Cancel Culture or Free Speech

As for Stock - I really don't know much about her life or her bank account. I'm not a fangirl. What I do know is that the slurs against her on this thread don't count as 'reasoned criticism' in my world, but I suppose a lot depends on the level of debate you engage in.
Oh dear I am so sorry the level of debate isn't quite what you expect.But actually that wasn't your first accusation. You described the posts about Stock as actionable and libelous. They are no such thing. They do question her motives, the narrative she and the press have created around her (which has actually caused harm to other women like Professor Alison Phipps) and the degree to which she was personally targeted in a trans inclusive university setting.
The twisting of my words is quite evident if you look at the conversation I was engaged in about what delineates a biological woman.
And the "You haven't answered my question" is evident if you care to look.

I don't think we have a right not to be offended.

There is (IMO) far too much pandering to people's self-proclaimed 'feelings', and not enough recognition that if we are to function as a society we need to find ways of doing so collectively, which means that all of us sometimes give and sometimes take offence.

That is not, of course, to say that feelings should be disregarded, but I'm sure we all know people who expect everyone to bend around them because of their various issues, and it can go too far. There comes a point where one person's being offended prevents someone else's self-expression, and we have to decide which is more important. Nobody sensible would argue that freedom of speech should allow anyone to say anything anywhere, but given that pretty much anything will offend somebody somewhere, it seems to me that the risk of offending someone is too high to take a lot of notice.

I think that basic decency - thinking about what we say so that we don't attack people, for instance - is the best we can do, but if someone is determined to take offence anyway then so be it. We can't legislate against causing offence as people take it for so many different things.

People were offended by Darwin, and by Galileo. Someone will be offended by this post. I have been offended by a lot of things on this thread. What's to be done? Tell everyone to stay silent?

You are making all sorts of declarations again, but I’d just like to focus on these three.
Your statement:
1. ^Because it places trans people in a metaphorical wasteland where they cannot access gender affirming dialogue which it is proven along with transition to be the cure for gender dysphoria.

What is the IT you are talking about in that sentence?
What is the gender affirming dialogue you feel they can’t access?
What could they read on here that doesn’t agree that trans can be whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else?
I don’t believe all trans would be afraid to hear that they can be what they want. I don’t believe all trans would refute the idea that they shouldn’t harm others, any more than those who are not trans. Are you saying they would?

2. ^Everyone can keep their safes spaces but we need trans inclusive spaces.. including the way we discuss these issues.
.
2. What do you envisage as trans-inclusive spaces VS?
Where are trans excluded from, that doesn’t involve males claiming female rights not to be involved with males in the certain areas which have been set up for females?

3. Many trans people would not feel safe here
Your proof of that? Are you now speaking for all trans people?

Sorry I should say seem to remain the same after transition, the data and follow up at places such as the tavistock have been poor.
If the attempt to 'cure' people (your words not mine) was by trying to persuade everyone to lie it was never going to work.

What you are saying isnt accurate though. For young people the advice is not to affirm socially and I am afraid that the suicide rates remain the same after transition.
The existence of the exemptions in the equality act are because of sex, that's why they are there, so just talking about those exemptions is clearly saying that transwomen arent women.
Again I believe gender is an oppressive form of control of both men and women. We dont believe what you do.

I believe a male brain thinks/functions differently from a female brain. A man transitioning to a transwoman doesn’t change his brain.

I’m very disappointed that the Women’s Institute, of which I am a member, accepts transwomen whether they have transitioned or not!! We weren’t consulted and we are supposed to be democratic Institute. We vote on all issues in my WI. There is a current WI Petition online and so far 2,803 members have signed saying they want the whole WI to vote on acceptance or otherwise of transwomen.

I suspect my much loved WI would fold if we were forced to take transwomen.

Because it places trans people in a metaphorical wasteland where they cannot access gender affirming dialogue which it is proven along with transition to be the cure for gender dysphoria.

Without gender affirming socially and medically trans people are harmed and their risk of mental health problems and suicide rise dramatically

Everyone can keep their safes spaces but we need trans inclusive spaces.. including the way we discuss these issues. Many trans people would not feel safe here, there are comments saying they don't look the right gender, they don't sound the right gender and that they will never be the right gender. Comments on these threads saying people "can always tell". Comments wanting to take away the access to medical care, condemning their parents as "child abusers". I've even seen a comment "c**k in a frock* go by.

And very few of us willing to stand up and challenge it sadly.

Anniel

I read Dickens reply to me and suddenly thought back to this idea that if someone “feels” upset over what a other person says. When that person has no intention of disrespecting or upsetting another person. It happened to me when I worked in Camden which even in the 80s and nineties could be described as avant garde or woke. The person who was upset ( according to a member of our team) completely misconstrued what I had said, so I explained but was told that whatever I had said I had upset this other team member It goes to show why I was always very careful after that when addressing that particular worker. I think that in current society some people are loath to give their belief or opinion for fear of being ostracised or heavily criticised. Some of my favourite radio presenters will not host a programme on the issues surrounding Trans men.
Nicola Sturgeon lost her job over allowing trans men to become legally female without any medical intervention. I look at the current furore over Philip Schofield which is being lead by mainstream and social media and wish it would stop.But that will not happen until another juicy morsel comes along.

Stephen Fry said "no one has the right not to be offended".

Well, up to a point, I suppose.

If someone says something for no other reason than to deliberately cause actual harm to another (VioletSky had a point here), then I think he's wrong.

But I think you've confused trans men with trans women!

Only 358 posts to go.

VS says
If we allow that safe paces and sports can be protected under the equality act, we do not need to be saying things like that.

But as we well know, for some posters on GN, the right to female safe spaces is usually accompanied by the comment that females are responsible for challenging any threatening males.
For those posters, all responsibility for being honest instead of dishonest or deceitful is removed from males with whatever label to police their own actions.

Science may have different answers? You love that threat!
It won’t make males into females, except in the minds of those who believe it, and they already exist.

The science has a different answer and more is coming ? Really? Please enlighten us.

VioletSky

glorianny

Kathleen stock said "Transgender people cannot expect all the rights afforded by biological sex"

She also said "the claim "trans women are women" is a fiction"

I find both those statements to be inflammatory at the very least which is the basis of why I have argued for acceptance of trans people on thread after thread after thread..

If we allow that safe paces and sports can be protected under the equality act, we do not need to be saying things like that

Especially when the science has a different answer and more is coming

I can't follow your reasoning here. If you think ^"Transgender people cannot expect all the rights afforded by biological sex" is wrong and inflammatory then you believe they can expect all the rights afforded by biological sex. Hence there cannot be safe spaces and fair sporting competitions because transwomen cannot be excluded from these areas. This is what Kathleen Stock means.

Science does not have a different answer yet, however much you want it to. The study you last linked to that referred to gene variations still only used 'may' and 'could'.
You do realise that girl brains and boy brains will absolutely endorse every misogynist's certainty, that women are inferior and shouldn't "trouble their pretty little heads"
This won't be just a comedy sketch!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w&t=13s

glorianny

Kathleen stock said "Transgender people cannot expect all the rights afforded by biological sex"

She also said "the claim "trans women are women" is a fiction"

I find both those statements to be inflammatory at the very least which is the basis of why I have argued for acceptance of trans people on thread after thread after thread..

If we allow that safe paces and sports can be protected under the equality act, we do not need to be saying things like that

Especially when the science has a different answer and more is coming

I read Dickens reply to me and suddenly thought back to this idea that if someone “feels” upset over what a other person says. When that person has no intention of disrespecting or upsetting another person. It happened to me when I worked in Camden which even in the 80s and nineties could be described as avant garde or woke. The person who was upset ( according to a member of our team) completely misconstrued what I had said, so I explained but was told that whatever I had said I had upset this other team member It goes to show why I was always very careful after that when addressing that particular worker. I think that in current society some people are loath to give their belief or opinion for fear of being ostracised or heavily criticised. Some of my favourite radio presenters will not host a programme on the issues surrounding Trans men.
Nicola Sturgeon lost her job over allowing trans men to become legally female without any medical intervention. I look at the current furore over Philip Schofield which is being lead by mainstream and social media and wish it would stop.But that will not happen until another juicy morsel comes along.

Thank you for your apology, however qualified and graceless.

As for Stock - I really don't know much about her life or her bank account. I'm not a fangirl. What I do know is that the slurs against her on this thread don't count as 'reasoned criticism' in my world, but I suppose a lot depends on the level of debate you engage in.

So that leaves us with the twisting of words and the demanding of answers. Any thoughts on either of those points?

Doodledog

*I can only echo what is often said about posting things on GN. If any of this is true post the evidence.*
The evidence is on this thread. The quotes are in chronological order and over the first 8 pages.
And (Your own favourite) Twisting what people say is not acceptable
Show me where I have twisted, and I will respond. If not, please withdraw your ‘own personal favourite’ comment, as it is deeply unfair and insulting.

I will only observe this. Many of the things you are saying are just responses to things you cannot (or chose not to) answer.
Like what is left and right, which resulted in you trying to score points by posting the names of tyrants but no actual response to the concepts, or actual ideas about left or right ideology.
Wrong. Or twisting. Here are two posts of mine on the matter

Left wing is about Big State and collectivism and Right wing more about a free market and individualism. Authoritarianism runs through both at the extremes.

All of these issues are far more complex than X=Good and Y=Bad, but you wouldn't think it from many of these threads.

and

Left and Right are descriptors of viewpoints at ends of a spectrum, and there are authoritarians at both ends of that. It is perfectly possible for someone to believe in, say, a free market economy (right) but also in a welfare state (left). Or, for that matter, a managed economy with less of a safety net. And many more things that those without an understanding of human complexity would see as contradictions. It's akin to the 'champagne socialists are hypocrites' view of politics. Simplistic and reductive.

And in any case, the 'trans debate' does not sit on the Left/Right spectrum, and never has.

Would you like to withdraw your comment, please? Far from ‘scoring points by listing the names of tyrants’, I did address the issue - but of course, you didn’t respond, as it was clear that your simplistic view of what being ‘right wing’ (that you keep using as an insult) means is fundamentally flawed.

Demands to questions are often made by the same people on GN.
They are not demands. How do you think debate works? The idea is not that people come along, post a vague opinion and leave it at that. Someone else comes along and responds, either by agreeing, disagreeing or asking for more information, and the conversation continues. Someone just dropping in a quick insult and running is always going to be called on it. How can anyone respond to ‘She was a meanie and said bad things’ without knowing what they were, and where, and in what context, they were said?
Do you see things differently? What is your definition of ‘debate’?

There are no lies or libel against Kathleen Stock. Just reasoned criticism. But in this thread , given its title, your allegations are quite amusing. Her iconicism is simply incredible.
Reasoned criticism? That she has never had a thought of her own? That she deliberately engineered her exclusion from Sussex so that she could sell books? Do you know how much she would have been being paid as a professor, and how many philosophy books (over her usual sales) she would have to sell every year to cover that salary? That she has said (unspecified) things that are transphobic and hateful?
If that counts as reasoned criticism in your circles, it explains a lot.

As for twisting words, your own example is here.There are also numerous posts taking something I said out of context. If that isn't twisting what is it?
As I say, show me where I have twisted your words, or taken n out of context? I don’t do that. I may misunderstand posts sometimes, if the poster meant something different from the words they wrote, but otherwise, WYSIWYG with my posts. I prefer honest debate to ‘some people’ type passive aggression, and say what I think within the rules of Gransnet. I look forward to your examples of my twisting your words, or to your apology.

I apologise Doodledog you did post an idea but only after you had tried scoring points by mentioning Stalin and Castro (I notice he got dropped).

As for Kathleen Stock not making enough money from books. You do know don't you that immediately after her resignation from Sussex she did a high profile media tour and then accepted a part time post at the new University of Austin, on the understanding that she could live in the UK. You don't make money from books but you do from personal appearances.

VS says . . .
But the studies I have been able to read are correct

The studies I have been able to read are also correct, but their findings do not support the findings you mention. I wonder why that is?

VioletSky

Galaxy

If you tried to imagine that some trans people are gender critical you might be able to look at things differently.

Why wouldn't I?

I tend to listen to any polite, thoughtful discourse

I've met lots of trans people of the same opinion to me too

But I tend to think all views and feelings can be respected as long as people aren't using them to cause harm

But I tend to think all views and feelings can be respected as long as people aren't using them to cause harm

Do you think the majority posting on here who are arguing (in the academic sense) that a biological male is not a woman are intending to cause harm?

We have given our reasoning which has then been argued against by those who disagree - sometimes quite snippily - so then the discourse continues and becomes more heated. But this doesn't mean that we - the "GC" - as we are now labelled (but incorrectly in my view) are intending any harm.

You continually repeat this - and say you respect any thoughtful and polite discourse, but fail to point out any particular comment that isn't. It seems to be a general accusation that gets introduced on a regular basis by you.

As I said earlier, I haven't read all the posts, so there might be those that are not 'thoughtful' or might even be offensive... but why not take issue with them and address them directly instead of making these vague statements which are essentially meaningless because we don't know quite what you're referring to as being impolite or thoughtless... or who you're referring to - whether you mean people in general, or specifically those posting on here.

We all know I think that outside of this thread, in what some call the "real" world (though I believe those posting on here are all real people actually living in the real world), there are rabid and vicious individuals who do mean harm - to the whole trans gender community - we read about the murder of the trans gender teenager, and we've heard about the hounding of other trans gender people. But these violent and ruthless people are not us here on GN.

You might think, as I believe has been implied (though maybe not on this particular thread) that the mere fact of raising the matter of trans women, further enables these ruthless thugs? It's a thought, but a very unpleasant one because in essence it means that nothing controversial can ever be debated in case such vile people see it as a licence to engage in their thuggery. I also doubt very much that such individuals ever bother to read or research anything that is remotely "thoughtful", reasoned or rational.

I only mention this because it has, well - been mentioned. But I can't remember by whom. But I think it is an important aspect of the debate.

I can only echo what is often said about posting things on GN. If any of this is true post the evidence.
The evidence is on this thread. The quotes are in chronological order and over the first 8 pages.
And (Your own favourite) Twisting what people say is not acceptable
Show me where I have twisted, and I will respond. If not, please withdraw your ‘own personal favourite’ comment, as it is deeply unfair and insulting.

I will only observe this. Many of the things you are saying are just responses to things you cannot (or chose not to) answer.
Like what is left and right, which resulted in you trying to score points by posting the names of tyrants but no actual response to the concepts, or actual ideas about left or right ideology.
Wrong. Or twisting. Here are two posts of mine on the matter

Left wing is about Big State and collectivism and Right wing more about a free market and individualism. Authoritarianism runs through both at the extremes.

All of these issues are far more complex than X=Good and Y=Bad, but you wouldn't think it from many of these threads.

and

Left and Right are descriptors of viewpoints at ends of a spectrum, and there are authoritarians at both ends of that. It is perfectly possible for someone to believe in, say, a free market economy (right) but also in a welfare state (left). Or, for that matter, a managed economy with less of a safety net. And many more things that those without an understanding of human complexity would see as contradictions. It's akin to the 'champagne socialists are hypocrites' view of politics. Simplistic and reductive.

And in any case, the 'trans debate' does not sit on the Left/Right spectrum, and never has.

Would you like to withdraw your comment, please? Far from ‘scoring points by listing the names of tyrants’, I did address the issue - but of course, you didn’t respond, as it was clear that your simplistic view of what being ‘right wing’ (that you keep using as an insult) means is fundamentally flawed.

Demands to questions are often made by the same people on GN.
They are not demands. How do you think debate works? The idea is not that people come along, post a vague opinion and leave it at that. Someone else comes along and responds, either by agreeing, disagreeing or asking for more information, and the conversation continues. Someone just dropping in a quick insult and running is always going to be called on it. How can anyone respond to ‘She was a meanie and said bad things’ without knowing what they were, and where, and in what context, they were said?
Do you see things differently? What is your definition of ‘debate’?

There are no lies or libel against Kathleen Stock. Just reasoned criticism. But in this thread , given its title, your allegations are quite amusing. Her iconicism is simply incredible.
Reasoned criticism? That she has never had a thought of her own? That she deliberately engineered her exclusion from Sussex so that she could sell books? Do you know how much she would have been being paid as a professor, and how many philosophy books (over her usual sales) she would have to sell every year to cover that salary? That she has said (unspecified) things that are transphobic and hateful?
If that counts as reasoned criticism in your circles, it explains a lot.

As for twisting words, your own example is here.There are also numerous posts taking something I said out of context. If that isn't twisting what is it?
As I say, show me where I have twisted your words, or taken n out of context? I don’t do that. I may misunderstand posts sometimes, if the poster meant something different from the words they wrote, but otherwise, WYSIWYG with my posts. I prefer honest debate to ‘some people’ type passive aggression, and say what I think within the rules of Gransnet. I look forward to your examples of my twisting your words, or to your apology.

It's really important we prevent mistakes, especially before medical transition

That's not an argument for preventing transition obviously

Saetana

VioletSky

www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/

Interesting article, although I was not happy about the lack of links to the studies quoted within it. The article below has different figures but, as we all know, lies damn lies and statistics really is a thing so its hard to know what to believe without knowing the parameters of the various studies.

Sorry forgot to post the link:
academic.oup.com/jcem/article/107/10/e4261/6604653

Well, none, some, lots is a fairly wide difference spectrum of people you might know (or not) and statistics are much the same.

Anniel

Can I ask if the combatants here would read this Spectator account of Trans ideology. I found it interesting but do not wish to engage in argument.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-ideology-and-the-tyranny-of-feeling/

Now that is a good article, it explains the current situation perfectly. Feelings over facts is where we are at currently, and sadly.

How does one know they are correct? Especially when references to source material are missing.

Saetana

Fair point

Sometimes studies are behind a pay wall which makes it harder

But the studies I have been able to read are correct and you can find some of them and view the parameters and conclusions