Gender-critical student suspended from university radio after posting interview with detransitioner

13 comments

1. disgusting that she would be punished for her views.

2. Why are the young so keen to kill freedom of speech? It is one of the most important and basic human freedoms, and it’s crucial that all views (and I mean ALL) are challenged. Otherwise, we are just living in 1984.

   And before you say “you can say what you want, but there will be consequences” – no, being fired or banned from a radio show is not being able to say what you want.

   Edit; and here come all the people who want to only listen to opinions they already agree with.

3. >Ms Shaw oversaw student radio shows including Woman’s Hour and LGBTQ+ Hour as part of her LSR duties.

   I mean. Yeah?

   If you espouse openly anti-LGBTQ and anti-feminist beliefs, don’t be surprised when people don’t think you should be overseeing programs that are supportive of women’s rights and LGBTQ rights.

4. You either show the tolerance we tell you or you’ll be punished.

   Who’d have thought so many people would accept this

5. We do need to listen to detransitioners and their experience. They should be allowed to voice their experience in a free and open way.

   But the gender criticals don’t care about them. They’re just a stick to bash trans people. A way to say “see you’ll regret it”

6. >The letter suggested that this involved her social media activity, but Ms Shaw was not provided specific details of the allegations until a meeting the following week.In the meeting on Nov 6, Ms Shaw was reportedly told the complainant had raised concerns about a blog post she had written on Oct 29

   So, it has nothing to do with her posting an interview then.

   Every time this culture war bs is posted and every time this sub falls for it.

7. We can’t talk freely about this topic on Reddit, which is ironic given it’s a US based website. The silly post gets pinned to the top of the comments section reminding people to watch what they say.

   Last time I tried I was banned for 7 days from Reddit.

8. If she violated the standards of the student radio, then that’s that. And if there’s more to it, that she wrote concerning blog posts that make her unsuitable, then maybe it’s good riddance, frankly.

   Imagine if the editor of the Telegraph had gone rogue and put out front page spreads saying Brexit is shit and we should rejoin the EU, leave trans people alone, and Corbyn would be a great PM. They’d be sacked pretty damn quick. You couldn’t force the Telegraph’s owners to be okay with that, and somehow I doubt the freedom of speech warriors in this thread would be screaming blue murder over it.

9. “after” not “because of”. 🤔 Sounds like some tabloid rage bait to me.

10. Right, so just to start this off as usual.

    This comes from a publication with a strong bias on this topic and so the truth of the story is unlikely to be exactly as reported. Who else remembers the story they posted about the ‘white British child forced to live with Muslim relatives who won’t let her eat pork’ where it then turned out that in fact the child was a child of Muslim parents who was mixed race and had been culturally raised Muslim already.

    How about we all keep that in mind before flying off the handle and using this as the latest excuse to go on a long screed about how younger people / universities / liberalism / trans people existing at all are the root of all evil.

    These kinds of stories almost feel farmed to hit as many possible categories that people might already feel prejudiced towards in order to hit as many rage buttons as possible, all for clicks and ad revenue.

    E: Just to go through in a bit more detail briefly:

    * The article deliberately leads with ‘student was suspended’ to infer that she was suspended from the university. She wasn’t. She was ‘suspended’ from volunteering at a university radio show for university students – that is, some people she shared a social group with, told her they weren’t happy with the way she was behaving, and didn’t want to continue to do this volunteer social activity with her.

    * Or to put it another way, ‘woman falls out with friends at volunteering’. But that doesn’t make for such a *dramatic* article as ‘Philosophy student SUSPENDED due to PERSONAL views!’

11. The amount of people that get rage baited by the clickbait and completely out of context title is ridiculous, read the dam article first dam it:

    #**No she did NOT INTERVIEW A DE-TRANSITIONER on the radio station!!!**

    > In the meeting on Nov 6, Ms Shaw was reportedly told the complainant had raised concerns about a blog post she had written on Oct 29. The blog post was published on a Substack run by Graham Linehan, an Irish comedy writer who has faced significant backlash for his gender-critical beliefs.
    >
    > In the article, Ms Shaw criticised Leeds University’s handling of gender issues. She referenced a gender expression fund run by the student union allowing trans students to apply for grants to cover the cost of chest-binders, make-up and clothes.
    >
    > ….
    >
    > The article also linked to an episode of Ms Shaw’s **personal podcast** in which she had interviewed Charlie Bentley-Astor, a prominent “detransitioner”. Ms Shaw had also interviewed Mr Linehan for her podcast during the Battle of Ideas festival in London in an episode published on Oct 28.

    The whole bit about the interview is a shallow link, where the de-transitioner was on her personal podcast NOT the radio station, and it was **linked** in the posting she did made.

    The complaint was about the posting itself NOT the specific interview, also from how it’s worded it sounds like it was more her comments that were at fault, and the interview wasn’t anything to actually do with the suspension.

    We would need to see the actual “article” she posted, to judge what is actually meant by linked, was it a prominent part of it? Or just a footer message or “see my other bits” aspects.

12. a) she wasn’t suspended from uni, she was removed from a job as a talk show host on the university radio, pretty sure forcing them to keep her on would itself be a breach of free speech, heck where’s my three hour talk show on gb news that they’d be breaching free speech if they cancelled, if we’re going down this route.

    b) https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/gender-madness-at-the-university

    Here’s the article she wrote on graham linehans blog that caused this (not the interview itself as the headline says, although it wouldn’t shock me if she does similar things in that interview which may have contributed)

    1) she calls trans women fetishistic

    2) she uses a slur (“TIM”), then insults a specific member of her uni calling her “a man who identifies as a woman”

    3) linehan himself literally does nothing all day but post slurs and insults at random trans people on twitter, his bigotry is utterly far past the point of reasonable discussion that to even contemplate it that way after seeing the kind of things he does demonstrates a complete lack of good faith, what possible good faith reason would she be having publishing on a blog of someone of that depravity.

13. You have the right to free speech. You have a right to disagree. You have the right to offend (this is not a crime). However the law starts to kick in regarding hate speech, which must be demonstated to incite violence or stir up further harm. The situation has been made cloudy by the introduction of so called ‘Non Crime Hate Incidents’. I jest you not, this is taking a lot of police time. If it is ‘non-crime’ then the police have no place here, since it is the police’s job to pursue crime and not be weaponised to manage ‘though crime’ for political purposes. Sadly, these ‘non-crimes’ *are* being recorded,

    But the Radio Station / University has the right to modulate its broadcast output as it sees fit for its audience.

    [Are they setting you up?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N715Gb0cndg)

Comments are closed.