As an American conservative (not a Republican), I watch the apparent double standard in many judicial decisions and I am losing my respect for (but not my fear of) the justice system.
Without the rule of law (a societal compact written for all to see and (mostly) agreed to by society), we will lose our foundations.
And I blame politicized judges for partisan decisions, a lazy and emotional legislature for bad laws, and a substitution of laws for "what is right" (civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, etc).
This. This is what causes me to almost despair. What happened to the ACLU, an organization with whom’s clients i almost never agreed, but was always happy to support the organization for their devotion to principle regardless of the political view. How can we continue if our courts continue down this road? Our governmental organizations? It keeps me awake at night because “what can I do?”
The Laws and the Enlightenment are dead. Accept it and move on, sincerely. To act otherwise is to join them in the grave.
Less philosophically I’ve got multiple combat deployments, I know what they’re doing and it’s all familiar. We are ruled now by the Foreign Policy crowd and our future is Ukraine’s, Syria’s, Iraq’s, and so on. The difference being there’s no one to catch our fall but us. That’s why their first reaction on Jan 6 was to summon any troops they could (which won’t work again) and put up a Green Zone around DC.
He was a bit more aggressive than me sending them hate mail.
I’m just saying the truth.
Which I suspect they know.
Also I’m a soldier and expect to get killed. We all do.
I won’t pretend to respect them however.
Have a google at wartime ROE, Rules of Engagement- which are law, are always changing , are life and death and.... changed often more than once a day.
Of course I don’t respect them...
Really if we are to be slaves we must have a more constant Master... not Chaos.
Finally they are cowards.
The Foundations are gone Sir.
Accept and adapt, or at least make a Brave death.
PS - the man who shot Weaver’s wife deeply regretted it I’m told, and I suspect more ways than one as the system would have leverage over him, they do love Blackmail. It’s compliance with humiliation, to them the peak of power, indeed it seems to be their point. A bullet to the face is quick, love not life too much, it is ephemeral. Degradation worse.
Perhaps the judiciary has been captured like the British Judiciary? Gender identity ideology has crept into all of our institutions and as a result absurd judgements are being made. Indoctrination in schools is taking place, police, healthcare, sports and banking as well as the 3rd sector are all corrupted to gender identity.
I want to second this. Their library of heretofore out of print classics in political thought, particular Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, is absolutely wonderful.
Grotius’ Rights of War and Peace is really worth it, too. For G-man’s Free Sea I do wish they had gone with the 1934 translation as it is easier to understand as a modern, but it is still good.
But yea, if someone is going to read one book on moral philosophy, it should be TMS. I hope to do a chapter by chapter read along on my blog of TMS, once I have enough time such that it wouldn’t be a decade before it finished :)
There is a great run of episodes on Econtalk going through TMS. Probably other great resources out there as well if anyone knows some. TMS is easily on my own "top 5 most underrated works of philosophy" list.
Indeed. Dan Klein was my dissertation advisor, and extremely learned when it comes to Adam Smith. He did a rather nice job on EconTalk, which is a rough time of cramming a lot of ideas into an hour long lecture/discussion! Anyone living near GMU who has time to pop in for his classes on Smith should take the opportunity, even if not pursuing a degree.
Beautiful primer on trusts - a concept many Americans (at least the USA-type) have only heard of in mostly positive framing (unless it’s a complaint about trust-fund children). Yet, they don’t actually understand the much larger concept. In Knowlegde and Dscisions, Thomas Sowell gives the larger concept I’m alluding to: that of “mission driven” (I think that’s the term he uses) lots of ink from - and several directions - but I’m not going to assume for a minute that many people care to browse that lengthy tome, regardless of how brilliant it is. Looking forward to this one!
I'll be very interested, should you ask the question, if they are able to allow that something other than "patriarchy" may be at play in the issues with which they concern themselves.
I can alert you in advance that feminism broadly will be a topic of conversation! Forstater has already opined publicly that "hostility to evolution" is "feminism's Achilles' Heel".
Joyce has not yet. On Lotus Eaters she claimed; "from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, men are obsolete"
Notice the conscession to "Scientism" not Science per se.
Theres a folding in of middle ground all around. Strange bed fellow cuddle up in hard times. The Daily Wire (and JBP) crowd are piling on MGTOW (a "rapey" paper tiger as they frame it, a real movement in reality, in response to the excesses of feminism), while while Joyce and her ilk, say they "arent feminists" per se, and try to fold in some sensible science, while still confusing her twisted misandrist "ought" with a false "evolutionary" "is" (as she miscontrues it).
if Im wrong, they wanted to dismantle all hierarchy, meaning bring on "feminine chaos", anarchy. "If we cant hold the mountain, then no one will"
Better no one has more than anyone else, even if that means we are all poor.
Sociological studies confirm that many people prefer that to prosperity with inequality. It is the "personal is political". It is intrafeminine competition leveling the playing field. There is not enough to go around inside the longhouse; the female does not venture forth to hunt and increase the total resources, she is left to squabble for what is inside the longhouse.
But we now live in a time of unprecidented plenty.
I'd be interested to know more about how they think feminism can and should evolve. Do either of them think feminism (or any strand if it) can accept men and women as mentally/emotionally different to each other? As it is, it seems impossible for feminism to reckon with motherhood, fatherhood, and so family more generally.
It wouldnt be feminism anymore. Im quite literal and serious. It was the same formulation as the race revenge of Fanon or other Marxists, not anything to do with equality or equity. This is not a conclusion I come to lightly, but after an exhaustive review of the literature, much debate and discussion.
This has nothig to do with women getting the vote, and full legal rights. Those were a natural progression of the Constitution. "Feminism" proper came decades AFTER those were granted.
Even the TERFs (beloved Madgalene Berns included RIP) believed that "lady brains" were bunk. I see much of the current TERF position as a consolidation of losses and a rear guard move by a philosophy that IS very antiscience.
We here may, them that make the laws and the rules say they continue.
In the neighborhood school board: “ Last night, some of those who spoke at public comment suggested that he be removed from the school board. Others said (again without naming him) that Burdick should be turned in to the State, for opposing the D.E.I. Policies at Alfred Almond.”
Aug 20, 2023·edited Aug 21, 2023Liked by Helen Dale
There is an elephant in the room of journalistic discourse on issues like public trust in the judiciary. The elephant is the leftist 'social justice' sheep-dip that academic institutions throughout the Western world have degenerated into. For several decades now - whilst media political discourse has obsessed about the electoral party political contest between Left and Right - every ambitious young aspirant to the great professions has passed through this sheep-dip (and only a minority have the contrarian independence to be entirely unaffected). The legal profession is no exception as Heather Mac Donald has worked tirelessly to expose. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
When is root and branch reform of law schools going to be recognised as the urgent issue that it truly is?
Very good point. I'd add that (in the UK at least), those with the intelligence/independence of mind to resist indoctrination are much less likely to end up employment/human rights/equality law (no offence to people working in those areas, but as a general rule the best and brightest end up at the chancery bar or commercial solicitors' firms) I'd like to hear Helen and Maya's views on this as Sex Matters seems to put a lot of faith in the ability of the European Convention on Human Rights as a framework for fighting back against progressive authoritarianism.
Thanks. Are you in the legal profession in the UK? The link I posted to my review of The Diversity Delusion is well worth a read. Heather Mac Donald (in case you don't already know of her) is an American lawyer turned political commentator and her book is a deep dig into the wall-to-wall pervasive DEI indoctrination in top US universities. It's 50 years since my days at a (UK) university but my guess is it's not so different here.
Thanks I will take a look. I teach in a UK law school and so far have been relatively unscathed - I think we're probably a few years behind the US in terms of EDI/DEI madness.
Who’s interests does the rule against perpetuating and passing on wealth serve?
“rule against perpetuities” was the beginning of the financial crisis; it’s the first thing mentioned in “The Big Short” - the Trusts must seek returns or fail, so they seek Alpha (gain) in ever more contorted places...
leading us so many places including 2008 and now...
Whom is served by this Perpetual and Escalating madness?
.... and to the Point>; this rule simply institutionalizes Chancery upon us all... and we have unknowingly become the slaves of the legal clerisy.
There never was Rule of Law there was always Rule of Men.
A polite fiction that makes the Immaculate Conception appear modest and practical - The Church you know claims only One, no more never mind Perpetual Immaculate Conceptions that persist in Perpetuity- ahem...
The Laws of MEN were much more evenly enforced in the past when as a group the Ruling Class knew it was in their interest to obey their own rules. They don’t now... and so why do we?
Rule of Law?
You don’t even rule yourselves...
My break with the law was ROE, it doesn’t mean Caviar, it meant Rules Of Engagement... which you know are “laws” until they aren’t, and the are or aren’t depends the appearances, or mood, or who’s on duty... and that’s why they changed constantly.... for decades...
When the Sword figures it out (we have) the Pen ain’t 💩.
This is 🇺🇸 , be happy you’re not here... we already know
Some feminists who worry about transideology increasingly also criticize drag and/or playing with gender. What is their view on this? How would they define the borders of being critical of transideology versus a new form of male-female gender purity and being critical of transideology becoming an oppression by itself? Is there a danger that being critical of transideology can overshoot? What would their advice be to the transcritical people who are critical of drag("womanface")/playing with gender in general?
If they are looking for an example, I think of the Sean Altmann discussion. I'm worried that this new feminist longing for purity can overshoot which might hurt their cause and become a new oppression on itself which I think might hurt freedom of speech/expression/creativity and hurt gay people as well (although not as much as transideology).
The initial judge at the employment tribunal ruled that Maya's beliefs were 'not "worthy of respect in a democratic society".' -- and this was held to have legal consequences for her.
This was overturned on appeal, but given the zeitgeist how long do you think the attitude of the appeal tribunal will stick? And how far will it extend respecting other beliefs? If legislation against misinformation or hate speech is passed, will that also colour these judgements-calls made under employment law?
Non-US questioner, but relevant I think for both Joyce and Forstater, which is that much of British public dialogue is quite secular, how do they think they should attempt to deal with societies with a more religious public discourse & may be more gender “conservative?
Not a lawyer (and hence unschooled in the nuances of legal trusts) but it's hard not to notice that various activists groups, after achieving victory, never/rarely actually declare victory and go home happy to have completed their work. You seem to recognize this as well. Lots of obvious (not necessarily good) reasons for this. A topic worth exploring (as you seem to imply).
And if you really want to make things spicy you might consider mentioning Matt Walsh ... or is that a bridge too far??
As I said, am looking forward to the conversation.
I'm a newbie to your writing and I gotta say my first thought was "Who the hell is this woman??" (Actually I thought "who the fuck is this woman" but thought that might be a little rude on a first post).
That's not a criticism - from what little I've read, gotta say, you're pretty damn interesting.
Re Walsh et al, your post and the claim "Wokery is a Christian heresy" - ouch!! You make an interesting case (and that may well be true of many Wokesters) but I don't see much evidence that Walsh lets his religion get in the way of coming down (hard) on the Woke mob. He's more of a Christian Crusades kind-of-guy. So if that's what you meant (except you didn't) that might fit.
One of the reasons I replied to your post is that Helen Joyce (who I consider smart, articulate, and generally on point) occasionally hints at the narrative "well this is just more evidence of the 'patriarchy'". She's not that overt and perhaps I'm overselling it - but it slips out just a bit.
I don't see it that way and I think it's a mistake to turn the trans lunacy into yet another skirmish in the endless battle of the sexes. I'd argue that the trans mania has deep roots in postmodernism idiocy and the adoption of such idiocy into academic feminism (see Judith Butler, for example). Other commenters have made similar points.
Your comment (above) that Forstater has already opined publicly that "hostility to evolution" is "feminism's Achilles' Heel" is a good sign. This could be a really interesting conversation.
I assume you're from the US; none of my books have had a US release, unfortunately, even though I now work for an American think-tank. Just the way it's worked out professionally (I live in the UK; the "About" tab provides background).
The judiciary has provided the legal support for changes in how society sees (and treats) controversial issues.
But now trust in the judicial system is shrinking - 53% favorable according to Gallop, down from 76%.
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/losing-faith-why-public-trust-in-the-judiciary-matters/
As an American conservative (not a Republican), I watch the apparent double standard in many judicial decisions and I am losing my respect for (but not my fear of) the justice system.
Without the rule of law (a societal compact written for all to see and (mostly) agreed to by society), we will lose our foundations.
And I blame politicized judges for partisan decisions, a lazy and emotional legislature for bad laws, and a substitution of laws for "what is right" (civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, etc).
What can we do?
This. This is what causes me to almost despair. What happened to the ACLU, an organization with whom’s clients i almost never agreed, but was always happy to support the organization for their devotion to principle regardless of the political view. How can we continue if our courts continue down this road? Our governmental organizations? It keeps me awake at night because “what can I do?”
The downward spiral of the ACLU--a once great organization-- over my lifetime has been truly sad and embarrassing.
Do?
Accept the facts.
Then Do accordingly.
Is this your sincere recommendation?
Yes.
This part is ending.
Reality returns and to collect with interest.
The Laws and the Enlightenment are dead. Accept it and move on, sincerely. To act otherwise is to join them in the grave.
Less philosophically I’ve got multiple combat deployments, I know what they’re doing and it’s all familiar. We are ruled now by the Foreign Policy crowd and our future is Ukraine’s, Syria’s, Iraq’s, and so on. The difference being there’s no one to catch our fall but us. That’s why their first reaction on Jan 6 was to summon any troops they could (which won’t work again) and put up a Green Zone around DC.
This is what they do.
If you profit from Chaos it’s great.
If you are in The Red Zone...
Your comment is undecipherable to me. At first it seemed disingenuous but I will grant that it is perhaps sincere.
It’s indecipherable because it’s outside your frame.
You’re Frame is obsolete.
The correct frame is Iraq.
My Frame, although you could have a look at Ukraine too.
Below are references.
Watch the movie The Green Zone. Fictional summary of events that took months to unfold but do essentially summarize what happened.
Read “ Life inside the Emerald City: Tales from the Green Zone.”
Read “The Red Zone” with the understanding that the author and his translator were assassinated later.
Thank you for granting me possible sincerity. Ahem.
The DD214 certificate is also sincere.
Now sincerely adjusting the frame is a graded exercise.
Life or death.
You’re in the Red Zone.
Good luck.
Heres a simpler version.
"What should we do when the shit hits the fan?"
Ahem.
It already has.
Adjust your frame accordingly.
When reality itself defies your theory about what it should do, you need a new theory (thats a little better at predicting what comes next)
Sir; if you fear these wretches you are lost.
And - you choose to be a slave to Masters you don’t trust or respect?
As for the Foundations they were demolished.
Take comfort; you are Free!
So is everyone else.
That is to be feared, if one wishes to indulge fear.
I admire your courage.
I remember a man: Randy Weaver.
Equally brave.
Equally free.
Equally outspoken.
He was a bit more aggressive than me sending them hate mail.
I’m just saying the truth.
Which I suspect they know.
Also I’m a soldier and expect to get killed. We all do.
I won’t pretend to respect them however.
Have a google at wartime ROE, Rules of Engagement- which are law, are always changing , are life and death and.... changed often more than once a day.
Of course I don’t respect them...
Really if we are to be slaves we must have a more constant Master... not Chaos.
Finally they are cowards.
The Foundations are gone Sir.
Accept and adapt, or at least make a Brave death.
PS - the man who shot Weaver’s wife deeply regretted it I’m told, and I suspect more ways than one as the system would have leverage over him, they do love Blackmail. It’s compliance with humiliation, to them the peak of power, indeed it seems to be their point. A bullet to the face is quick, love not life too much, it is ephemeral. Degradation worse.
Perhaps the judiciary has been captured like the British Judiciary? Gender identity ideology has crept into all of our institutions and as a result absurd judgements are being made. Indoctrination in schools is taking place, police, healthcare, sports and banking as well as the 3rd sector are all corrupted to gender identity.
Liberty Fund is an amazing resource, people should check it out if they haven’t. Tons of great free books and other stuff.
I want to second this. Their library of heretofore out of print classics in political thought, particular Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, is absolutely wonderful.
I was actually thinking of TMS when I commented. Pure gold.
Grotius’ Rights of War and Peace is really worth it, too. For G-man’s Free Sea I do wish they had gone with the 1934 translation as it is easier to understand as a modern, but it is still good.
But yea, if someone is going to read one book on moral philosophy, it should be TMS. I hope to do a chapter by chapter read along on my blog of TMS, once I have enough time such that it wouldn’t be a decade before it finished :)
There is a great run of episodes on Econtalk going through TMS. Probably other great resources out there as well if anyone knows some. TMS is easily on my own "top 5 most underrated works of philosophy" list.
Indeed. Dan Klein was my dissertation advisor, and extremely learned when it comes to Adam Smith. He did a rather nice job on EconTalk, which is a rough time of cramming a lot of ideas into an hour long lecture/discussion! Anyone living near GMU who has time to pop in for his classes on Smith should take the opportunity, even if not pursuing a degree.
Beautiful primer on trusts - a concept many Americans (at least the USA-type) have only heard of in mostly positive framing (unless it’s a complaint about trust-fund children). Yet, they don’t actually understand the much larger concept. In Knowlegde and Dscisions, Thomas Sowell gives the larger concept I’m alluding to: that of “mission driven” (I think that’s the term he uses) lots of ink from - and several directions - but I’m not going to assume for a minute that many people care to browse that lengthy tome, regardless of how brilliant it is. Looking forward to this one!
What do you think will turn around the trans juggernaut in the US and Canada and how best should GC efforts be focused?
I'll be very interested, should you ask the question, if they are able to allow that something other than "patriarchy" may be at play in the issues with which they concern themselves.
I can alert you in advance that feminism broadly will be a topic of conversation! Forstater has already opined publicly that "hostility to evolution" is "feminism's Achilles' Heel".
The Sea Change being men in dresses are making the Feminists walk the Plank.
Piracy is a young girl’s game, Ladies...
I can’t find Sympathy for The Devils Concubines.
Joyce has not yet. On Lotus Eaters she claimed; "from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, men are obsolete"
Notice the conscession to "Scientism" not Science per se.
Theres a folding in of middle ground all around. Strange bed fellow cuddle up in hard times. The Daily Wire (and JBP) crowd are piling on MGTOW (a "rapey" paper tiger as they frame it, a real movement in reality, in response to the excesses of feminism), while while Joyce and her ilk, say they "arent feminists" per se, and try to fold in some sensible science, while still confusing her twisted misandrist "ought" with a false "evolutionary" "is" (as she miscontrues it).
"dissolution of patriarchy"
This was a bald faced lie.
they wanted to co opt it.
if Im wrong, they wanted to dismantle all hierarchy, meaning bring on "feminine chaos", anarchy. "If we cant hold the mountain, then no one will"
Better no one has more than anyone else, even if that means we are all poor.
Sociological studies confirm that many people prefer that to prosperity with inequality. It is the "personal is political". It is intrafeminine competition leveling the playing field. There is not enough to go around inside the longhouse; the female does not venture forth to hunt and increase the total resources, she is left to squabble for what is inside the longhouse.
But we now live in a time of unprecidented plenty.
Sour grapes.
I'd be interested to know more about how they think feminism can and should evolve. Do either of them think feminism (or any strand if it) can accept men and women as mentally/emotionally different to each other? As it is, it seems impossible for feminism to reckon with motherhood, fatherhood, and so family more generally.
Their reckoning the destruction of their enemies, they’re reckoning fine...
... mind you they’re also being destroyed by what they unleashed, but that was to be expected.
Sympathy for the Devil’s concubines is misplaced.
It wouldnt be feminism anymore. Im quite literal and serious. It was the same formulation as the race revenge of Fanon or other Marxists, not anything to do with equality or equity. This is not a conclusion I come to lightly, but after an exhaustive review of the literature, much debate and discussion.
This has nothig to do with women getting the vote, and full legal rights. Those were a natural progression of the Constitution. "Feminism" proper came decades AFTER those were granted.
Even the TERFs (beloved Madgalene Berns included RIP) believed that "lady brains" were bunk. I see much of the current TERF position as a consolidation of losses and a rear guard move by a philosophy that IS very antiscience.
This isn't directed at you, Josh--you made an excellent comment--but the rest of this thread has outlived its usefulness.
If everyone could draw a line now, that would be grand.
We all want surgeries on children to stop. It seems these are common and ongoing in the United States, but, how common are they in the UK?
Ditto puberty blockers.
What is available on the NHS. What is available in the private sector.
i.e. Does provision differ twixt USA and UK?
We here may, them that make the laws and the rules say they continue.
In the neighborhood school board: “ Last night, some of those who spoke at public comment suggested that he be removed from the school board. Others said (again without naming him) that Burdick should be turned in to the State, for opposing the D.E.I. Policies at Alfred Almond.”
https://wlea.net/another-noteworthy-public-comment-period-at-alfred-almond-central/?amp=1
They’re “parents” 🤣
There is an elephant in the room of journalistic discourse on issues like public trust in the judiciary. The elephant is the leftist 'social justice' sheep-dip that academic institutions throughout the Western world have degenerated into. For several decades now - whilst media political discourse has obsessed about the electoral party political contest between Left and Right - every ambitious young aspirant to the great professions has passed through this sheep-dip (and only a minority have the contrarian independence to be entirely unaffected). The legal profession is no exception as Heather Mac Donald has worked tirelessly to expose. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
When is root and branch reform of law schools going to be recognised as the urgent issue that it truly is?
Very good point. I'd add that (in the UK at least), those with the intelligence/independence of mind to resist indoctrination are much less likely to end up employment/human rights/equality law (no offence to people working in those areas, but as a general rule the best and brightest end up at the chancery bar or commercial solicitors' firms) I'd like to hear Helen and Maya's views on this as Sex Matters seems to put a lot of faith in the ability of the European Convention on Human Rights as a framework for fighting back against progressive authoritarianism.
Thanks. Are you in the legal profession in the UK? The link I posted to my review of The Diversity Delusion is well worth a read. Heather Mac Donald (in case you don't already know of her) is an American lawyer turned political commentator and her book is a deep dig into the wall-to-wall pervasive DEI indoctrination in top US universities. It's 50 years since my days at a (UK) university but my guess is it's not so different here.
Thanks I will take a look. I teach in a UK law school and so far have been relatively unscathed - I think we're probably a few years behind the US in terms of EDI/DEI madness.
Who’s interests does the rule against perpetuating and passing on wealth serve?
“rule against perpetuities” was the beginning of the financial crisis; it’s the first thing mentioned in “The Big Short” - the Trusts must seek returns or fail, so they seek Alpha (gain) in ever more contorted places...
leading us so many places including 2008 and now...
Whom is served by this Perpetual and Escalating madness?
.... and to the Point>; this rule simply institutionalizes Chancery upon us all... and we have unknowingly become the slaves of the legal clerisy.
There never was Rule of Law there was always Rule of Men.
A polite fiction that makes the Immaculate Conception appear modest and practical - The Church you know claims only One, no more never mind Perpetual Immaculate Conceptions that persist in Perpetuity- ahem...
The Laws of MEN were much more evenly enforced in the past when as a group the Ruling Class knew it was in their interest to obey their own rules. They don’t now... and so why do we?
Rule of Law?
You don’t even rule yourselves...
My break with the law was ROE, it doesn’t mean Caviar, it meant Rules Of Engagement... which you know are “laws” until they aren’t, and the are or aren’t depends the appearances, or mood, or who’s on duty... and that’s why they changed constantly.... for decades...
When the Sword figures it out (we have) the Pen ain’t 💩.
This is 🇺🇸 , be happy you’re not here... we already know
(You don’t have ___)
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxHbuXzWOp395dKDXoFy9KUyHCjwSHKdox
Some feminists who worry about transideology increasingly also criticize drag and/or playing with gender. What is their view on this? How would they define the borders of being critical of transideology versus a new form of male-female gender purity and being critical of transideology becoming an oppression by itself? Is there a danger that being critical of transideology can overshoot? What would their advice be to the transcritical people who are critical of drag("womanface")/playing with gender in general?
If they are looking for an example, I think of the Sean Altmann discussion. I'm worried that this new feminist longing for purity can overshoot which might hurt their cause and become a new oppression on itself which I think might hurt freedom of speech/expression/creativity and hurt gay people as well (although not as much as transideology).
The initial judge at the employment tribunal ruled that Maya's beliefs were 'not "worthy of respect in a democratic society".' -- and this was held to have legal consequences for her.
This was overturned on appeal, but given the zeitgeist how long do you think the attitude of the appeal tribunal will stick? And how far will it extend respecting other beliefs? If legislation against misinformation or hate speech is passed, will that also colour these judgements-calls made under employment law?
Non-US questioner, but relevant I think for both Joyce and Forstater, which is that much of British public dialogue is quite secular, how do they think they should attempt to deal with societies with a more religious public discourse & may be more gender “conservative?
Nice intro - am looking forward to the podcast.
Not a lawyer (and hence unschooled in the nuances of legal trusts) but it's hard not to notice that various activists groups, after achieving victory, never/rarely actually declare victory and go home happy to have completed their work. You seem to recognize this as well. Lots of obvious (not necessarily good) reasons for this. A topic worth exploring (as you seem to imply).
And if you really want to make things spicy you might consider mentioning Matt Walsh ... or is that a bridge too far??
As I said, am looking forward to the conversation.
I've actually covered aspects of the Matt Walsh imbroglio on this Substack: https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/what-is-a-woman
Hadn't seen that (your post).
I'm a newbie to your writing and I gotta say my first thought was "Who the hell is this woman??" (Actually I thought "who the fuck is this woman" but thought that might be a little rude on a first post).
That's not a criticism - from what little I've read, gotta say, you're pretty damn interesting.
Re Walsh et al, your post and the claim "Wokery is a Christian heresy" - ouch!! You make an interesting case (and that may well be true of many Wokesters) but I don't see much evidence that Walsh lets his religion get in the way of coming down (hard) on the Woke mob. He's more of a Christian Crusades kind-of-guy. So if that's what you meant (except you didn't) that might fit.
One of the reasons I replied to your post is that Helen Joyce (who I consider smart, articulate, and generally on point) occasionally hints at the narrative "well this is just more evidence of the 'patriarchy'". She's not that overt and perhaps I'm overselling it - but it slips out just a bit.
I don't see it that way and I think it's a mistake to turn the trans lunacy into yet another skirmish in the endless battle of the sexes. I'd argue that the trans mania has deep roots in postmodernism idiocy and the adoption of such idiocy into academic feminism (see Judith Butler, for example). Other commenters have made similar points.
Your comment (above) that Forstater has already opined publicly that "hostility to evolution" is "feminism's Achilles' Heel" is a good sign. This could be a really interesting conversation.
I assume you're from the US; none of my books have had a US release, unfortunately, even though I now work for an American think-tank. Just the way it's worked out professionally (I live in the UK; the "About" tab provides background).
It would be nice if one of the brave fighters against trans lunacy didnt also think that "men are obsolete"