I’m a liberal individualist. I object to collectivism, group blame, standpoint epistemology and other manifestations of tribalism and group think consistently. That’s what my Substack is about and what I have dedicated myself to arguing for for many years. I was not feeling “sensitive” about rhetoric which gives men, women, black people, white people, straight people, LGB and/or T people etc. a common identity, collective voice, political position, identity-based knowledge and group interests which are at odds with and in competition with the other groups when I wrote two books, hundreds of essays and formed an organisation to oppose it. I think it is morally and factually wrong and deeply harmful to individuals and society.

This is not a matter of sensitivity but a longstanding philosophical and political divide between those who value individual liberty and autonomy combined with valuing our shared humanity and those who favour identity politics and the division of society into competing interests and tribalism.

I will not be told that my experiences, my beliefs, my group interests and my group loyalties are all bound up in my category of “woman” and ranged against those of “men” for the same reason I will not be told that they should all be bound up in my category of “white” and ranged against the category of “everybody else.” Almost everybody sees the problem with one of these and if it is only one they should apply their principles more consistently.

My people are those who respect the dignity, rights and freedoms of every individual and our shared humanity and these come in both sexes and all colours. The people I oppose are those who don’t respect that and these also come in both sexes and all colours.

The article did not say “read the room and have tact”. It posited a particular ideological framework about patriarchy and declared women and men to have collective but opposing experiences and opinions about it. I object to people asserting what my experiences and values are because of my genitalia (or possibly gender identity - did not stop long enough to gather which tribe this is) and am irked particularly when I am so reduced and constrained by male feminists.

If it had said “read the room and have tact” I would still have disagreed with it because that means “comply with dominant discourses either generally or for a particular tribe and don’t challenge them.” I am very much committed to not reading the room and not having tact and this is why I am no longer welcome in academia.