E
Just the language, good lord.
They use slurs and think them endearments. Their 'compliments' are direct rejections of our identity.
And their language drips with an othering of us, as bad or worse than any open bigot I've ever met, with a total lack of awareness only possibly in someone who thinks of us as objects.
YUP. 10000% percent.
And like there's just whole layers of that -- just another totally different awful and unique form of "what the HELL" each all based on the same fundamental belief: That trans women explicitly exist for their sexual gratification and nothing else.
They clearly think it's the only reason we transition. To be sex objects for them. It's misogyny without benevolent sexism. It's misogyny without any of the lies it coats itself in to look more palatable, it's raw and unfiltered and turned up to 11. And it's fire-hosed at us.
We're not seen as people, we're not seen as having agency. They approach us like they're talking to a clerk at a sex shop, detailing the toy they want to buy and what it needs to do.
Every time I've interacted with one -- I'm not being talked to. I'm being given a porn script. Nothing I say matters, because who asks the dildo it's opinion?
i've had absolute strangers try to dictate my transition choices to me, full of rage at the idea that I might change myself in ways they don't find hot.
And god, the way they handle even the gentlest, smallest bit of rejection. The torrent of vitriol, vile and violent -- the fury of someone whose property isn't doing what he said.
And that doesn't even get INTO stuff like their casual use of slurs, their total inability to grasp why we might not want to meet them in their stolen van down by the river at midnight without telling anyone where we are, etc.
I wish I could figure out what happened initially, but everything is paywalled. So my understand is as follows (and please let me know if I'm wrong):
The ruling seems to indicate that OfS (which I think isn't a Sussex office but a governmental body?) appointed a known anti-trans advocate to lead an investigation into whether Stock's speech was illegally stifled.
OfS decided "yes" and levied an unheard of fine.
Sussex appealed, and the high court (which I don't think is the highest UK court) basically ruled the following:
That OfS decided before the investigation started that Stock was right, made multiple errors in their investigation (claiming multiple things were official policy that weren't, etc), ignored the balancing factor of the effect of OfS's ruling and Stock's position student's rights that were required to be taken into account :
Basically that OfS was biased, was acting as Stock's personal attack dog, and made multiple errors of law and fact in the process of attempting to punish Sussex as a lesson to the other Universities that TERFs and other anti-trans bigots have more rights and are more important than those of students, and especially trans students whose place is to accept the hate and abuse that folks like Stock want to shower them with.
I am imagine how that went, having listened to some engineers and MBA's talk about the entire rest of education.
I am sorry you were subject to that. I sincerely hope your university gives that idiocy the attention -- and scorn -- it deserves.
Having watched various educational institutes deal with this sort of thing, I'm aware that "hoping it's treated like the dumb and insulting idea it is, and telling those departments that it's the shrinking departments that face cuts due to less demand" is optimistic.
Is the root issue shrinking out-of-state student enrollment? If so, I'd watch the Math and Computer Sciences departments too.
I know our state university recently took steps to hedge against that risk, despite out-of-state students being capped at 30%
Is this something your actual university is considering? If so, what are they smoking?
Cutting in the areas that are stable or growing is stupid -- it won't fix the problem in the shrinking departments, and it will degrade the university reputation AND cost you more students in short order.
Greedy, short-sighted, STUPID.
Kinda what I'd expect from MBAs.
Somewhere in the area is something labeled with "optimal banana"
I got hooked by Katherine Ryan.
And the potato and the red green bit was just choice.
It's introduced me to so many amazing comedians, and then I developed minor crushes on so many comedians...
This poll sounds like a Taskmaster task.
"Achieve optimal banana. Fastest and most optimal banana wins. Your time starts now".
The logic is the same as a robber's.
"If I rob this bank, I will have a lot of money. So I robbed the bank and now I have all this money. I cannot believe you, the Courts, are trying to prosecute me for this! The law that forbade me from robbing this bank is wrong, and illegal, and should be voided on the grounds that (1) it prevented me from getting all this money and (2) now seeks to deprive me of all this money"
