Call me optimistic, naïve, deluded, whatever you like, but I think I can detect signs of hope on the frontline of the battle over gender, sexuality and free speech at Edinburgh University and elsewhere. But be warned: signs of hope come in disguise.
Let me take you through the stages. December 2022: a rally at Holyrood on the day they passed the Gender Recognition Act. I was there in the middle of it, speaking to some of the thousand or so people who attended, and my impression was that their concerns were being ignored; and so it proved.
April 2023: an attempted screening of the documentary Adult Human Female at Edinburgh University. The film looks at trans rights policy from a gender critical perspective, but hundreds of protesters blockaded the building and prevented the screening from going ahead. Was that the end of it?
November 2023, the first sign of hope: the organisers of the screening try again. I am one of the people who’s sitting in the room waiting to watch the film and we can hear, faintly, the sound of the protesters outside: “trans rights are human rights”, “no terfs on our turf”. But the screening goes ahead, which is a win for free speech right?
But as I say, signs of hope come in disguise. On the face of it, the right to free speech was exercised, the organisers got their way and the screening went ahead. But it only did so because there was heavy, heavy security. We also know that generally many staff and students at Edinburgh and other universities do not feel able to express gender-critical views and that events featuring such views have been shut down.
Which brings us to the second sign of hope, February 2024, this week in fact. It is announced that Simon Fanshawe has been appointed Edinburgh’s new rector. Mr Fanshawe was a co-founder of Stonewall and is a speaker and writer on diversity and gay rights; he has expressed concern about the direction of policy on trans rights and its consequences but has done so in a thoughtful and intelligent way, always. He is an excellent adult human male.
But again, a decision that could encourage intelligent free speech comes in disguise. Edinburgh University’s Staff Pride Network said the appointment of Mr Fanshawe sent a dangerous signal that the campus was not safe for trans people and that his candidacy should have been ruled out of order. Edinburgh Labour Students said something similar: "staff and students should all feel welcome and respected on campus, and we do not believe this appointment achieves that.”
Read more: Mark Smith: What about the people still on the edge Mr Yousaf?
On the face of it, the activists calling for Mr Fanshawe’s appointment to be rescinded appear to be unaware, still, of the big contradiction at the heart of their argument. The appointment of the rector, they say, is a reminder of how management is failing to uphold university policies on equality, diversity and inclusion. In other words, they are citing inclusion policy to seek to exclude Mr Fanshawe. Inclusion = exclusion.
They also appear to be unaware of what the law actually says. Their argument is that the university should exclude Mr Fanshawe because of its obligations under the 2010 Equality Act. But a series of employment tribunal rulings – most recently, Jo Phoenix at the Open University – have established that gender-critical beliefs are included in the beliefs protected from discrimination under the Act. In other words, the law which the activists are citing to get rid of Mr Fanshawe in fact protects him.
This is all complicated stuff, but I get the sense that anyone concerned about free speech should be feeling reasonably optimistic right now. Mr Fanshawe specifically says that as rector he will be working to encourage staff and students to embrace and promote the free exchange of ideas and that he wants to build bridges between any divides. He also says he will promote fearlessness in the expression of lawful views and seek to bring different views and experiences together to disagree well.
This is positive, particularly the bit about disagreeing well because it’s based on the idea (uncontroversial until very recently) that you should express your point view, then give someone else the opportunity to do the same thing, and so on.
The challenge, I’m afraid, will be making it work at Edinburgh and other universities for the simple reason that an outlook has developed among some staff and students that certain lawful, perfectly reasonable views should not be expressed. I remember one student at the protests over Adult Human Female telling me that it was ok for gender-critical feminists to express their opinions in their own homes. That’s pretty shocking stuff.
Read more: Mark Smith: The restoration of Glasgow. This is how you do it
The other big challenge Mr Fanshawe faces in trying to encourage good disagreement is to overcome the concept of safety which is often mentioned by trans activists. The Staff Pride Network were doing it again in their statement: the appointment of the new rector was, they said, a dangerous signal that the campus was not safe for trans people. The problem is they are never clear exactly what the threat to safety is. Do they mean physical safety, emotional safety, or merely safety from hearing an alternative point of view, in which case they have no such right I’m afraid.
None of this is going to be easy to tackle but, as I say, the signs of hope are there. I was, and remain, sympathetic to the aims of the Gender Recognition Act, but I’ m afraid that its promotion has led to an unacceptable threat to the right of people to express their opinions. But at least, in Mr Fanshawe, we now have an advocate for free speech in a senior position at Edinburgh and we must hope now that he can achieve what he’s set out to do. Call me optimistic, naïve or deluded if you like, but I wish him well.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel