How our leaders have joined with radical activists to silence feminists

Protester Riz Possenett, who glued herself to the front of the stage, where Kathleen Stock was talking is seen outside The Oxford Union.

A philosophy of feminism course is not the most obvious home for skinheads. Yet according to stickers and posters recently plastered around the University of Melbourne, a class titled “Feminism” (PHIL 20046) is for “fascists only”.

Checking the handbook for Feminism PHIL20046, however, one cannot find Mein Kampf on the reading list, and the speeches of Mussolini are not required reading. All one can find is academic feminist material. So why all the fuss?

The class in question is designed and delivered by Holly Lawford-Smith, part of a growing movement of “gender-critical feminists,” a movement that has been marginalised and maligned in all quarters of society.

University of Melbourne political philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith. Picture: David Geraghty.

Tracing their intellectual roots to their radical forebears of the 1960s, gender-critical feminists have traditionally focused on gender stereotypes and industries that profit from women’s pain, such as pornography. In recent years, however, because such feminists have criticised policies and laws that elevate gender identity over biological sex, and argue that women are entitled to single-sex spaces in certain contexts, such as changerooms or domestic violence shelters, they have attracted significant backlash. While the majority of the population would likely agree with them if surveyed, these feminists have been subjected to ongoing campaigns of censorship, harassment, and vilification.

It’s not just Lawford-Smith who has suffered a storm of arrows. In 2021, Kathleen Stock, a British analytical philosopher, was forced to abandon her academic position at Sussex University after being subjected to a prolonged harassment campaign from “queer, trans, and non-binary” students. Although Stock has repeatedly stated her support for the rights of trans people, students targeted her simply for expressing the view that trans women are not literal women. As a consequence of expressing such heresies, Stock was advised in 2021 to install CCTV cameras in her home and only venture on to her campus accompanied by bodyguards.

On Tuesday, flanked by bodyguards, Stock defiantly delivered a talk at the Oxford Union, facing those who sought to silence her. Among the crimson leather chairs and mahogany tables of the theatre, a lone student glued a hand to the floor in protest.

As protests unfolded outside the hall, a reporter from Times Radio asked demonstrators if they had read Stock’s 2021 book, Material Girls. All of them said no. In explaining why they were protesting the philosopher, one trans woman said: “This isn’t really about freedom of speech. This is about debating somebody’s existence. This is about debating somebody’s right to go to the toilet.”

Kathleen Stock arrives for her talk at The Oxford Union.

Gender-critical feminists have never denied the existence of trans people. Lawford-Smith argues in the pages of Quillette: “Trans people deserve full human rights and the legal protections necessary to deliver them”. However, she also argues it would make more sense for legal protections to be granted based on being transgender, not on being female. Trans women and female people need different protections in at least some cases.

Other arguments gender-critical feminists have made include the contention that self-identification is not a sufficient benchmark for laws and policies because such subjective criteria are open to malfeasance (sex offenders may use gender transitions to gain access to female prisons, for example). They have expressed concern about the impact of gender narratives on young people, particularly gay and lesbian youths who may feel pressured to transition. And they are sceptical of the notion that we all have an intangible “gender identity” reminiscent of a metaphysical “soul”.

Protesters outside The Oxford Union

That such reasonable views are considered outside the bounds of polite society is a reflection of how quickly an orthodoxy can take root. Only a few years ago, it would have been completely unremarkable to suggest that women don’t want to see random penises while getting changed in the gym locker room. Today, one may need personal security to say it.

The biggest scandal associated with gender-critical feminists, however, is not the actions of a minority of fanatics who wish to silence them – it is their marginalisation within mainstream institutions. Stock was forced to abandon her position at Sussex University in 2021 after experiencing a campaign of ostracism, which she has described as “medieval”.

After Lawford-Smith attended the Let Women Speak rally in Melbourne earlier this year, her boss, Melbourne University’s Dean of Arts, sent out a mass email to staff and students condemning the protest as “dehumanising” and “antithetical to my own values and to the values of our university”.

In a complaint to WorkSafe, Lawford-Smith has alleged this email encouraged the student campaign of intimidation against her.

The Liberal Party has also effectively marginalised two women who have the courage to express gender-critical views. Moira Deeming was expelled from the Victorian Liberal Party earlier this year, and Katherine Deves, the former Liberal candidate for Warringah, has repeatedly faced condemnation from Liberal MPs.

That many of our leaders fail to see the value and importance of gender-critical views is regrettable. That some of our leaders seek to join forces with a fanatical minority who wish to silence such feminists is a disgrace.

Claire Lehmann is founding editor of online magazine Quillette.