The term “biological women” is now forbidden, apparently. Even when the term is absolutely necessary to discuss an issue such as the debate over transgender “women” participating in women’s sports. That topic, too, is off-limits.

You may have heard of the story already, but fear not, my thoughts on it are worth the time. Of course.

Olivia Krolczyk made the mistake of taking a class in the Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies department at the University of Cincinnati. You should never take a Women’s Studies class, not because there is nothing worth studying about the role of women in society both now and in the past, but because these departments are propaganda mills, not academic departments.

Her instructor requires a large project for the class, including a proposal for research. Olivia wanted to study the conflict over transgender athletes in women’s sports and as part of the proposal she used the term “biological women.” This seems pretty neutral and straightforward–she wasn’t deriding transgender people, but distinguishing them from natal females.

For this infraction, she was given a 0 on her proposal. 0 is not a “failing grade.” 59 would be a failing grade. 0 is a devastating score that dooms you.

Adjunct who failed student for using term ‘biological women’ confirms story, plays the victim https://t.co/9XP8KbURp6 via @collegefix

— The College Fix (@CollegeFix) June 11, 2023

Olivia posted a TikTok about her experience and all hell broke loose, as you would expect. She didn’t name the instructor, whose name was only revealed when the Cincinnati newspaper found and interviewed her.

And, as you would expect, the Instructor is the real victim.

In an interview with The Enquirer at a cafe in the city’s Oakley neighborhood, Nipper said she cried when she watched the video and saw the ensuing publicity.

“It’s a lot, right?” Nipper said. “It’s a lot to handle.”

In the TikTok, Krolczyk alleged that she was given a failing grade on a proposal for her Gender in Pop Culture course. She planned to write a paper in which she would argue that trans athletes competing in women’s sports were taking opportunities away from “biological women.”

Nipper confirmed the sequence of events Krolczyk shared, saying the assignment was one part of a three-part project, and her review of the idea and Krolczyk’s language was a routine element of her duties as a professor. “Every final project proposal has to be approved by the instructor,” she said.

“It’s a lot to handle.” For the Instructor, who remained anonymous until the newspaper tracked her down in order to get her to tell her story of victimhood.

Although Nipper said she agrees classrooms should be places for debate and discussion, that ends when “you are, intentionally or unintentionally, participating in a systemic harm of some kind.” She cited transphobia and white supremacy as examples.

Similar incidents had occurred in the past, said Nipper, who has taught at UC since 2021. When a student uses “an outdated terminology,” Nipper said she feels it is necessary to correct those mistakes. “Not a zero for the course,” Nipper clarified, “a zero for an assignment.”

“I will happily regrade,” Nipper said. “You are not going to have any late penalties.”

But always, Nipper said, she underlines why a rewrite is necessary.

“This is unacceptable based on the community, the marginalized individuals that are at stake, and also the foundations of the course.”

You see what is happening here. You can think and say what you want–debate and discussion are important–just make sure you neither debate nor discuss in a manner that is not actually congruent with the approved ideology. Otherwise, you will get a 0.

There is no doubt that the Enquirer is on the Instructor’s side in this. Because the “experts” all say gender is a spectrum:

Terms like ‘biological female’ are rejected by the major medical groups representing doctors and psychiatrists. Gender is part of a spectrum, and goes beyond biology, those groups argue.

All of this is taking place as lawmakers have started pushing bills to counteract what they see as liberal ideology on college campuses. Ohio’s Senate Bill 83, for example, requires colleges to “not endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy.”

Nipper repeatedly mentioned SB 83, saying it, coupled with increased anti-academia discourse, has created a “chilling effect,” and limits the future “other academics, friends, peers that I’ve had from a variety of different cohorts, feel they’ll be able to have in this country.”

It is necessary to crush all dissent, because science.