This month, in "The Critic" (UK), Helen Joyce published a column: "Playing nice hasn’t worked: Even when I keep quiet about being cancelled, the censors don’t invite me back."
If you want to know what other sort of stuff The Critic publishes, here's what's on the front page today:
(I've written on Rod Dreher before. See "15 transphobias in ‘Trans Totalitarianism’" and "A bigoted premise sparks an ideology".)
Joyce's claim is that she actually is being canceled ("it becomes harder to get a hearing about anything") and that "if you do manage to say anything publicly — especially if you talk about the silencing — it will be taken as proof that you have not been silenced."
At this point, I notice a term that has not yet been defined carefully. Does "cancellation" mean the rejection, disinvitation, or non-publication of a particular essay, interview, or other media appearance (which every writer experiences at some point), or does it mean the overall and thoroughgoing of oneself as a person from public life and scholarship? Because if Joyce intends it to mean the latter, it certainly does matter that she "do[es] manage to say anything publicly" — for example, that she has a Sunday Times bestseller and many newspaper columns and podcast appearances related to it.
She then says:
"This is the logic of witch-ducking. If a woman drowns, she isn’t a witch; if she floats, she is, and must be dispatched some other way. Either way, she ends up dead."
(Reminds me of J.K. Rowling doing a whole podcast series called "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling" to complain about how she's been canceled for complaining that trans people exist, and then trolling on Twitter: "Show me where I said I'm the victim of a witch hunt by trans people... [On the podcast 'The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling'] I never once say I'm a victim of a witch hunt by trans people...")
Another reason I mention Rowling specifically is that Rowling shared Joyce's article and is thus aware that Joyce made the "witch-ducking" comparison at the beginning. (I shaded out the photo of the person who is most probably nonconsensually depicted.)
Let us not neglect to point out that Joyce is drawing a parallel between the observation that someone has not been excluded from public life or has not been thoroughgoingly silenced with the claim that the person is a witch. In other words, she is trying to make an equivalence (in a subtle, under-the-surface sort of way) between the observation that someone is not persecuted and the claim that she should be persecuted. This is nonsense.
Joyce goes on:
"The only counter to this [claim that I haven't actually been canceled] is specific examples. But censorship is usually covert: when you’re passed over to speak at a conference, exhibit in a gallery or apply for a visiting fellowship, you rarely find out."
Ah, so "cancellation" or "censorship" is defined as not being invited to speak somewhere, even if you never find out about the non-invitation.
She's Been Canceled So Many Times
First, Joyce says, was before her 2021 book launch: "I know I was censored". The podcast Intelligence Squared scheduled her to talk about it, but then disinvited her. "When I asked why," she says, "the response was surprisingly frank: fear of a social-media pile-on, sponsors getting cold feet and younger staff causing grief. ...[The CEO's] courage apparently ran out." She doesn't acknowledge any rational or substantive complaint anyone may have put forth. See her language: "pile-on" (mob behavior), "cold feet" (a physical symptom of anxiety), "younger staff causing grief" (a phrase that here serves to infantilize employees and to say that they're being extremely annoying), and "courage...ran out" (the absence of virtue). Nowhere does she admit or consider that anyone may have given a reason for the disinvitation.
Second: "the Irish Times, my home country’s paper of record." She was interviewed, but the journalist later told her that the editor had rejected the piece.
Third, another supposed cancellation: "I've still never been on the BBC to discuss trans issues," Joyce says. Neither have I, so what makes this a cancellation? Well, according to Joyce, "a presenter from a flagship news programme...had told a researcher to invite me on, but the researcher hadn't, instead simply lying [to the presenter] that I wasn’t available." If the resistance to inviting Joyce had truly come only from "a researcher" and not from the presenter or the BBC leadership, I guess this could have been cleared up. However, it seems that the BBC doesn't want to have her, since the invitation hasn't come. This isn't a cancellation. The network oes not care to speak to her (as they do not care to speak to me). Maybe the originally interested "presenter from a flagship news programme" has likewise changed their mind.
Fourth: Australian state broadcaster ABC interviewed her, then claimed the recording had failed — and, she says, "they’ve never been back in touch."
Fifth: "I recorded an hour-long episode of Common Ground, a short-lived show on Sky News hosted by Trevor Phillips." She was arguing that there is a "male sporting advantage," and she believed it was inherent to her argument "to say that transwomen were male." According to Joyce, everyone on the show agreed it was OK if she entirely avoided the words "man" or "woman," or the pronouns "he" or "she," when referring to trans women. But she insisted on being able to say that trans women are male. Then, according to her narrative, just before the recording started, a guest on the show objected to this use of "male"; the guest said she'd been promised that this wouldn't be used. The show "never aired, and I don’t know why." They blamed their own "production standards" and claimed they were interested in inviting her back. "They haven't," she said — although she also admitted that the show doesn't exist anymore.
Not sure if these are cancellations, really
She tells another anecdote, which she admits is not a "striking story" (read: not at all an example of cancellation). The situation was that, in early 2022, BBC Woman's Hour invited a trans woman to speak and didn't invite Joyce to speak. The show can't "possibly think this is what its audience wants," she complains. After all, she says, people on Twitter are cheering for her, not for some trans woman. Whatever we may take away from this, it surely isn't an example of cancellation. I haven't been invited to speak on BBC Woman's Hour either, and I don't say BBC Woman's Hour canceled me.
She also says that "a well-known journalist...told me that in several decades she had had precisely one column spiked: the one she wrote about my book."
She also says that "an army surgeon...shared a quote from me on his personal Facebook page" and "was reported by a junior colleague for misconduct," after which he chose to leave the army ("though he’s recently been cleared of wrongdoing"). Well, that's about an army surgeon's speech choices. The military may have its own strict communication rules. This is not a cancellation of Helen Joyce — nor even of the army surgeon, who was, again, "cleared."
"It’s unfair to me," she says — adding that she cares more about her beliefs that "women’s rights are being destroyed," "politics and policymaking" aren't evidence-based, and there's a "socio-medical scandal."
She concludes: "I’ve decided I’m no longer playing this game....playing nice has got me nowhere." What game? How will she play now? "Even when I keep quiet about being cancelled, the censors don’t invite me back. So I might as well tell the truth about that too." (emphasis mine) The "too" appended here implies this is the second of two actions. The original mention of "playing nice" had to refer to doing something else. To what? What is it that she plans to do next, that she won't do nicely?
No comments:
Post a Comment