Jeremy Stangroom

I realize this is old now... but the Events & Guest Speakers thing is utterly fatuous. It says when it comes to external speakers think about gender identity the same way you might think about race & faith. 1/ https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1140148804873871360 …

The faith example shows the absurdity of the policy. Yes, faith can be central to a person's identity. A religious person will likely believe they have a soul, a personal relationship with god, etc., any of which if brought into doubt might be experienced as an existential shock.

But the idea that one should mitigate the risk of organizing an atheist talk, beyond the normal demands of basic courtesy, is ridiculous. But why is this different from gender identity? It's not different in any obvious way that I can see.

Also what about political identity? People experience political commitment as central to their identity. If you rob somebody of their Marxism, for example, it can precipitate a crisis (I've seen it happen). So do we have to tiptoe around political commitments? If not, why not?