Scholars note suppression and censorship of academic criticism, harassment, plots to dismiss critics

Trans Power: The above graphic appeared on the Transgender Law Center’s website the day after Donald Trump’s presidential victory in 2016. The colors mimic those of the “Transgender Pride flag,” the equivalent of the “rainbow flag” long used by “gay” activists. Click to enlarge.

By Gina Miller, 10-23-18

More than fifty scholars who work at universities in the U.K., U.S., Australia and elsewhere, and are part of a group of over a hundred, have signed a letter that was published last week in the U.K. Guardian. They expressed their concern about the detrimental effects of political correctness and the “trans” lobby on their ability to research and report their findings regarding so-called “transgenderism.”

The scholars are from a myriad of fields, as they note:

Our subject areas include: sociology, philosophy, law, criminology, evidence-informed policy, medicine, psychology, education, history, English, social work, computer science, cognitive science, anthropology, political science, economics, and history of art.

In part, they express their worries:

We are also concerned about the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism, and its multiple causes and effects. Members of our group have experienced campus protests, calls for dismissal in the press, harassment, foiled plots to bring about dismissal, no-platforming, and attempts to censor academic research and publications. Such attacks are out of line with the ordinary reception of critical ideas in the academy, where it is normally accepted that disagreement is reasonable and even productive.

How unsurprising. The aggressive pushers of “tolerance” are bullies. And just like in the United States under Barack Obama (or whatever his name is), these militant homofascists have imposed their propaganda will on schools and universities in the UK:

Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work.

Nothing about “transgenderism” would withstand any kind of rational analysis or scrutiny, because its very basis—the notion that a man could possibly be a woman, and vice versa—is not simply wrong, it’s crazy-wrong, a million pseudo-scientific claims to the contrary notwithstanding.