Is it safe to be openly gender critical in university

In an ideal world it wouldn't be, because misogyny and white supremacy wouldn't be (and "Gender critical" views - as if y'all were even remotely critical of gender - are hella misogynistic and founded very heavily on eurocentric and consequently white-centric views of womanhood), but unfortunately academia isn't exactly big on dealing with discriminatory views unless you're actively harassing people (and even then, depending on how senior you are you can often get away with it). So, keep it to yourself & you won't face any issues.

There's a lot of people out there who like playing the victim and will always find something to be offended about.

I was brought up with taught that there are two genders, man and woman. If you feel differently and want to call yourself they/them absolutely fine, but don't expect me to do it as that's not how I understand it. Personally I think a lot of this stuff just creates pointless arguments and tension. Does it really matter if someone says "he" instead of "they", I mean will it really cause you any harm?

They probably don't mean any harm by it but if you keep banging on about it and virtue signalling, they probably will end up resenting you and then society becomes even more divided than ever.

Why would a university support a student spreading false, potentially hateful, information? maybe re-evaluate your views.

Will it really cause them any harm to use "they" instead of "he"?

If you keep doing it to the point that it's clearly deliberate, then they're going to reasonably conclude that you do in fact mean harm (or at least don't care whether you cause any).

How would you feel if the same principle applied to views you do agree with though? What's your views on Black Lives Matter or Pride parades? Do you think they should "keep their opinions to themselves" instead of standing up for the causes they believe in?

A world dominated by the intolerant left would be extremely dull as we'd only be allowed to disagree on pizza toppings

Wow, what are you saying? Non white people are too dim to understand basic biology? And you wanna talk about racism…

Of course we can’t and we shouldn’t police people’s thoughts, including those that happen to be unfavourable.

Obviously not what I'm saying, and anti-trans views are not even remotely based in biology. When I say that 'gender critical' views are white supremacist I'm talking two-fold. One, it erases the existence of third, fourth, fifth etc genders in indigenous cultures. The concept of only two genders is very much a european and christian view - in Polynesian cultures for instance we have the fa'afafine, fakaleiti and the mahu, a number of north american tribes have two-spirit people, the aboriginals in Australia had sistergirls and brotherboys, the Bugi people of Indonesia have bsissu, in India you have the Hijra, Bakla in the Philippines. Two, the way in which gender is policed by 'gender critical' people, in addition to mostly harassing butch lesbians (so I should I guess add lesbophobia to the types of bigotry that it encompasses), most of the traits that they look at as being feminine are based on white beauty standards and are built off misogynoir - it's why the targets of "she's actually a man" conspiracies often target black women like the Williams sisters and Michelle Obama.

Biology is neither pro nor anti trans is the sense that it strives to be objective. Biology shows us that there is a sex binary, it is also unable to prove the existence of a gendered soul. I am not really sure what anti-trans biology would look like, perhaps ideology but I’ll let you decide for yourself.

The trait that most gender critical feminist would view as being feminine is not having (an active) SRY gene.
GC feminist have different ideas about what should be done to make society a better place to be female, but frequently it’s something along the lines of we should move to abolish or minimise gender.

Third genders have often been a mechanism for keeping the homophobes happy. In other incidences third gender roles are a product of religious beliefs, I am not someone who seeks to prevent people from practicing their religious beliefs but equally religion should not be force on to others- keep the preaching in church.

On your first point it interesting that you talk about sports and racism with Muslim Pakistan Yorkshire cricketer and failed to notices or worst not care about the articles about his disgusting anti semitic Facebook posts.

I give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read or see the post on the student forum. But others might believe that you only care when white show forms of prejudice. That you make excuses or choose to ignore when other ethic groups and religions do the same.

It a form of prejudice that you don't view prejudice from non white people seriously. I take every from of prejudice seriously whoever it comes from.

I was unaware of these. However, just because someone is racist to others does not mean we can be racist to them. Racism and anti-Semitism are unacceptable regardless of who is doing it or any supposed mitigating circumstances. You appear to be suggesting that his alleged anti-Semitic remarks justify him being racially abused. I do not.

Why is that people of Indian descent and especially hindus do so well in Britain and integrate well. They least likely commit crime and Pakistan Muslims are the opposite of course you get some Pakistan Muslim high achievers. They both come from a similar culture the only difference appears to be fath

A fair question to ask. I don't know. But then maybe we could ask similar questions like, why is there higher crime in council estates or why is there more drug taking amongst more financially deprived parts of society and take race out of the equation all together?

Perhaps when you look at economics rather than race you might find your answer? But to suggest it is all down to religion - nah. After all, tens of thousands of Muslims have been killed by Hindus in India, so that just doesn't wash at all.

No it religion in Sweden for example 80s 90s they got refugee from Lebanon about half were Christians the another half were Muslims. They were both housed in socially deprived areas in a few years late about 90% of Christian of working age were employed or in higher education they also comit less crime than the local population.

For Muslims Lebanese refugees it about 40% to 50% who were employed they got involved local gangs and committed more crime than the local population.

There hundred of examples of Muslim doing worst than other religious groups from the same country.

I'm sorry. But I am not going to debate the idea that religion is the root of all ills within a specific community. Would you please give me really specific examples of how these different communities were housed and the social attitudes towards them from those already here.

Imagine you were constantly criticised and prodded to the point you broke and lashed out. And then we cited your religious or non-religious views as the reason you lashed out? Sorry but there are a million and one reasons for what you are saying, but religion ain't one of them.

If your views are 'this group of people shouldn't be allowed to exist' then you should be silent and your views should not be tolerated in society because your views would cause material harm to people if enacted.

It interesting that when it bad such failure to integrate you blame outside forces other than Islam. But something good you high light it unlike other religions.

Imagine you were constantly criticised and prodded to the point you broke and lashed out. And then we cited your religious or non-religious views as the reason you lashed out?