Tim Stone & the 'gender critical position'

[sonson]

I worked in Human Rights and Equality legislation prior to becoming involved in Healthcare.

As stated above, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and its subsequent legislation if you demonstrably discriminate against a protected characteristic there is basically a zero tolerance policy within all companies which it covers. While it only relates to Public Bodies or Privates ones delivering public services, most UK private companies have since also adapted it within their statutory terms and conditions. It’s not a good look for anyone with aspirations for a wide consumer base to deliberately choose not to protect the characteristics of minority groups. Even if they don’t use the exact legislation, more or less any workplace will have a zero tolerance approach to discrimination.

BUT as also stated above, it is incredibly easy to be discriminatory against people for anyone and not to leave a paper trail of evidence behind you, or do it on camera or something. Without something that concrete it is basically otherwise impossible to prove and therefore act upon. Comes down to he-said she-said. Everything about grievance policies are weighted against the claimant. Even if you win your case its usually after years of back and forth and exhaustion and breakdowns.

But if you do openly discriminate against someone and it can be proved quickly and without shadow of doubt, as in, like instantly because you announce that you’re doing it- which again, very few people feel either secure doing or are ignorant enough to do within their own workspace- theres basically no recourse.

So far from it being the act of “shady” companies it’s actually just what would happen to pretty much anyone in the same circumstances. My work would have to fire me if I did the equivalent of this I.e proclaimed something discriminatory in my work capacity in any form that could then be proved to be me without any doubt. It’s literally against the law for them to let me do that in their employ

What would be shady is if someone who had demonstrably done the same was kept on despite breaking the 1998 act because they were an asset to the company or whatever. Ok you were homophobic or racist but you’re too valuable to let go. That’s precisley the reason the act exists- to leverage on behalf of opressed minorities against the existing greater power of institutions to ignore or discriminate against them.

Note this isnt me saying that Tim did or didnt break the law, his contract or anything of the sort, I have absolutely no idea. I dont even know if RPS contracts are held by a company subject to it.

Just refuting the notion that he has been victim to some form of progressive mob justice the consequences of which are disproportionate to what occured, when in most forms of employ within the UK the same sorts of actions would have the sane sort of consequences without there being any social media or community action being involved what so ever.

[RogerMellie]

Thanks for the extra info on this. I read most of the comments on the thread - which of those do you feel crossed the line?

[Sarfrin]

Thank you for making my point for me.

Tim Stone can have whatever opinions he likes as can anyone else in any workplace. However, when those opinions detrimentally affect co workers and he expresses them on a company platform there are going to be consequences.
This isn’t new or confined to the left. Some people are of the opinion their company management are arseholes and that’s fine. If they go up to someone in management and call them an arsehole then they’ll get fired.

Please don’t come back with nitpicks about why my example isn’t like what Tim did, it’s designed to illustrate why having an opinion and expressing that opinion at work are two different things.

I have to conclude that I’ve clearly missed something, given that numerous posters who I usually agree with have stated that it’s an open and shut case

You may have missed the reaction of RPS’s regular trans contributor on Twitter. I’m not naming her here in case it sends more trolls her way.

[L_No]

Now see, that is a point I can get behind. I understand where you’re coming from, and have no intention to nitpick anything. You are quite right when you state that opinions can have consequences in the workplace. And a motivated statement by RPS why they chose to terminate the deal they have with Tim would have helped the average reader to understand why RPS did what they did. Maybe there is some prior history, like other posters have suggested, that we’re simply not aware of.

But when it comes to Tim’s specific statements, I find myself in the same position that BillButNotBen is in. When I re-read the conversations about his statements, I’m simply a bit baffled to see that many people consider his statements so incredibly over the line that the only solution was to sever all ties with Tim. A writer that they’ve worked with for 13 years or so. When I re-read the comments Tim made and the reactions, I mainly see the mob mentality, with people only joining in on the execution and adding nothing to the discussion. While the writer that is talking about ‘killing Christ’ (in an article no less, not in a comment below the line) doesn’t even seem to get a slap on the wrist, despite some negative reactions below the line to her article as well. The only reason I can think of is that RPS (and some commenters) are quick to seek and take offense in some areas, and not in others. But without any official explanation from RPS, the readers are left in the dark as to their reasoning (which might very well be sound when you know all the facts!).

[sonson]

As an actual practising Christian I didnt take offense to that article.

I would argue it was hypocritical because I know that a phrase which had similar sentiments said with such abandon, irrespective of context, relating to any other religion, would not have made it into the final copy. That’s not me being defensive about my faith- I dont believe it needs defending- it’s me being an advocate of equality and an opponent of hypocrisy.

It’s also evidence of uncritical and lazy thinking. Theres a reason why you would never encounter a game in which you get to partake in a high res destruction of a synagogue or Mosue as a heroic protagonist. That’s interesting and bears exploration I think, rather than a punchline.

But it was very clearly just an extension of Alice explicitly using a game’s content to write something witty, which she is very good at. At no point was there an argument in favour of it, there was nothing within the article which indicated in any sense a hostility towards Christianity. She did not formally declare that she would like to hear more from people who have an opinion on the Human rights afforded to Christians.

[mocylop]

RE: Sonson

Your take is way too neat for it to be convincing. I’ve been on the internet for quite a long time and it isn’t particularly difficulty for anything to be taken and spread far beyond the original community. The internet is a messy place and using it to power change is going to have some amount of collateral.

---

But when it comes to Tim’s specific statements, I find myself in the same position that BillButNotBen is in. When I re-read the conversations about his statements, I’m simply a bit baffled to see that many people consider his statements so incredibly over the line that the only solution was to sever all ties with Tim.

I was also originally confused for a bit but having done some more reading much of this seems to be very British event. It makes a lot more sense and also puts the Harry Potter lady into context.

[sonson]

Unjust power structures tend to beget and be replaced by unjust power structures.

I didnt say that every act of so-called cancel culture or mob justice is right, fair or even that it sits well with me.

But most of the people who claim to be victims of it- comedians, actors, celebrities- are simply not accustomed to being in a position of accountability and more often than not outright deny they have any. And when being asked to think about what they say and do they come back with shite about censorship and free speech and oppression etc.

The thing about the cancel culture debate is that its proponents seem to believe that it’s some form of new terrible escalation, and it’s not. There has never been a consensus that every perspective is equal from which we have suddenly deferred. White cis people, mostly men, are suddenly just not enjoying unmitigated power to say whatever they like anymore without consequence, which is a preserve that only they have ever enjoyed, and have actively sought to exclude others from.

Having to watch what you say and worry about how others interpret it regardless of intention is something literally everyone else has had to do forever. Many of those people living in predominantly white societies know that not just what they say but what they do, where they go, how they walk, how they dress
is at risk of leading to an unpleasant exchange, losing their job, imprisonment, a beating, or death. And that has been the case for decades. And most people voicing their concerns about the consequences of cancel culture have never said one fucking thing about them and their rights.

[alison]

So, since it’s been over a week now and it seems this is not going to be given any space on the front page, I’ve opened an account here to leave my feedback. I have also emailed Graham, and been ignored.

I would like to try to explain why in my opinion this narrative that Tim (or others like him) are transphobic is unhelpful to the cause of trans people.

“Trans women are women” is a snappy (if tautological) slogan, but it is not very nuanced, and in my opinion it doesn’t really help to further discussion on the essential problems most trans people are facing in society.

Arguing over who gets to use the term “woman” is a waste of everyone’s time. Language changes constantly, it’s impossible to control. A word that’s in vogue one year can change to mean something totally different the next year. Right now, “trans woman” refers to male at birth with currently feminine gender, “cis woman” refers to female at birth with currently feminine gender, “woman” without a qualifier refers to both. Some people pointedly refuse to use contemporary terminology. Oh well. Some people still call drum’n’bass “jungle”. It really doesn’t matter.

Semantics aside, there are some other topics that are also not under serious debate.

Is it polite to refer to people using their preferred pronouns? Yes.
Is it polite to refer to people using their preferred name? Yes.
Should impoliteness be illegal? No.
Are trans people human? Yes.
Can humans legally use whichever toilet they feel most comfortable in? Yes.
Should trans people have access to affordable hormone therapy? Yes.
Should trans people have access to affordable corrective/reassignment surgery? Yes.
Should trans people be able to adjust the “M” or “F” box on current forms of ID like passport? Yes.
Should firing a trans person on the basis of them being trans be illegal? Yes.

None of these issues are under debate, because all of these things are already the case under current law in most western countries, including the UK. There are some improvements that can be made to speed the process up or make it easier. Pretty much everyone on the left agrees we should make those improvements, as do many on the right. None of this stuff is especially controversial.

However there are other things that are still under debate, primarily in niche trans and feminist circles. Sometimes those discussions also overflow to the wider community, which is fair since some of the proposed solutions would impact them. I think it’s important to engage in good faith when that happens. Some examples…

At what age should trans children be able to start hormone treatment?
Should trans people be able to adjust the “M” or “F” box on historic records like birth certificate?
Should we allow an additional “X” option alongside “M” and “F” on legal forms of ID?
Should society stop segregating spaces by gender or sex?
What spaces should be desegregated?
Is it problematic to segregate only by sex (and not gender) or vice versa?
What exactly makes certain segregated spaces (e.g. prisons) so unsafe to begin with?
How do we fix that?
Is gender fundamentally oppressive?
Is gender a performance?
Should non-binary gender roles from indigenous and non-western cultures have an equivalent in the west?
How many genders are there?
Can we just abolish gender already?
What does this all mean for sexuality?
Can straight people be queer?
Am I still a lesbian?
What even is feminism now?
Are we ever going to dismantle the patriarchy?
Shouldn’t we focus on smashing capitalism instead of bourgeois identity politics?

Et fucking cetera.

Unfortunately there is a small but loud group of folks on the left who think their answers to all these questions are the final word. They take those who would disagree and disingenuously lump them in with ultra-conservatives who want to turn society back 20+ years, then inaccurately refer to this make-believe enemy as “radical feminists”, which confuses the topic further. Then they cancel Tim Stone.

This is the context of the “battle” that just played out on one of my favorite fucking websites. Yes, a (presumably - though I do not know for sure) old, straight, white, cis man stumbled into a conversation where his life would’ve been much easier if he hadn’t. He wasn’t aware of all the inane internet arguments and hot button taboo terms that get folks in a huff. That’s on him. Perhaps his firing is deserved based on UK employment law. I will defer to sonson on that.

However, as an actual trans person myself, I don’t appreciate random folks (presumably also mostly old, straight, white, cis men) perpetuating this myth that all trans people would have been offended by what Tim said, or that anyone who took his curiosity at face value is some kind of crypto fascist.

I’m not going to repeat my utter disappointment and dismay about how this has been handled. People who want to see some processing of those emotions can check the reader comments under the final Flare Path column. I am devastated. I feel like the soul of one my favorite websites has been sold to a bunch of social media shit-stirrers. It’s ruined my enjoyment of staff writers I normally really enjoy, notably both Alices and Katharine (when she’s not writing about hardware). Not because their writing changed, but because I am scared they quietly support this sort of petty excommunication. I am so sad.

[mocylop]

I don’t think we disagree all that much. I’m just putting more weight on the evolving means of communication.

Because I do think the internet has created an escalation. That escalation gives more marginal groups the ability to gain local superiority over someone when historical they wouldn’t have. Which is a positive, but its also created a more winner take all environment. That sort of environment is going to more dangerous to relatively marginal people. Whereas J.K. Rowling can go on and on for as long as she wants and no amount of blowback will have any material effect. I think this whole thing started because a right-wing(?) radio host was kicked off of a game. For that person its likely immaterial and might actually be beneficial since they can leverage the incident to their own advantage.

Essentially we are in a situation where people with relatively little power or reach end up bearing the most responsibility as they don’t have the power or reach to generate their own counter to it.

[alms]

I would like to remind that it is perfectly OK to be sad because Tim Stone’s writings will no longer be appearing on RPS, and also be unhappy for the current predicament of RPS, particularly concerning the identity of the site.

And, at the same time, not condone Tim’s ‘gender critical’ comments, or disagree over ties with him being severed.

I personally believe the way RPS has handled this matter so far is more or less par for the course, given the conditions. It’s not ideal, but nothing in this affair is. Realistically, there’s probably no move in this context that has no unfortunate consequences of one kind or another.

It is, indeed, about minimizing the Total Sum of Bad. It will always leave a sour taste in somebody’s, or another’s, mouth, and that’s unavoidable.

[badgerbadger]

I’ve followed alison over here from the Flare Path comments section, to try and (perhaps foolishly) bridge the huge disconnect between some of the views expressed here and by posters on the Flare Path.

It’s appropriately 2020s-post-truth that apparently different sections of the commentariat are looking at the exact same comments and events and seeing two radically different sets of facts. In one, closet transphobe Tim Stone outs himself by using certain cryptofascist buzzwords, hurting fellow contributors and the ‘community’ and is dropped like his namesake. In another, a thoughtful and intelligent contributor of over a decade is shamefully axed through a condescending tweet because he casually expressed views that apparently were not in line with certain orthodoxies.

I’m starting from the position that many members of these two commentariats are fellow travelers. I’ve been reading RPS for over a decade, and I’m going to assume that some of those regretfully shrugging and saying ‘oh well, what else could Graham do?’ are also long-time readers.

I genuinely suspect the clue to this disconnect is that Tim has absolutely no presence on Facebook and Twitter, and neither do I. There are certain speech codes that have apparently been established for those who are Always Online. I’m of course aware of Rowling and ‘TERF’ as a label, but honestly fail to see how Tim’s links and comments were egregious except that he mentioned the term ‘gender critical’. Considering Tim shared articles from the Guardian and a trans writer, I can see him sharing those articles in good faith, with no intention of demeaning or hurting trans people. I get that a lot of people are very wary of these kinds of innocent questions, because lots of right-wing trolls disingenuously use questions to push their agenda, but Tim Stone has been writing for this very progressive website for over a decade. Possibly Tim Stone is some secret crypto-transphobe who has all along been trying to undermine and negate his fellow trans contributors, but…it’s Tim Stone. Does he get no benefit of the doubt at all?

From the outside, it honestly feels like there have been certain arbitrary lines set down about what is or is not permissible. The casualties are people like Tim who aren’t up to date on the latest speech codes, or if they’re actually trans like alison and SomersetVae there’s an embarrassed silence instead. I strongly feel that RPS has acted in a very shameful way towards one of its oldest writers, and that it makes a farce of words like ‘integrity’ and ‘decency’. Apparently firing Tim this way was the moral choice?

[Sarfrin]

From the outside, it honestly feels like there have been certain arbitrary lines set down about what is or is not permissible.

That’s the point though. You are outside and you have no idea what’s happened behind the scenes between Graham and Tim before the decision was taken. Nor do any of the rest of us of course, but the assumption that Tim was summarily fired without the chance to defend himself or apologise is just that, an assumption not a fact.

[L_No]

Sure, but is it so strange to expect some form of accountability towards readers when a long time contributor is axed and a favorite recurring article like the Flare Path suddenly disappears? Over an incident that captures the zeitgeist of 2020 so well that it would have been a major talking point on RPS, had it concerned another outlet than RPS itself? If a major gaming company would seem to let an employee go over a similar incident, I’m sure RPS would have written about it. Now RPS readers as a community get the silent treatment. And for a website that has always prided itself on excellency and honest reporting, I find that course of action hard to swallow.

If I had to hazard a guess, there are no other incidents with Tim. If there were any, why not make a statement along the lines of ‘due to ongoing conflicts with the author, we’ve decided to part ways’ or something? The way I look at it, RPS simply doesn’t want to engage its audience anymore on the very hot topics that RPS likes to write about. If they did, they might find out that a large portion of their audience isn’t a part of the twitter/tumblr/Facebook-incrowd that stays up to date with the latest socio-linguistics and speech codes, and couldn’t care less about Tim’s opinions as long as they get to read his writing every friday. You just don’t see that part of the audience in the comments anymore, at least when it comes to controversial topics, because the atmosphere has become so hostile to other opinions that it’s simply not worth the energy. Case in point: I hesitated for days to engage in this discussion here on the forums, and I wouldn’t have bothered at all in the comment threads on the main website. And I’ve been on this website for over 10 years!

[BooleanBob]

My first knowledge of Tim’s views on this whole thing was in the thread last week, but associating with Stu Campbell is, well, eeesh.

Bit awkward for the John Walker love-in we’re apparently having here, then, that John has linked to Stu Campbell from his personal website for years?

[Sarfrin]

Bit awkward for the John Walker love-in we’re apparently having here, then, that John has linked to Stu Campbell from his personal website for years?

Well shit. I hadn’t been to his personal website.

ETA Although John hasn’t expressed any transphobic views in public, that I’m aware of, and I suspect that link long predates Campbell’s open anti-trans bigotry. It’s almost as though this isn’t quite the all or nothing witch hunt some people make it out to be.

[alms]

Bit awkward for the John Walker love-in we’re apparently having here, then, that John has linked to Stu Campbell from his personal website for years?

As others have implied, it is doubtful that Tim Stone would have been let go, if he didn’t go out and challenge RPS to change their stance in the way he did (just my personal opinion, ofc).

Even if indeed Tim genuinely has espoused transphobic ideologies, nobody in the general public simply would have known until he told everybody.

The moment Tim has made that move, he has left RPS with basically no other counter-move. Indeed, in that perspective, you might also ask yourself, as others have done already, why exactly Tim did what he did and in that way.

Tim might claim to be surprised and shocked about this whole incident, but then again if this is indeed the case, why not go “whoops, my mistake”, issue a retraction and apologize?

---

Briefly on the “but why John Walker gets away with…” argument:

His linking to RevStu’s gaming-related blog might leave some feeling queasy, however we should not forget that:

1. John never went on the record proposing a ‘gender critical’ view on RPS or anywhere else, or asked RPS to embrace it, which is what Tim did.
2. A person and their works are not monolithic - it is OK for me or anybody else to say we enjoy the Flare Path and/or Tim’s game writing, while at the same distancing ourselves from his ‘gender critical’ comments. The same might apply to RevStu and his gaming writing VS the rest of his activities.
3. Botherer is John’s blog and he can do whatever he wants with it. This isn’t the case for Tim and RPS.

So I would suggest to anybody who is truly interested in knowing why John does so and so, and not other things, you go on Twitter or whatever venue you think is best, and ask him yourself.

John has never participated in the forum AFAIK, despite my asking. I doubt he will begin today.

[alms]

BTW, I understand if some have felt the way RPS has handled this incident is somewhat disrespectful to Tim, particularly not naming him explicitly or making a bigger announcement.

However, any extra publicity would have only fueled the raging debate, and made Tim’s predicament more difficult (assuming he’s not looking to get hired by Breitbart or the likes, ofc).

In which case RPS would have been criticized for throwing Tim under the bus.

If I had to hazard a guess, there are no other incidents with Tim

How many incidents of the kind would you suggest are appropriate before letting a writer go?

[L_No]

How many incidents of the kind would you suggest are appropriate before letting a writer go?

Certainly more than one, and only if the employer issued a warning after a previous incident. I cannot speak to employment law or customs in the UK, but in my own (western) country, a seemingly isolated incident like this would never hold up as a reason to sever a contract with someone. Yes, full blown violence or unequivocally racist or discriminatory language could be a reason for termination, but as you can see by the differing reactions in this very thread, I’d say that ‘unequivocally’ isn’t a qualification we can use here.

[alms]

Certainly more than one

Tim Stone hasn’t been apologetic. Not one bit.

He is still using RPS to point people towards write-ups that argue how “male bodied” trans people are a threat to women for physical violence or sexual abuse; and that some men pretend to be trans so they can approach women in vulnerable situations (this is not conceptually different from arguing homosexuals are also child abusers: it’s spreading dangerous stereotypes)

If he is still doing this now, after what happened, it seems realistic to assume a warning wouldn’t prevent repeat incidents.

Knowing that any additional instance can potentially lead to emotional and physical abuse against other people, how many incidents would you suggest as acceptable?

[sonson]

As above, I can, and have, and as I have stated while I cannot claim to know the legal stipulations pertaining to the contract of an RPS contributor, somebody who was proven (something which basically never happens) to have said or written things or taken action which defamed or abused a protected characteristic of an individual would in most instances not get a warning or a second chance in most places of employment, and their employer would be legally in trouble if they were caught doing so. The legislation is incredibly robust. You cant look the other way. It’s on the same level as theft, acts of violence and bringing the company into disrepute in most contracts ie top level termination no warning etc. But again, hardly anyone ever is terminated for it because pretty much all systems in play nonetheless work in favour of discriminatory behaviour when it occurs. It is incredibly hard to prove satisfactorily.

While my knowledge doesn’t extend beyond that of the UK, the laws on legislation rights pertaining to equality, human rights and data protection law are almost exactly thr same as those within the EU, I think they may even be carbon copies, although obviously how they relate to each countries’ respective legislation on employment etc will be different I am sure.