Can a woman have a penis?

Callistemon21

^I'm not sure that men's spaces have ever been seen as "safe spaces" that need protection, mothers would never allow their young sons to use a men's public toiket on their own^

Why would that be? 🤔

Could it be for the same reason that women and young girls do not want a man with a penis invading their safe spaces?

Why are disabled people being left out of the debate?

Disabled toilets are unisex

Or is it the truth that trans women using women's toilets has not endangered women at all. That the only danger that has increased for women in women's toilets is the one that has one from the gender critical towards butch lesbians and masculine appearing women. As well as the danger towards trans women themselves

Violet your views make me feel completely 'unsafe', I am serious about that, I dont think you should be stopped from saying them.

Galaxy

Could you show us where Kathleen stock has been guilty of breaking the law.

I didn't mention her.
I said the university owes the same duty of care and protection to all its students, even if the law doesn't protect them.
So of course she isn't breaking the law. That's never been said.

Anyone who had even followed the debate would know that kathleen stock discussed issues relating to transmen frequently particularly in relation to the issues at the tavistock.

Also

Where are trans people's voices in this?

From everything I have read, she is coming to do a talk. How is that also a debate? Are there trans speakers as well? Or is the only option to actually debate with her on this topic to stand outside with a placard?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65714821.amp

It's also very concerning to me that the university's LGBTQ+ society are receiving death threats and homophobic as well as transphobic comments. As well as students being harassed on campus

The decision to host Stock may very well come with her own entourage of protest putting students at risk in their safe space

I'm not sure that men's spaces have ever been seen as "safe spaces" that need protection, mothers would never allow their young sons to use a men's public toiket on their own

Why would that be? 🤔

Could it be for the same reason that women and young girls do not want a man with a penis invading their safe spaces?

Well for one thing if anyone was to speak against a certain race or religion they would almost certainly be guilty of Hate crime.

You didn't say against
You said question

Are we not allowed to ask Why any more?

They are very serious claims to make if that's what you are doing.

Could you show us where Kathleen stock has been guilty of breaking the law.

The Union cannot invite speakers who break the law and should apply the same principles to all students.

So is it against the law to say that it is impossible to change sex? Since when?

I'm not sure that men's spaces have ever been seen as "safe spaces" that need protection, most mothers would never allow their young sons to use a men's public toiket on their own

Spaces for disabled people or those with medical conditions that require more space or privacy have never been seen as "safe spaces" either and have always been unisex

So why aren't disabled people in the safe spaces debate either?

Callistemon21

^If someone was to propose that women should not be permitted the same rights as men would you expect them to speak?^
If someone was to propose the rights of any race or religion were to be questioned would you expect them to speak?

Why not? If it did not involve hate speech then they should speak.
Others have the chance to refute their arguments.

Established in 1823 to uphold the principle of free speech, The Union is proud of its heritage as a forum for the exchange and debate of a wide range of ideas and opinions. Our members have the unique opportunity to challenge, question and interact with a broad range of speakers - some inspiring, others controversial.

We ban free speech, radical ideas, at our peril.

Well for one thing if anyone was to speak against a certain race or religion they would almost certainly be guilty of Hate crime.
That's why we have the law, to protect people.
The fact that it doesn't protect transpeople means others have to do so.

The Union cannot invite speakers who break the law and should apply the same principles to all students

I wonder if it's a form of misogyny

That people are focusing on trans women and are not interested in challenging trans men

Trans women being seen as the "weaker" target

DiamondLily

Looks like there will be another ruck tonight at the Oxford Union.

Funny how that place used to be known as the bastion of free speech, where subjects were debated, often disagreed with, but, generally, with a mature attitude without all the screaming, shouting and threats.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12137743/Rishi-Sunak-says-gender-critical-feminists-speech-Oxford-UniversityTrans-ahead.html

An open letter was signed by academics and students from the LGBT... etc groups...

We believe that trans students should not be made to debate their existence.'

... they said.

Well - biological women are having to debate their existence!

And, in fact, the debate I doubt is questioning their existence - rather their assumptions.

Apart from some within the rabid Right - is anyone suggesting that trans gender people don't have a right to exist?

NO.

So stop the damned 'culture' of attempting to silence controversial opinions - unless those opinions agitate for violence (as a minority in the trans community are doing), then they are legitimate.

DiamondLily

Abortion has nothing to do with this. That should always be a woman's choice.

Thankfully trans women can't hijack this debate - as whatever they think they are, they cannot conceive, bear or give birth to a child.

Because they are biological men. 🙄

That's the trouble with people who think this is a single issue. They don't seem to realise who they are getting into bed with.

There may well be very well intentioned people who think that people like Posie Parker are just speaking up for women, unfortunately that isn't true. She, and many others who have latched on to the trans issue as a way of recruiting people, and making the unacceptable acceptable, has an agenda, and it isn't a liberal one, or one that helps women
.
Discrimination begins with a single issue then spreads out to others.

Posie if she had her way won't just stop trans people getting help, she'll get rid of legal abortion, reverse Gillick competence and generally interfere in people's lives. And the people she shared a platform with in Glasgow propose even worse things.
The sad thing is that although people are prepared to condemn someone showing a silly poster at a demonstration they are unable to condemn someone like Posie, because of her trans views.

It isn't about free speech. That person can speak out anywhere. The people who want to hear those views can go to listen. The university is then not responsible for spreading discord or making any of its students feel unsafe

If free speech is not allowed at The Oxford Union then what on earth is it for?
Two hundred years of debate subject to today's ideas of censorship?

If Oxford students need protecting from ideas, radical or otherwise, then they are in the wrong place.

I don’t get the problem here.
Are you saying that people who believe males are female (woman=AHF) should have the right to ban people who know males are not female from speaking?

It's really sad to me that the response to her by trans people is "we shouldn't have to debate our existence"

Her views aren't moderate at all

Her views are more along the lines of protecting trans people as delusional

Also where are the trans men in her views, again? It's like they don't exist in this debate. Is there something dangerous about them that would undermine gender critical views?

If someone was to propose that women should not be permitted the same rights as men would you expect them to speak?
If someone was to propose the rights of any race or religion were to be questioned would you expect them to speak?

Why not? If it did not involve hate speech then they should speak.
Others have the chance to refute their arguments.

Established in 1823 to uphold the principle of free speech, The Union is proud of its heritage as a forum for the exchange and debate of a wide range of ideas and opinions. Our members have the unique opportunity to challenge, question and interact with a broad range of speakers - some inspiring, others controversial.

We ban free speech, radical ideas, at our peril.

And universities are not responsible for protecting students (who are not all 18 year olds) from hearing things that might upset their prejudices. Quite the reverse.

What about women who feel unsafe, Glorianny. Women can be students too. Don't they have a right to have their interests discussed?

I can only use parallels in looking at this issue.
If someone was to propose that women should not be permitted the same rights as men would you expect them to speak?
If someone was to propose the rights of any race or religion were to be questioned would you expect them to speak?
Or would you regard the university as having a legal obligation to care for students and ensure those students whose rights were being questioned were kept safe?

It isn't about free speech. That person can speak out anywhere. The people who want to hear those views can go to listen. The university is then not responsible for spreading discord or making any of its students feel unsafe..

Galaxy

The damage of not hearing views different to your own is incalculable.

Yes, and getting people silenced is not democratic either.

The damage of not hearing views different to your own is incalculable.

I am not sure you understand democracy. More people dont vote for the Green Party than do, they are still allowed to speak