Main Edition
US
FR
June 27, 2023 - 5:15pm
Time and again, women are having to go to court to protect themselves against trans activists.
The cowardice of organisations that won’t stand up for free speech and women’s legal rights is one reason for this. The latest institution to be shamed for its behaviour towards people who hold gender-critical views is Arts Council England (ACE), which has just lost a claim brought by a former employee, Denise Fahmy. The Leeds Employment Tribunal came to the unanimous decision that Fahmy, who had worked for ACE for 15 years, was subjected to harassment because of her gender-critical beliefs.
Her problems began in an internal Microsoft Teams meeting attended by 400 people in April last year. She was shocked to hear that the LGB Alliance, a lesbian and gay rights charity that wanted to make a film about the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, had been accused of transphobia by ACE staff. When a senior executive said it had been “a mistake” to give funding to a “divisive organisation with a history of anti-trans exclusionary activity”, Fahmy challenged him. A grant of £9000, made by an intermediary that receives funds from ACE, was later withdrawn from the Alliance.
The following month, a petition was posted on the ACE staff intranet, attacking people who believe in biological sex. It was taken down after 26 hours, but by then it had been viewed 700 times and signed by more than a hundred of Fahmy’s colleagues. “People signed it, and made comments, citing gender-critical people like me and the LGB Alliance as parasites, neo-Nazis, needing to be stamped out,” she said.
Fahmy was signed off sick and eventually resigned, lodging a claim with the tribunal for harassment and victimisation. She has now succeeded in the first part of her claim and will be awarded compensation at a further hearing. The amount will be increased by 10% because ACE failed to follow the ACAS code of practice when it refused to allow her to appeal against the outcome of her internal complaint.
All of this is scandalous. ACE is a publicly funded body, which means that the cost of defending the case — and Fahmy’s compensation — will be paid for by taxpayers. It’s been clear for more than two years, thanks to the Maya Forstater judgment, that a belief in biological sex is protected in law. So why did ACE waste public money to oppose Fahmy’s claim, instead of offering an apology and asking itself how such a toxic atmosphere was allowed to develop within the organisation?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI do cringe every time I read that “biological sex is a protected *belief*”.
The word “belief” is really out of place in this context. Is the fact that the sky is blue *merely* a “belief”?
When I first read the ruling in the Forstater case that was my reaction, too. Whilst, obviously, it is good to have the judge give this ruling, it still grated that a straight-forward biological fact has been reduced to a “belief”; it all rather smacks of my “truth” versus your “truth”.
Quite!
Surely what needs protecting is not the right to hold a belief, but the right to express the belief/fact.
I think the problem is to equate beliefs with facts.
If you are a Catholic you *believe* that the wafer turns into the actual flesh of Jesus, but you would be hard pressed to present it as fact.
I think the problem is to equate beliefs with facts.
If you are a Catholic you *believe* that the wafer turns into the actual flesh of Jesus, but you would be hard pressed to present it as fact.
Surely what needs protecting is not the right to hold a belief, but the right to express the belief/fact.
The loss of a shared reality means that increasingly we need judges to decide not just what reality is in Law but also in everyday social life. It’s a disturbing trend.
Quite!
The loss of a shared reality means that increasingly we need judges to decide not just what reality is in Law but also in everyday social life. It’s a disturbing trend.
Well yes! The sky is not ‘blue’. It is blue to our perceptions. To a creature with different senses (my dogs for example) the sky is probably not ‘blue’. Indeed my dogs never even look at the sky and the history of science, which began with wondering at the procession of the moon and sun and the stars, is necessarily closed to them.
It is centuries since Bishop Berkeley maintained that there were no objects or phenomena only our perception of them. This idea is not easily refuted. But, if followed to its limit, anything can be believed. Trans for example. And so, in practice, it is not to be taken seriously.
David Hume, when asked whether his denial of causality troubled him, said that a good breakfast settled him.
“The sky is not ‘blue’. It is blue to our perceptions.”
That’s pretty much what ‘blue’ means: perceived as such by normally sighted human beings in daylight. So, yes the sky is really blue, and this is not a matter of opinion. The fact that some people have defective visual apparatuses does not have any bearing on the question of what colour the sky is perceived to have by normally sighted people in daylight; that is, what colour the sky is.
Some qualifications, then, Russell, to the ‘fact’ that the sky is blue. Daytime, not night. Normal vision not defective. Normal vision must therefore mean vision that sees the sky as blue. Circular argument.
You would not get far against Bishop Berkeley.
I’ll suggest another line to take against the idealism that says anything is possible or imaginable. (A better world is possible).
‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’.
Absolute truth is difficult to come by apparently.
Your truth, his truth, her truth, who’s truth?
The bishop’s arguments have resonance now because of the ideologies of identity and trans. Commonsense arguments citing reality and science don’t for the time being achieve much traction against the zealots (in the long term such arguments may prevail).
Meanwhile what has to be hammered home are the results of these ideologies.
In the case of trans the mutilation of adolescent women, the invasion of women’s sports . changing rooms and lavatories etc.
In the case of ‘identity’ the replacement of the fading class system with a rigid structure of caste without the excuse/saving grace of reincarnation.
The bishop’s arguments have resonance now because of the ideologies of identity and trans. Commonsense arguments citing reality and science don’t for the time being achieve much traction against the zealots (in the long term such arguments may prevail).
Meanwhile what has to be hammered home are the results of these ideologies.
In the case of trans the mutilation of adolescent women, the invasion of women’s sports . changing rooms and lavatories etc.
In the case of ‘identity’ the replacement of the fading class system with a rigid structure of caste without the excuse/saving grace of reincarnation.
Is normal vision dependant on the sky being blue or is he assuming another criterion for normal vision?
I think he assumes that normal vision will – in the daytime – see the sky as blue. Not that it depends on the blueness of the sky.
Normal people – many of us agree – see 2 sexes (with a very few exceptions). But it seems that many normal teachers do not see what normal people see. And that they try to force their perspective on their pupils.
The drive is on to demonise the perceptions of normal people.
For a while they have been coming for the ‘TERFs’. I and other non-Fs must wake up. It won’t stop with the feminists.
I think he assumes that normal vision will – in the daytime – see the sky as blue. Not that it depends on the blueness of the sky.
Normal people – many of us agree – see 2 sexes (with a very few exceptions). But it seems that many normal teachers do not see what normal people see. And that they try to force their perspective on their pupils.
The drive is on to demonise the perceptions of normal people.
For a while they have been coming for the ‘TERFs’. I and other non-Fs must wake up. It won’t stop with the feminists.
Absolute truth is difficult to come by apparently.
Your truth, his truth, her truth, who’s truth?
Is normal vision dependant on the sky being blue or is he assuming another criterion for normal vision?
Some qualifications, then, Russell, to the ‘fact’ that the sky is blue. Daytime, not night. Normal vision not defective. Normal vision must therefore mean vision that sees the sky as blue. Circular argument.
You would not get far against Bishop Berkeley.
I’ll suggest another line to take against the idealism that says anything is possible or imaginable. (A better world is possible).
‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’.
It is centuries since Bishop Berkeley maintained that there were no objects or phenomena only our perception of them.
What are the “them” then?
He got out by this wiggle. The permanence of ‘them’ was guaranteed by their being in the eye of God.
And if God is forgotten….then what?
He got out by this wiggle. The permanence of ‘them’ was guaranteed by their being in the eye of God.
And if God is forgotten….then what?
And wasnt it Hume who locked up his atheistical writingsout of fear? Plus ca change….
“The sky is not ‘blue’. It is blue to our perceptions.”
That’s pretty much what ‘blue’ means: perceived as such by normally sighted human beings in daylight. So, yes the sky is really blue, and this is not a matter of opinion. The fact that some people have defective visual apparatuses does not have any bearing on the question of what colour the sky is perceived to have by normally sighted people in daylight; that is, what colour the sky is.
It is centuries since Bishop Berkeley maintained that there were no objects or phenomena only our perception of them.
What are the “them” then?
And wasnt it Hume who locked up his atheistical writingsout of fear? Plus ca change….
It’s bizarre language. As you note, the implication is that it is not factually correct but the belief may be held. Who makes a determination if a belief is acceptable if it isn’t factually demonstrable?
Is believing that black is a colour and Pluto a planet allowed or not? How about whether the earth is flat? Why do any beliefs require protecting? Or opinions for that matter?
Given that people with such omniscient capabilities appear to sit on bureaucratic boards and adjudicate on the nature of reality, maybe they could do something slightly more useful like solve the world’s energy crisis and give us the answer to the meaning of life.
When there are calls to decolonise science and maths we may soon need 2+2=4 to be a protected belief.
2 and 2 may well be 5, and 5 can be a perfectly legitimate answer, but in order to be so you need to clarify the frame of reference.
For example, you can say that the “+” means that you add the two numbers together and then add 1. That is perfectly fine, as long as we agree on the definition of the new operator “+”.
Without solid foundations you cannot communicate, and that is the reason why things like “a woman is whoever identifies as such” are meaningless as you can’t agree on the meaning of the words.
2 and 2 may well be 5, and 5 can be a perfectly legitimate answer, but in order to be so you need to clarify the frame of reference.
For example, you can say that the “+” means that you add the two numbers together and then add 1. That is perfectly fine, as long as we agree on the definition of the new operator “+”.
Without solid foundations you cannot communicate, and that is the reason why things like “a woman is whoever identifies as such” are meaningless as you can’t agree on the meaning of the words.
Another is “because of her gender-critical beliefs”. Perhaps “because of her claim gender is pseudoscience” or something of that sort.
The initial phrasing puts “gender” as a material feature of reality otherwise she would not be able to form a critical attitude towards it. But that material characteristic has not been verified.
And why “feminist” in the headline? That may be a philosophical characteristic but does it have a bearing on this case? For example, I hold no belief in, and have no knowledge of, the existence of “gender” as it is claimed by “gender” ideology, but I am not a “feminist”. Perhaps “a female employee of ACE” would be apropos?
Quite (X2)
Quite (X2)
Not sure my comment is being censored. This is the 3rd time of posting.
I think another term that is in need of revision is “gender-critical belief” as in “…because of her gender-critical beliefs.” Perhaps “because of her claim gender ideology is pseudoscience”?
When I first read the ruling in the Forstater case that was my reaction, too. Whilst, obviously, it is good to have the judge give this ruling, it still grated that a straight-forward biological fact has been reduced to a “belief”; it all rather smacks of my “truth” versus your “truth”.
Well yes! The sky is not ‘blue’. It is blue to our perceptions. To a creature with different senses (my dogs for example) the sky is probably not ‘blue’. Indeed my dogs never even look at the sky and the history of science, which began with wondering at the procession of the moon and sun and the stars, is necessarily closed to them.
It is centuries since Bishop Berkeley maintained that there were no objects or phenomena only our perception of them. This idea is not easily refuted. But, if followed to its limit, anything can be believed. Trans for example. And so, in practice, it is not to be taken seriously.
David Hume, when asked whether his denial of causality troubled him, said that a good breakfast settled him.
It’s bizarre language. As you note, the implication is that it is not factually correct but the belief may be held. Who makes a determination if a belief is acceptable if it isn’t factually demonstrable?
Is believing that black is a colour and Pluto a planet allowed or not? How about whether the earth is flat? Why do any beliefs require protecting? Or opinions for that matter?
Given that people with such omniscient capabilities appear to sit on bureaucratic boards and adjudicate on the nature of reality, maybe they could do something slightly more useful like solve the world’s energy crisis and give us the answer to the meaning of life.
When there are calls to decolonise science and maths we may soon need 2+2=4 to be a protected belief.
Another is “because of her gender-critical beliefs”. Perhaps “because of her claim gender is pseudoscience” or something of that sort.
The initial phrasing puts “gender” as a material feature of reality otherwise she would not be able to form a critical attitude towards it. But that material characteristic has not been verified.
And why “feminist” in the headline? That may be a philosophical characteristic but does it have a bearing on this case? For example, I hold no belief in, and have no knowledge of, the existence of “gender” as it is claimed by “gender” ideology, but I am not a “feminist”. Perhaps “a female employee of ACE” would be apropos?
Not sure my comment is being censored. This is the 3rd time of posting.
I think another term that is in need of revision is “gender-critical belief” as in “…because of her gender-critical beliefs.” Perhaps “because of her claim gender ideology is pseudoscience”?
I do cringe every time I read that “biological sex is a protected *belief*”.
The word “belief” is really out of place in this context. Is the fact that the sky is blue *merely* a “belief”?
As is often the case when authors on Unherd report on legal cases they oversimplify and neglect to include facts that do not support the strong line they are arguing.
Here is the judgement which is very detailed:
https://didlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Fahmy-judgment-2.pdf
The Tribunal while criticising the comments in the Teams Meeting did not find they amounted to harassment but did find that comments made by woke staff in relation to a petition did amount to harassment and were not taken down sufficiently quickly. In addition the formal guidance did not contain reference to the protected characteristics of beliefs.
But it should be stated that Fahey’s line manager did leap to her defence promptly and a number of staff were disciplined or resigned before they could be disciplined so it is unfair to suggest ACE was indifferent to Fahey’s complaint and did nothing to protect her beliefs. Organisations with predominantly woke staff are in a difficult position as attempts to reign in the excesses of woke staff’s expressions of their opinion are easily regarded as siding with the TERFs and so do little to maintain good staff relations,
it is, as the author suggests, for the government to make it clear that Twitter rants have no place in the organisations’s internal exchanges between staff. And staff expressing views that differ from the predominant view if expressed politely should be supported.
They might also try to see that there is genuine diversity of opinions within public bodies rather than allowing monocultures to develop. An Art’s Council that included traditional conservative views might result in a better distribution of tax largesse.
Thanks for the added background information. Extremely helpful.
“Organisations with predominantly woke staff are in a difficult position as attempts to reign in the excesses of woke staff’s expressions of their opinion are easily regarded as siding with the TERFs and so do little to maintain good staff relations”
This just proves that maintaining good staff relations is impossible if you have woke staff. So get rid of woke staff.
Absolutely, my first thought when I read that sentence. There are plenty of people out there with arts degrees who are working in non-degree jobs who would jump at the chance of a position in ACE; they just need to be aware of what happened to the last “woke” contingent.
Richard, your comment put me in mind of an article I read about the gaming industry. The same thing is happening there with regard to woke staff and this author attributes the decline of computer gaming to this phenomenon: https://www.wolfsheadonline.com/darkpaw-studio-head-and-lgbtq-activist-jen-chan-reveals-the-existence-of-daybreak-games-diversity-inclusion-and-equity-initiative/
Absolutely, my first thought when I read that sentence. There are plenty of people out there with arts degrees who are working in non-degree jobs who would jump at the chance of a position in ACE; they just need to be aware of what happened to the last “woke” contingent.
Richard, your comment put me in mind of an article I read about the gaming industry. The same thing is happening there with regard to woke staff and this author attributes the decline of computer gaming to this phenomenon: https://www.wolfsheadonline.com/darkpaw-studio-head-and-lgbtq-activist-jen-chan-reveals-the-existence-of-daybreak-games-diversity-inclusion-and-equity-initiative/
Excuse me? “Siding with the ‘TERFS'”? The majority of the aforementioned are gender-critical Feminists who still believe that even if some choose to identify by the gender associated with the other sex, that the rest of us need not be forced to exchange the awareness of our biological sex for the concept of a supposedly innate “gender identity”; and that as sex is a biological reality (Trans women still have male bodies and in many cases are genitally intact) with real consequences in certain contexts, (female) women should still be recognized as having legal protections, even should most everyone else cave to the pronoun police. The term “TERF” is derogatory, and a slur, and not wanting to “sound as if one were siding with TERFS” is only marginally more civilized than not wanting to “be mistaken for a n—– – lover”.
Thanks for the added background information. Extremely helpful.
“Organisations with predominantly woke staff are in a difficult position as attempts to reign in the excesses of woke staff’s expressions of their opinion are easily regarded as siding with the TERFs and so do little to maintain good staff relations”
This just proves that maintaining good staff relations is impossible if you have woke staff. So get rid of woke staff.
Excuse me? “Siding with the ‘TERFS'”? The majority of the aforementioned are gender-critical Feminists who still believe that even if some choose to identify by the gender associated with the other sex, that the rest of us need not be forced to exchange the awareness of our biological sex for the concept of a supposedly innate “gender identity”; and that as sex is a biological reality (Trans women still have male bodies and in many cases are genitally intact) with real consequences in certain contexts, (female) women should still be recognized as having legal protections, even should most everyone else cave to the pronoun police. The term “TERF” is derogatory, and a slur, and not wanting to “sound as if one were siding with TERFS” is only marginally more civilized than not wanting to “be mistaken for a n—– – lover”.
As is often the case when authors on Unherd report on legal cases they oversimplify and neglect to include facts that do not support the strong line they are arguing.
Here is the judgement which is very detailed:
https://didlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Fahmy-judgment-2.pdf
The Tribunal while criticising the comments in the Teams Meeting did not find they amounted to harassment but did find that comments made by woke staff in relation to a petition did amount to harassment and were not taken down sufficiently quickly. In addition the formal guidance did not contain reference to the protected characteristics of beliefs.
But it should be stated that Fahey’s line manager did leap to her defence promptly and a number of staff were disciplined or resigned before they could be disciplined so it is unfair to suggest ACE was indifferent to Fahey’s complaint and did nothing to protect her beliefs. Organisations with predominantly woke staff are in a difficult position as attempts to reign in the excesses of woke staff’s expressions of their opinion are easily regarded as siding with the TERFs and so do little to maintain good staff relations,
it is, as the author suggests, for the government to make it clear that Twitter rants have no place in the organisations’s internal exchanges between staff. And staff expressing views that differ from the predominant view if expressed politely should be supported.
They might also try to see that there is genuine diversity of opinions within public bodies rather than allowing monocultures to develop. An Art’s Council that included traditional conservative views might result in a better distribution of tax largesse.
Meanwhile, perhaps the originators of the ACE petition and those who signed it and made defamatory comments should be publically reprimanded
Meanwhile, perhaps the originators of the ACE petition and those who signed it and made defamatory comments should be publically reprimanded
“why did ACE waste public money instead of offering an apology and asking itself how such a toxic atmosphere was allowed to develop within the organisation?”
Political ideologies are capable of such introspection. Religious ideologies are not. Trans is a religion.
“we know from bitter experience that liberal organisations have been among the first to genuflect before trans activists.”
Enlightenment liberalism (Locke, Jefferson, Mill, et al) is a belief that people’s actions should not be subject to unchosen constraints. So race laws, sex differences, class caste systems, state religions, family structures, sexual behavior laws… all must fall as liberalism triumphs. However, biology is the ultimate unchosen constraint.
Our current moment is not a rupture with some idyllic liberal past. Trans (whether transsexualism or transhumanism) is the logical endpoint liberalism itself. Liberationist ideologies (of all kinds) eventually consume themselves; given long enough, the revolution always eats its own.
So it would seem; but there are very practical issues at stake in this case. Typically, JS gets to the crux of the matter by asking what the government minister responsible for overseeing the spending of public money is going to do about the utter waste involved in this case.
My guess would be nothing. Junior ministers see their posting with Arts oversight as a stepping stone, not a hill to die on. However, i hope the author can apply whatever pressure she’s able to exert to have the question she poses put to the minister, and to let us know the answer. For someone in government to take a stand over this might just help change our perceptions prior to the next election.
“Political ideologies are capable of such introspection. Religious ideologies are not. Trans is a religion.”
I don’t follow your logic, Brian. I can see why you’d classify transgenderism as a (secular) religion. But you claim in addition that transgenderism is a religious ideology? Which is it? Are all ideologies religions. Are all religions ideologies?
Besides, why would you deny that religious ideologies are incapable of “introspection,” by which you must mean self-critical, but that political ideologies are? Are the woke, transgender or any other leftist ideologues of today (never mind earlier times) known for being self-critical? I don’t think so. And if you consider all religions ideologies, then what about the Roman Catholic Church, which was nothing if not self-critical during Vatican II (which denounced, among other things, its own tradition of anti-Jewish teachings)?
So it would seem; but there are very practical issues at stake in this case. Typically, JS gets to the crux of the matter by asking what the government minister responsible for overseeing the spending of public money is going to do about the utter waste involved in this case.
My guess would be nothing. Junior ministers see their posting with Arts oversight as a stepping stone, not a hill to die on. However, i hope the author can apply whatever pressure she’s able to exert to have the question she poses put to the minister, and to let us know the answer. For someone in government to take a stand over this might just help change our perceptions prior to the next election.
“Political ideologies are capable of such introspection. Religious ideologies are not. Trans is a religion.”
I don’t follow your logic, Brian. I can see why you’d classify transgenderism as a (secular) religion. But you claim in addition that transgenderism is a religious ideology? Which is it? Are all ideologies religions. Are all religions ideologies?
Besides, why would you deny that religious ideologies are incapable of “introspection,” by which you must mean self-critical, but that political ideologies are? Are the woke, transgender or any other leftist ideologues of today (never mind earlier times) known for being self-critical? I don’t think so. And if you consider all religions ideologies, then what about the Roman Catholic Church, which was nothing if not self-critical during Vatican II (which denounced, among other things, its own tradition of anti-Jewish teachings)?
“why did ACE waste public money instead of offering an apology and asking itself how such a toxic atmosphere was allowed to develop within the organisation?”
Political ideologies are capable of such introspection. Religious ideologies are not. Trans is a religion.
“we know from bitter experience that liberal organisations have been among the first to genuflect before trans activists.”
Enlightenment liberalism (Locke, Jefferson, Mill, et al) is a belief that people’s actions should not be subject to unchosen constraints. So race laws, sex differences, class caste systems, state religions, family structures, sexual behavior laws… all must fall as liberalism triumphs. However, biology is the ultimate unchosen constraint.
Our current moment is not a rupture with some idyllic liberal past. Trans (whether transsexualism or transhumanism) is the logical endpoint liberalism itself. Liberationist ideologies (of all kinds) eventually consume themselves; given long enough, the revolution always eats its own.
“… and signed by more than a hundred of Fahmy’s colleagues. “People signed it, and made comments, citing gender-critical people like me and the LGB Alliance as parasites, neo-Nazis, needing to be stamped out,”
Surely these colleagues should be repremanded?
“… and signed by more than a hundred of Fahmy’s colleagues. “People signed it, and made comments, citing gender-critical people like me and the LGB Alliance as parasites, neo-Nazis, needing to be stamped out,”
Surely these colleagues should be repremanded?
It’s been a fascinating few years for the study of Leftist psychology. The reversals of position have come at an extradinary pace. For, example, previously hated things such as “Big Pharma” have been embraced and manically defended. Meanwhile, the long love affair with gay and women’s rights and feminism has turned to bitter enmity.
A clear distinction between what is traditionally called the Left and Right, is that Leftist movements have historically so often devolved in to hateful infighting over quite small ideological differences of opinion. There is something in the psyche of a Leftist that cannot tolerate any ideological dissent.
The mind of a Leftist seems conditioned to classify things in terms of a rigid distinction between that which is bad – which is met with a visceral hatred -, and that which is good – which receives unquestioning devotion and support.
One consequence of this psychology is that, although another can be in almost complete agreement with a Leftist on ideological matters, all the “goods things” agreed in common will be entirely sullied by the other’s belief in a “bad thing”. The ideological non-conformist themself will also classifed a bad thing.
The description of the LGB Alliance as LGB Alliance as: “parasites” and “neo-Nazis” is indicative of this psychology. Ideological dissent by the LGB alliance made them a bad thing. Because all bad things induce the same emotional level of visceral hatred, they become so bound together in the Leftist mind so as to become synonymous. Somebody complains about too many Pride flags and the accusations of being a neo-Nazi, Fascist, transphobe will rain down.
The reversals are an interesting twist on the bad/good binary. When a person, group or organisation that the Leftist mind has classified as bad adopts a position, the Leftist mind will naturally regard the position as bad and be inclined to classify the opposite position as good. This, I think, explains the Leftist’s sudden unconditional support of “Big Pharma” Quite simply, those on the Right were generally appropriately sceptical about the truncated process of vaccine certification. Leftist psychology meant that the vaccines must necessarily be a good thing that should require unquesting support.
It’s been a fascinating few years for the study of Leftist psychology. The reversals of position have come at an extradinary pace. For, example, previously hated things such as “Big Pharma” have been embraced and manically defended. Meanwhile, the long love affair with gay and women’s rights and feminism has turned to bitter enmity.
A clear distinction between what is traditionally called the Left and Right, is that Leftist movements have historically so often devolved in to hateful infighting over quite small ideological differences of opinion. There is something in the psyche of a Leftist that cannot tolerate any ideological dissent.
The mind of a Leftist seems conditioned to classify things in terms of a rigid distinction between that which is bad – which is met with a visceral hatred -, and that which is good – which receives unquestioning devotion and support.
One consequence of this psychology is that, although another can be in almost complete agreement with a Leftist on ideological matters, all the “goods things” agreed in common will be entirely sullied by the other’s belief in a “bad thing”. The ideological non-conformist themself will also classifed a bad thing.
The description of the LGB Alliance as LGB Alliance as: “parasites” and “neo-Nazis” is indicative of this psychology. Ideological dissent by the LGB alliance made them a bad thing. Because all bad things induce the same emotional level of visceral hatred, they become so bound together in the Leftist mind so as to become synonymous. Somebody complains about too many Pride flags and the accusations of being a neo-Nazi, Fascist, transphobe will rain down.
The reversals are an interesting twist on the bad/good binary. When a person, group or organisation that the Leftist mind has classified as bad adopts a position, the Leftist mind will naturally regard the position as bad and be inclined to classify the opposite position as good. This, I think, explains the Leftist’s sudden unconditional support of “Big Pharma” Quite simply, those on the Right were generally appropriately sceptical about the truncated process of vaccine certification. Leftist psychology meant that the vaccines must necessarily be a good thing that should require unquesting support.
Just a few quick questions – who has a meeting with 400 people present? Just how much is decided at such a meeting? Who were all these people? Are we paying for them all? What do they all do?
They are all paper-shufflers handing out grants to “artists”. They could be replaced by AI in a heartbeat and save the poor old taxpayers billions.
A quick [search engine of your choice] search suggests ACE (HQ in Manchester has 594 or 639 employees depending which source you trust. So about two thirds were at the meeting. As the thing is based all over the country I assume it was some sort of comms meeting and holding it via Teams is more cost effective than doing so in, say, London with non-Londoners travelling in. I assume nothing was decided at the meeting but that doesn’t mean it was unnecessary. I assume we are paying for them all (and the other one third).
However, what do they all do (and is it worth it) – good questions.
They are all paper-shufflers handing out grants to “artists”. They could be replaced by AI in a heartbeat and save the poor old taxpayers billions.
A quick [search engine of your choice] search suggests ACE (HQ in Manchester has 594 or 639 employees depending which source you trust. So about two thirds were at the meeting. As the thing is based all over the country I assume it was some sort of comms meeting and holding it via Teams is more cost effective than doing so in, say, London with non-Londoners travelling in. I assume nothing was decided at the meeting but that doesn’t mean it was unnecessary. I assume we are paying for them all (and the other one third).
However, what do they all do (and is it worth it) – good questions.
Just a few quick questions – who has a meeting with 400 people present? Just how much is decided at such a meeting? Who were all these people? Are we paying for them all? What do they all do?
Art should not be subsidised by the state in the first place. It incentives parasitism and rent-seeking and promotes exclusion and elitism in the arts.
I have often observed that the three artforms in which Britain is a genuine world leader – pop music, musical theatre and novels – are not subsidised by the public purse.
I have often observed that the three artforms in which Britain is a genuine world leader – pop music, musical theatre and novels – are not subsidised by the public purse.
Art should not be subsidised by the state in the first place. It incentives parasitism and rent-seeking and promotes exclusion and elitism in the arts.
Defund them along with the BBC and all the other arts organizations who pull this kind of shit
Defund them along with the BBC and all the other arts organizations who pull this kind of shit
In the article, Fahmy describes herself as “gender-critical.”
There’s no quote where she calls herself a feminist.
Is she, or is that a label the writer decided to assign?
Good question William. I’m gender-critical (in fact I don’t believe there is any such thing as “gender”) but I am not a feminist. I think trying to encourage women to develop masculine traits and become fighter pilots and software developers and men to become more feminine is at best naïve and expensive and at worst dangerous (like when we are turning down “useless white men” for pilot training).
Good question William. I’m gender-critical (in fact I don’t believe there is any such thing as “gender”) but I am not a feminist. I think trying to encourage women to develop masculine traits and become fighter pilots and software developers and men to become more feminine is at best naïve and expensive and at worst dangerous (like when we are turning down “useless white men” for pilot training).
In the article, Fahmy describes herself as “gender-critical.”
There’s no quote where she calls herself a feminist.
Is she, or is that a label the writer decided to assign?
Let’s hope ACE is fined £100k. But it must be forced to change tack, even if this means crying resignations from others. Transgenderist fictional reality must be dismantled.
Let’s hope ACE is fined £100k. But it must be forced to change tack, even if this means crying resignations from others. Transgenderist fictional reality must be dismantled.