the science is not hard to track down - but you won't find it in the CCES paper that Pippa links to...
... by all means, read that anonymous, tendentious, and self-published paper. You could even pay attention to its conclusions if you can work out what they are. (I tried, here, best of luck to you... macdonaldlaurier.ca/transgender-wo…
The latest edition of Sport, Ethics and Philosophy @BritPhilofSport has hit my doormat. For completists, there are two papers that continue the conversation on my "Safety, Fairness and Inclusion" in JPS @IntPhilofSport
... just here, I would like to thank both Miroslav and Michael for their papers, the attention that they have paid to my/the argument, and the kind words they both have for it.
Also the editors of the two journals who have facilitated debate on this topic in a way ...
I cannot properly express how good I think this is!
"We need to be more critical about narratives of inclusion. It's just not true that inclusion is always good and exclusion is always bad... sometimes
... exclusion is a tool that can be used in the service of inclusion, and that will sometimes mean excluding men in order to further women's inclusion."
... it takes intellectual courage to take on the consecration of 'inclusion' these days, but this is required watching for anyone serious about the analysis of #EDI. ...
... there are different approaches, different pitches here, but they represent a *body of work* all published in the last 2-3 years, and I think that's important. There are two routes through which this is, and will be, manifested: the publishing industry and academia...
... the fact that these books have come out and done well signals a change. It may be that silly decisions in indvidual shops and chains put a bit of a dampener on sales, but, in the end, the market will out. People buy books in different ways, and it's very difficult ...
If you've got a dodgy argument to push, there are several rhetorical tricks and bits of sophistry that you can put to use.
Here are a couple, illustrated by means of a case study from that friend to charlatanry, the soi-disant *Honest Broker* @RogerPielkeJr...
... in an argument which will be presented in a book that's just been published...
... The two techniques that I have in mind have fancy tags: one is to present an *enthymeme* - a suppressed premise.
The second is the *argumentum ad temperantiam* or the fallacy of moderation...