Just as a reminder: in 2019, Prof. Kathleen Stock took issue with a student newspaper article reporting on campus climate. The article quoted people who didn’t like her positions. Prof. Stock called this libel, and instigated a hate campaign against the student journalist.
In order to prove not only that the piece was not libelous, but that Stock did not seriously think it was, and only claimed in order to force retraction, I republished the offending article, unedited, on my own website, in 2021:
Ofc, there has been no engagement on this. But my point is that there is a pattern of Prof. Stock and those like her using totally meritless threats of libel in order to shut down dissent. It’s clever, but it’s very wrong, and there’s no way they don’t know what they’re doing.
The fact that these serial scammers are getting wall-to-wall praise across the liberal media, while running the most successful attempt at academic suppression sine WW2—I have to say, friends, it reminds me of that one book by that guy—Blineteen Bleighty Blour, I wanna say?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m ready to disclose the details of the prior restraint of my research. The culprit is University College London, whose lawyers instructed the executive editor of their online journal THINK PIECES to pull my essay. The essay is linked here.
The doc was initially submitted as a pdf without footnotes—since it was to be published online, and citations would take the form of links, I used screencaps. When uploading the document to my own website, I added links myself. Here’s the original pdf.
The piece is called, “The Gender Critical Movement Is Undermining Academic Freedom,” and adapts a lecture I gave at UCL, after an invitation from Xine Yao and Simon Lock. The lecture was well-attended, both by GCs and by queer and trans people and allies.
I think this is clear, but since some people have misunderstood (surely not willfully?), let me clarify: I don’t blame *any* of the GCs for the university’s spinelessness. I fully anticipate their support, as I support their right to publish in whatever venues will have them.
Like many, I’m concerned about the circumvention of peer review in a couple of recent cases, and I would not myself want to publish in a venue that prints their work. But I’m not against them publishing, and if a Uni prevented them from doing so I would be mad as hell.
I do fault the GCs is for misrepresenting the state of academic freedom in the UK. Their distortions have misused grievance procedures to punish colleagues; they have deployed vexatious threats of legal action against students; and monopolized media representations of trans ppl.
General methodological observation: what has freaked UK administrators out about my work is that it actually names, quotes, and cites individual activists. This is because I do not want to make generalizations that are unmoored from the facts.
This might seem to be a mark of creditable scholarship. It’s certainly different from the usual run of GC “scholarship,” which mostly consists of uncited (because false) claims about what trans people think about themselves, and endless readings of a single Stonewall pamphlet.
let me name names, then: Alice Sullivan, Kathleen Stock, Holly Lawton-Smith have all published uncited, because false, claims about how trans people describe themselves.
I have just learned that a major British university has intervened to prevent a house journal from publishing a juried essay of mine, on the importance of academic freedom. They are scared that they will be sued—I presume by either Kathleen Stock or Alice Sullivan.
I will publish the details of this development very shortly—hopefully within 24h—including the essay itself. I will then give @Docstockk and @ProfAliceS an opportunity to affirm their commitment to academic freedom.
This is prior restraint of an established scholar publishing in a recognized and respected venue. As far as I know, this has never happened to any “gender critical” academics—happy to be corrected. It shouldn’t happen to them, in any case.
not freaky weirdo British school psychoanalytic theorist of the mid twentieth century Wilfred Bion being marshaled as an intellectual progenitor of contemporary fash-flavor liberalism??
i’m not a Bion specialist, but I’m fairly confident that the major C20 psychoanalytic theorist of group dynamics wouldn’t recognize this kind of “what we share” universalism.
(there *is* a psychoanalytic universalism, which has been rightly criticized by anti-racist and feminist since Fanon and Irigaray, *but* it is a negatively constructed: the unconscious is what we *can’t* share.)