Scottish Law Student Under Investigation for Stating in Class that Men are Stronger on Average than Women, and that Women Have Vaginas

|

Via Spiked Online. A brief excerpt:

spiked: What did you say that got you into trouble?

Lisa Keogh: I was in an online class about gender and feminism in the law. We were discussing equal rights for men and women. I said that I agree with equal rights, but that you can't expect an equal outcome. For example, I can't lift things as heavy as a man can. When I worked in a garage, men would help me because I wasn't physically as able as them. I was a small female and they were burly mechanics. I have equal rights to them and to men in general, but I cannot be a man, so to speak.

After I said that, somebody else in the class said it was misogynistic. I said it wasn't, and they brought up the issue of trans. I said that a trans woman would be stronger than me, because I'm a biological woman. So they asked how I would define a woman, and I said that my classification of a woman is somebody who is born with a vagina and the ability to menstruate.

There was uproar. It was like putting a target on my back. I had branded myself as a non-member of the echo chamber. I could have said the sky was blue and they would have attacked me. As I understand it, more than one person from the class reported me to the university.

NEXT: John Marshall Law School Cancels John Marshall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How programmed are students today that they seek out being offended in manners like this?

    1. Just went through a corporate online Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion class.

      I was expected to be outraged by the Equity block, but there wasn’t one. My big issue was material on microaggressions. In summary,
      – it encouraged folks to identify microagressions against themselves,
      – validated the definition amounted to “anything that bothers you is an offense”
      – made it clear that the speaker was always guilty, and
      – the solution at a minimum was a complete and abject apology and a promise that you would never reoffend

      which of course in an oversensitive world is impossible, thus making you a serial offended and a source of a hostile environment.

      1. Zero tolerance for any diversity training, PC, or any woke policy.

        1. There should be an update. Head of school said he certainly was not suspended for saying women had vaginas, but for a pattern of disruptive behavior.

          1. A pattern of saying women have vaginas.

    2. It’s Fascism — nothing less, and rather scary when you realize what Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier said and how much trouble he got into for it.

      This morning a Boston right wing talk show host was openly comparing America today to Germany circa 1933 — the only difference between institutionalizing hatred of Jews then and institutionalizing the hatred of White conservatives today.

      1. “…the hatred of White conservatives…”
        They hate black conservatives just as much. Female conservatives too. The viciousness of attacks against Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin was/is a thing to behold.

        1. Boo frickin’ hoo.

          1. So, to be clear, you’re good with fascism for so long as it disadvantages only those with whom you disagree?

      2. This morning a Boston right wing talk show host was openly comparing America today to Germany circa 1933 — the only difference between institutionalizing hatred of Jews then and institutionalizing the hatred of White conservatives today.

        Fucking moronic. But you lap it up.

        1. How is that different from complaining for four years that Trump instituting fascism?

          Seems like a normal part of the political landscape to me by now.

          1. And before Trump, George W. Bush was creating a fascist theocracy. When Trump was elected some of Bush’s critics admitted they had been crying “wolf!” but said this time they really meant it.

            1. You’re confusing the fact that Trump was incapable ot achieving anything with some kind of restraint he might have showed about trying to achieve things. Trump would have been more than happy to create a fascist theocracy, if he was the top man in it, but since he isn’t going to be, now he isn’t interested and can’t be bothered with any of it.

              Whining about Bush critics is expressly ignoring the fact that most “Bush critics” are objectively Cheney critics. I think most critics of the administration believed that W meant well but was in over his head.

              1. I look forward to the next Republican President, when Trump will suddenly have been not so bad, so that they can unfavorably contrast whoever it is with Trump.

                The way they rehabilitate every Republican President, but only for the purpose of slamming the next.

                1. “What do you think of the President?”

                  “Average for a Republican. Worse than the last one, better than the next one.”

                  1. Bernard,

                    Read this story.

                    https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/21/biden-is-keeping-migrant-kids-in-horrible-conditions-where-is-the-outcry/

                    Then tell me how “bad” Trump was for “kids in cages”.

                    1. A.L.

                      I don’t trust a word the federalist publishes. It’s a right-wing rag with zero integrity.

                    2. Well, that’s certainly convenient: You never have to address things contrary to your own side’s interests, because they’ll generally only be reported by the other side.

                    3. I don’t trust a word the federalist publishes. It’s a right-wing rag with zero integrity.

                      We already know how much of a hypocrite and and intellectually dishonest coward you are. There’s no need to beat it into the ground.

                    4. Fuck you.

                    5. Brett,

                      Well, that’s certainly convenient: You never have to address things contrary to your own side’s interests, because they’ll generally only be reported by the other side.

                      I’ve spent a lot of time tracking down stuff “reported” by the RWNJ media. Often because it was repeated, gullibly, by commenters here, including you. Pretty much always it’s turned out to be a load of shit. So I won’t do it any more.

                      These “sources” do not deserve to be taken seriously. Migh the occasionally have it right? Yeah, but not nearly often enough to make it worthwhile to follow up.

                      Put bluntly, the conservative media are full of crap.

                    6. “Put bluntly, the conservative media are full of crap.”

                      You probably think that Fox News’ Lawyers argued that no reasonable viewer believes the things Tucker Carlson reports on his show.

          2. So you agree that

            comparing America today to Germany circa 1933 — the only difference between institutionalizing hatred of Jews then and institutionalizing the hatred of White conservatives today

            is fucking moronic?

            Let’ s get that straight before we divert into your whataboutery, because I don’t actually know where you stand on the statement I made.

      3. What’s the big deal with Lohmeier?

        He made a bunch of bizarre claims about how the US military was a Marxist organization or something, and was relieved of his command.

  2. Reported and kicked out of Nextdoor.com for 15 days for linking to this story in another newspaper. I may open a campaign of regulatory lawfare against this San Fran company. For example, I would like to hire David to file a complaint about their lack of accessibility for deaf and blind neighbors. Also, David, can I make money off this complaint if I am not deaf nor blind?

    They want posts about sofas to be picked up for free, and about lost cats. They have zero tolerance for posts about the emotional abuse of kindergarten students being told race relations are their fault because they are white.

    1. Boo hoo hoo, another conservative who is looking for a way to profit off the fact that the owner of some property won’t let him use it against the wishes of the owner. anybody remember when Republicans claimed to be the party of “personal responsibility”?

      1. Lawfare has to be answered. It is better than violence.

  3. It’s gotten to the point where one looks for opportunities to blame the victim:

    “I was in an online class about gender and feminism in the law.”

    Was it an elective, or mandatory? Was she obliged to articulate her opinions?

    “So they asked how I would define a woman, and I said that my classification of a woman is somebody who is born with a vagina and the ability to menstruate.”

    Oh, Lord, wearing a short skirt like that it’s no wonder she got raped.

    1. Yep, asking people to express their opinions at a University is an obvious trap. Especially where they don’t have a “bonkers” 1st amendment to restrain state universities.

  4. Say something someone disagrees with and they might disagree with you. They might complain to the authorities. If the authorities actually do anything, let us know. If not, then, if you’ll pardon the expression, grow a pair.

    1. ” If the authorities actually do anything, let us know.”

      Well, so far the authorities have commenced an investigation, which means that this young woman had to go in and be interrogated about what she said in class. That’s something.

      1. The process is the punishment

      2. “Well, so far the authorities have commenced an investigation”

        Egads. Imagine a world where authorities want information before making decisions. It would be horrible! We can’t let that sort of thing get a foothold.

        1. Now imagine a world where some maladjusted student who went crying to administrators about what someone else said in class was told “so what?”

    2. While I agree that Prof. Bernstein’s excerpt doesn’t make it clear, the article claims that the authorities did in fact do something:

      Lisa Keogh, a law student at Abertay, is currently being investigated by the university authorities for comments she made in seminars. She says her fellow students complained after she said that women are born with female genitalia, and that trans women should not compete in women’s mixed martial arts. For uttering such heresies she could even face expulsion — the university is reportedly deciding her fate later today. We spoke to Lisa ahead of the ruling to find out more.

      (The piece is datelined Tuesday, so presumbly we know what happened by now?)

      1. Looking into and doing are two very different things. I’ve been looked into over a bogus complaint. I told my story. And that was the end of it. Don’t be a snowflake.

        1. The investigation is punishment, intimidating, bullying. All investigations without probable cause of a crime should be compensated to the victim of the leftist bullies. Probable means, solid physical evidence, like a recording, not crybaby minority boohooing.

          1. …boohoos the biggest crybaby minority.

            1. Repeated typing “boohoo” and many variants isn’t going to convince anyone of anything other then their belief that “anti-racism” is just code for “sticking it to white people out of pure hate” is true.

        2. “I’ve been looked into over a bogus complaint. I told my story. And that was the end of it. ”

          Kind of a pain in the ass, though, especially if you’re in the middle of writing your dissertation. It’s easier just to watch what you say.

          1. “KInd of a pain in the ass” is the normal state of life. Freedom of speech is not freedom from annoyance.

            1. Freedom of speech is compatible with being subject to mandatory interrogation by government officials when you depart from the preferred position? I’m not sure you get the concept.

              1. “Freedom of speech is compatible with being subject to mandatory interrogation by government officials when you depart from the preferred position?”

                If you don’t want to be interrogated by your college, all you have to do is walk away.

                1. If you don’t like what someone says in class, all you have to do is walk away.

                2. And wave goodbye to your tuition money.

                  1. “And wave goodbye to your tuition money.”

                    And your tax money that funds the university. Some times I wonder if people take eight grade civics.

            2. Its just a wee little tax, right?

              Maybe we should make voting really annoying, after all “Freedom to vote is not freedom from annoyance.”

              1. Especially if you make it more annoying to vote for some candidates than others.

            3. So why doesn’t that apply to society of the perpetually aggrieved?

          2. Umm, that might NOT be the end of it — you’re on the list of known problematic individuals and they will pull the file the next time there is an unfounded complaint against you.

            1. I’m not worried, but then I’m not a snowflake.

              1. Mike Adams is dead.

                Just sayin….

                1. I don’t plan to exploit a dead man’s mental health issues for a political point.

                  1. He wasn’t mentally ill — I knew him personally.

                    As far as I am concerned, he was murdered.

                    1. He shot himself. Res ipsa loquitur.

      2. Yes, we know that the tribunal has been escalated to the next level. (The Student Disciplinary Panel referred her case to the Student Disciplinary Board. Presumably the Student Disciplinary Committee, Student Disciplinary Council, and Student Disciplinary Commission have reserved time on their respective calendars.)

        The University has made it clear that they support free speech, except for the wrong kind, so that when they finally get around to expelling her it will be with mealy-mouthed excuses and a refusal to admit to the real reasons: “To be clear, all Abertay students are free to express their views on campus, as long as this is not done in an intolerant or abusive way which would breach our Code of Student Discipline.”

        1. “To be clear, all Abertay students are free to express their views on campus, as long as this is not done in an intolerant or abusive way which would breach our Code of Student Discipline.”

          Why would you want a degree from an organization that expressed such a policy? Seems like a problem that solves itself. They don’t like you, you don’t like them. stop spending time together. Fixed.

          1. Our schools get a lot of tax support for the purpose of education. That requires covering all aspects of a subject. Allowing one side is called indoctrination and violates the purpose of the non-profit status. All tax support should be pulled for the slightest hint of indoctrination.

          2. A lot of these organizations have changed either their policies or their enforcement of them in recent years. It’s hard to tell in advance what the environment will be like — she is, after all, in her final year of the law school. Their web site indicates their program is a four-year one, so she was chosing where to attend in 2016 or 2017.

          3. Sign in a diner: “No (whites/blacks/Jews/Catholics/Muslims, etc.) allowed”.

            Why would you want to do business with an organization that expressed such a policy? Seems like a problem that solves itself. They don’t like you, you don’t like them. Stop spending time together. Fixed.

    3. “Say something someone disagrees with and they might disagree with you. They might complain to the authorities.”

      So you think it is a healthy sign that disagreement gives rise to reporting to authorities? That students believe that the fact that someone says something in class that they disagree with is a reason to report them, with the expectation they will be disciplined?

      Sounds like the school is failing in its mission to educate its students.

      1. No, it’s succeeding in its mission to indoctrinate them.

        The problem here is that the schools don’t think they have the same mission everybody outside them, still foolishly supporting them, thinks they have.

        We think their job is to educate. THEY think their job is to turn out the legions of Red Guard who will transform society.

      2. Do you always have a problem distinguishing a descriptive from a normative statement?

        1. No. Do you always have a problem of being oblivious to the implications of your statements?

  5. “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?”

    It’s not what the lie is that matters, it’s that you must believe the lie, or be destroyed. Forcing somebody to believe a lie breaks down their devotion to objective truth, it’s the door to getting them to swallow basically anything you want without stopping to think about it.

    Trans is just the left’s chosen lie, it could have been anything. That a man is a woman is the four fingers are five they’ve settled on.

    1. Forcing somebody to believe a lie breaks down their devotion to objective truth, it’s the door to getting them to swallow basically anything you want without stopping to think about it.

      Good point. It also locks people into a position it’s awkward to retreat from. Trump does a lot of that. It’s really what his election fraud claims are all about.

      1. The biggest difference is the use of the states power to coerce obedience. There was a big lie told about the 2016 election too, with organs of the state complicit in telling the lie.

        But Orwell’s point is more to the point on the inquisition of this student in the use of official power to try to force her to repudiate what she knows to be true.

        Havel made the same point in his essay The Power of the Powerless:

        “The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” …
        The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” …
        Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.”

        1. “But Orwell’s point is more to the point on the inquisition of this student in the use of official power to try to force her to repudiate what she knows to be true.”

          It ain’t the stuff you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s the stuff you know for sure is true that isn’t that gets you in trouble.

        2. There was a big lie told about the 2016 election too, with organs of the state complicit in telling the lie.

          No there wasn’t. That’s nonsense, Kazinski.

      2. I’d concede that there’s an element of that in Trump’s insistence on election fraud.

        Can you concede that there’s an element of it in the insistence that we pretend people with penises are girls?

        1. If you wanna be a girl badly enough to tell people you are one, why should anyone spend any time arguing with you about it?

          1. Do your own thing if you want to be a girl, I respect the personal freedom. But when other people are impacted by your illness, then they have a right not to participate in your charade.

          2. Because a big hairy, Bluto looking guy is peeing next to my 6 year old granddaughter at the Target Ladies Room. Not only should he be visited, but also the manager of the Target. No one wants to explain trannies to 6 year old girls. It is abuse.

          3. I really don’t care if you say that you are a girl — it’s you forcing me to affirm it.

  6. So, what say those folks from the last thread about John Marshall Law School getting renamed, thinking cancel culture not picking up steam?

    1. No true Scotsman would engage in such behavior.

    2. Ask Liz Cheney about cancel culture.

      1. All Marxist traitors will be cancelled from all institutions. The purges begin after the election of Trump in 2024. I suggest updating the passport and looking for a nice place in Venezuela.

      2. Most people can agree that both sides use “cancel culture” as an ideological weapon. Your whataboutism doesn’t add to the discussion.

        1. Most people can agree that both sides use “cancel culture” as an ideological weapon

          I’m not convinced conservatives recognize their own problems here.

  7. Personally, I wouldn’t pay money to be educated by a university that doesn’t allow pertinent ideas to be freely discussed in the classroom. What would that degree be even worth, in terms of you actually being educated? Better to spend your money elsewhere.

    In this particular case, this student appears to be just shy of graduation, and had previously been unaware of the censorship (read the linked article.) So obviously she can’t be expected to chuck it all now.

    But — and this is the important part — if she IS punished by the university and it affects her ability to get a job, then she has a great basis for a civil suit.

  8. It’s a pattern of abusive statements going back several weeks! Plus the complaining students have been harassed online!

    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/2245807/abertay-students-faced-severe-backlash-after-complaint-about-classmate-sparked-free-speech-row/

    1. “The truth is, it was my views that the other students objected too, not the way I expressed them and this born out by the questions put to me as part of the disciplinary process.”

      1. OK. And?…

      2. There’s an objective opinion.

    2. This is really all very old hat by now, it fools no one.

      1. Claim that someone is being *phobic and try to get them canceled
      2. Said someone does in fact get into trouble by the authorities, but decides to speak their mind anyway
      3. Backlash ensues against those complaining
      4. Those complaining now claim that they are the ones being cancelled.

      Yeah, that’s not how any of this is supposed to work, students. Best learn that now. You made your bed, you lie in it.

    3. “Crybullies”– a wonderfully apt word.

    4. “The complaint from the class did not come about from instances of transphobia in isolation, rather were due to a pattern of off-topic, harmful contributions, occurring over a period of several weeks.”

      That is not evidence of “abusive statements,” that’s evidence that she said similarly “offensive” (not) things before.

      1. The ‘similarly’ conclusion from that quote seems to be an assumption.

        1. Given that no examples are provided, there is exactly no reason to think that the alleged statements were of a different nature.

          1. This is kind of exactly what an assumption is, yes (I see no explicit reason to assume otherwise, therefore I assume…)?

            1. David is treating the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is not, strictly, reliable. They could have inexplicably not bothered providing the evidence, after all!

              You’re treating absence of evidence as meaning nothing at all. Which is actually a lot worse.

              1. What neither of you is factoring in is that you have a partisan reporter reporting a claim of bias, without having access to anything remotely like a full set of contextual facts.

  9. In the US, I would demand this Marxist, treason indoctrination camp be defunded and immediately shut down. To deter.

    1. We’re going to miss you when you get shut down. But not very much.

      1. People have tried. Every form of litigation is an opportunity to destroy the life of a lawyer. To deter.

  10. It sounds like some people may be going too far in attempting to address traditional misogyny, racism, gay-bashing, xenophobia, and the like.

    Fortunately for the liberal-libertarian mainstream, though, Republicans are still clinging to bigotry, superstition, ignorance, and backwardness, preventing conservatives from turning the tide of the American culture war.

    1. This was in Scotland, but good try Artie.

      1. You say this with smug demeanor of someone who thinks they’ve poked a hold in an argument.
        But you haven’t.

        1. You say this with smug demeanor of someone who thinks they’ve poked a hold in an argument.
          But you haven’t.

          Said with the clueless, unfounded arrogance of a clown who wouldn’t know a real argument if it bit him in his autocranially-stuffed ass.

          1. Yes, but I said it first.

    2. Intolerance. such as what you exhibit, in the name of so called tolerance or self created liberal libertarian is not any more virtuous, noble, or productive than intolerance based upon ignorance. Your debasement and antipathy for anyone who doesn’t share your opinions or beliefs is sanctimonious bigotry. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions but, you have no special or enlightened right to force everyone to agree with you.

      1. ” Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions but, you have no special or enlightened right to force everyone to agree with you.”

        But your special and enlightened right to whine about someone else expressing an opinion is somehow magical?

  11. “Just once, I was asked during the investigation about my tone during a class discussion on sexual assault, in which the lecturer repeatedly said ‘All men are rapists’”

    All men are rapists… investigate the lecturer, lol. Or not, since that line of discrimination is ok on campus

  12. Funny, no libs have commented.

    Well, none I haven’t muted.

    1. Funny how no one cares.

  13. Hey look, someone who bothered to talk to people on the other side, including the University itself:

    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/2245807/abertay-students-faced-severe-backlash-after-complaint-about-classmate-sparked-free-speech-row/

    A statement from Abertay University said an isolated comment saying “women have vaginas” would not prompt a misconduct investigation.

    It read: “Under normal circumstances, the university does not comment on student disciplinary cases, however it has once again become necessary to correct inaccurate claims.

    “To be clear, all Abertay students are free to express their views on campus, as long as this is not done in an intolerant or abusive way which would breach our code of student discipline.

    “Press and social media commentary has centred on gender issues and statements such as “women have vaginas” and “men have penises” which are lawful statements and would categorically not lead to any university misconduct investigation, if expressed on campus in a reasonable manner.

    “Our code of student discipline does not police freedom of speech or the nature of views put forward during classroom discussion or debate.

    “It exists to provide a framework within which disruptive, aggressive or abusive behaviour that makes fair and robust debate or classroom learning impossible can be identified and stopped.

    “We believe that all universities should uphold freedom of speech within the law. We are proud that Abertay is a place where difficult and controversial debate can take place within an academic environment.

    “Scottish universities are required by law to investigate all complaints, whether by students, staff or members of the public.

    “We are deeply saddened by the online abuse that has been aimed at our students and staff members.”

    1. Thank you for giving the same link I did, in case anyone missed it.

    2. How does this counter anything. So in a class about gender she more than once expressed an opinion on gender that they disagree with so they complained. What are they claiming in that article that is different than what she said is happening?

      1. It counters:

        – The very premise that she is being investigated for the specific statements identified in the original post, since the University clearly says that they wouldn’t have investigated just on the basis on those statements, and
        – The idea that she’s suffered any consequences since the investigation is basically required upon a complaint being lodged.

        1. ” the University clearly says that they wouldn’t have investigated just on the basis on those statements, and” then provides no other basis for having investigated.

          1. Grand juries don’t talk about why they decided to prosecute people for crimes.

            1. It doesn’t seem that Scotland has used grand juries in quite a while.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury#Scotland

    3. Conspicuously lacking is any detail that actually contradicts the lady’s description of events.

      1. Yep. They said “we are unfortunately required to correct the record” and they don’t say a thing about what they’re actually concerned about.

    4. It’s a shame that we can’t wait until all the facts are out before going public when an investigation like this is launched.

      But the truth is waiting can be fatal, the pushback has to occur before the decision is reached, because once the decision is logged, then your chances of prevailing go down exponentially.

      I don’t think I’m being too unfair thinking that University Administrators might reach different decisions in a case where internal institutions are highly interested, but the public is indifferent or unaware of the issue.

      1. Yes, everyone with half a brain expected the university to issue a self-serving, mostly vacuous but still threatening statement like that one.

    5. This Marxist traitor school must be defunded and shut down by force. Zero tolerance for Marxist traitors.

    6. How do ““Press and social media commentary has centred on gender issues and statements such as “women have vaginas” and “men have penises” which are lawful statements and would categorically not lead to any university misconduct investigation” and “Scottish universities are required by law to investigate all complaints, whether by students, staff or members of the public” fit together? Either something is a lawful statement and categorically won’t lead to an investigation, or you have to investigate all complaints. Pick one.

  14. This seems to be a website presenting this person’s view of what happened, any other sources or cites?

    1. I (and later jb) gave a link to an article where the university authorities and the complaining students tried to justify their behavior.

      1. Thanks. So, at this point all we’ve got are dueling statements from each interested party. It’s a pretty shaky foundation for a two minute hate I should think. But some people are instantly triggered I guess…

        1. 20 years ago, her statement would have been universally accepted as accurate.

          That’s how far down the rabbit hole we have fallen…

          1. The point is we don’t know if what she says in the interview is what she said in the classroom. It’s just her word at this point.

            1. So far the people criticizing her have not made any concrete claims about what else she said that was off-topic or possibly inappropriate. Do they really not have any other examples?

              1. If she’d said “that Hitler fellow had some good ideas,” or “haggis is awful,” it would have been reported.

              2. “So far the people criticizing her have not made any concrete claims about what else she said that was off-topic or possibly inappropriate”

                Unless, maybe, they told the school’s investigators about them rather than some random American website.

                1. My general rule is that, if they say, “we had other reasons”, and then they don’t share any, they’re just BSing us.

      2. I (and later jb) gave a link to an article where the university authorities and the complaining students tried to justify their behavior.

        They didn’t try very hard.

  15. ” So they asked how I would define a woman, and I said that my classification of a woman is somebody who is born with a vagina and the ability to menstruate.”

    Under this definition, women no longer exist. Nobody is born with the ability to menstruate. Oops.

    1. Women who have XY chromosomes and CAIS are generally still thought to be women, and often not diagnosed until puberty, despite lacking the ability to menstruate at any point in their lives.

      It strikes me that the university is embarrassed, or should be, that a student in the last year of law school participated in a class on gender and feminism in the law with really no clue at all about the topic.

      But given David Bernstein’s argument that McCarthyism was right because Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST!!1!, I suppose championing stupid people is to be expected.

    2. Uh….yeah, I was born with that ability. I couldn’t use it right away because I had to physically develop, but the ability was there from the beginning. I didn’t have to learn to do it, I didn’t have to have it given to me by some outside force. My body did it on its own. No, no one is born menstruating, but that’s not what she said.

  16. The asteroid to destroy this planet can’t come soon enough.

    1. Great place once the Marxists have been cancelled.

      1. Didn’t you get the memo that you guys are just gutted now that “cancel culture” exists?

  17. Thanks to Cal and jb for the link.

    I’d say it provides a different perspective than the OP.

    1. But it doesn’t correct any of the supposed “inaccurate claims” that was the the stated reason for issuing the statement. The statement basically says “Un uh! She’s lying!” without telling us what they are actually investigating. Yes, it is possible she said something else that they are investigating her for. But they don’t tell us what it is. We have one side saying this is why I’m being investigated and the other saying no, that’s not why. But they don’t tell us why. It’s just a flat denial without anything to support it.

    2. I’d say it provides a different perspective than the OP.

      Quote for us the details in the aforementioned link that provide any sort of different perspective.

  18. This sort of thinking would seem to give rise to obvious defenses to sex discrimination lawsuits:

    1. It would seem perfectly legal to advertise that people with vaginas need not apply. If the University is correct, then not only is having a vagina not a sex-identifying characteristic but if, as this case richly illustrates, an attempt to claim it is is itself intentional discrimination, then a defendant would appear to be entitled to sanctions against anyone who filed a lawsuit claiming such an advertisement represents a problem. If having a vagina is truly irrelevant to gender, it must follow that a preference for people who have or don’t have a vagina is irrelevant to, and is not, a gender preference.

    2. It would seem to follow from (1) that a claim of sex discrimination would be virtually impossible to establish.

    a. Claims of intentional discrimination would appear impossible. If gender is purely a state of mind and a defendant can’t tell from external characteristics who’s a woman and who isn’t, how can the defendant ever know? By what evidence? We can’t read each other’s’ minds. You can’t intend something that requires knowledge you don’t have.

    b. Claims of disparate-impact discrimination might be possible but would appear difficult. If gender is purely a state of mind, then the only way either a plaintiff or defendant could obtain knowledge of other employee’s gender identities would be direct questioning of the other employees. And if a defendant is well advised legally and careful not to ask questions, then only if gender discrimination were a strict liability tort, independent of the defendant’s awareness, would a claim be viable. Courts have been reluctant to interpret McDonnell-Douglas as imposing strict liability.

  19. I now understand the post is based on the student’s own, possibly self-serving view of the case, and the university has denied that the statements are the basis of the investigation. It would appear there might be more than one side to this story.

    1. The university won’t tell her, or us, what the complaint actually is.

      So the student’s view represents the best available information about what the university is actually investigating.

Please to post comments