Cancel Culture or Free Speech

VioletSky

It's a bit like when women didn't have the vote and weren't invited to debate by men about whether we should get one

Like being invisible

Until women made themselves very visible and heard

And now some TW and fans and TRA want females to be invisible and unheard.

Yes universities have both debates and lectures on a range of topics. They do both of these things and many other events.

I know the way KS approaches things and she would be happy to debate with anyone. she has done that previously.

So women were considered too weak and wobbly to be trusted with a vote or much of anything because of biology

LGB were considered as deviant and wrong because of biology

Now trans people are told they are delusional and fictional because of biology

And we do not even fully understand biology yet everyone thinks they are expert enough on the subject to give a lecture

It's a strange world

We are saying you cant change sex. It falls under protected belief. It's a strange world.
We can only talk about things we know currently, it's the way the world works.
It's possible that tomorrow we will discover that we were wrong all along and the earth is flat. Until then we have to work within current knowledge.

It is quite an obvious and valid question. If you are going to say transwomen are not women but men in frocks or dressed as women how will you distinguish which are natal women and which trans?
If someone thinks they are really a woman how can it be dishonest to dress as one?
Is this a serious question? How can it be dishonest for someone who is not something to dress as one?

If someone impersonates a police officer, it is an offence. Why might that be? Because if people think someone is a police officer they might allow access to areas that would otherwise be kept private? Because police officers have powers of arrest, and the right to handle others during that process that other members of the public do not have. Because of course it is dishonest, as it deceives people, and that deceit can lead to criminal activity.

You might say that not all police impersonators are doing so for nefarious reasons. That may well be the case. Some people might 'get off' on being mistaken for police officers -autopolicephiles, perhaps? All the same, because some of the impersonators might cause problems it is an offence. This is why the police have ID cards, but these can be faked, and there would not always be time to check out an ID number in a fast-moving incident.

Ditto doctors, solicitors and other professions and trades.

Say you are injured or taken ill on a train, and a doctor comes to help you, are you going to ask for proof? What proof could s/he give? If someone set up office as a solicitor and you go in to get advice, do you ask to see their certificates? If you do, how do you know they aren't fake?

The answer, of course, is that we don't know by looking, and for that reason the onus is on the impersonator to know that he or she is breaking the law, and that there will be a penalty if they are caught.

Galaxy

We are saying you cant change sex. It falls under protected belief. It's a strange world.
We can only talk about things we know currently, it's the way the world works.
It's possible that tomorrow we will discover that we were wrong all along and the earth is flat. Until then we have to work within current knowledge.

Yes, a commonly-held view is that all facts have a half life. We believe something to be true 'for now', as at some point we might find out more and believe the opposite. That point might come tomorrow, or in ten years, or in a century - we don't know, so as you say, we deal with knowledge as it currently stands. It's all we can do.

VioletSky

It wasn't a debate anyway it was a lecture

If it was a debate, trans people would have been invited to debate her views

The Oxford Union has said attendees will have an "opportunity to respectfully engage and challenge" Prof Stock's views at the event on 30 May, as well as being able to ask questions anonymously.

... from a BBC News website.

Did this not happen then? Or did time run out because of the protests?

It certainly seems that the intention was to invite others to debate her views.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

We're trans people invited to a debate about them?

galaxy

I trust the process

More is coming

You have a protected belief, not a protected fact

VioletSky

We're trans people invited to a debate about them?

I presume you're addressing my comment?

If trans people were members of the Union, I assume they wouldn't have been denied an invitation on the basis that they were trans gender.

It's not a student union, it is a pay to join private members union

Ilovecheese,

Sorry about not engaging in the discussion. It did strike me that the article was written by a man who has a rather dated view of women, but I decided to ask others to read it to see what they thought. The discussion here was interesting but rather circular as there is no way that there will be any real meeting of minds. I thought Bluecat summed the situation up very clearly. And it is the case that Trans people “Feel” that they belong to the opposite sex and want to identify themselves based on their feelings, when objectively men and women have different physical bodies. I am an old feminist and we fought strongly for women’s rights and equality and there is no way most of us can tolerate trans “women” in our female spaces wherever the are. I feel tolerant of trans people but I draw the line at any way their trans status impacts female spaces. So I am in agreement with Professor Stocks and J K Rowling on this subject. This thread is a credit to Gransnet. So many sharp minds and interesting posts. There really was no reason for me to post!

Thank you for that Anniel

If trans people were members of the Union, I assume they wouldn't have been denied an invitation on the basis that they were trans gender.
Since lesbians were present, who said trans were not invited? And did everyone have to announce what they were on entry. We’ve been told so many times that you can’t tell.

Anniel I have just read the article and I agree with you that it sounds like it was written by a certain sort of man. What I would call a " it never did me any harm" sort of man if you know what I mean.

VioletSky

If every person on these threads kept at the front of their minds

An increase in transphobia is not an acceptable price to pay for protecting women

These discussions would look and, more importantly, feel very different

I am afraid I can't agree with this Violetsky so many things are deemed to be transphobic that I really think that women's safety must come before hurt feelings.

GagaJo

Bluecat, Kathleen Stock didn't want reasoned debate. She elected to work at one of the UKs most pro-trans universities and then publicly sought controversy.

If she'd wanted polite, reasoned debate she would have elected to join somewhere less diametrically at odds with her perspective. She was the equivalent of Trump at a democratic convention. Or Corbyn at the Tory conference.

She's achieved her objective. She's a notorious figure in academia now. It'll sell loads of her books. Win win for her.

Kathleen Stock joined Sussex University in 2003, that's 20 years ago! At that time, as a lesbian, she would have felt very at home around the Brighton area. It wasn't a pro-trans university, trans was not the issue it is today. It is demonstrably biased and downright deceitful of you to declare she joined the university wanting the vile treatment she's been receiving She's achieved her objective. I wonder if you've even read Material Girls or seen her in debate. She always stays calm, is measured and very polite, unlike many of her opposition. She never resorts to bare faced lies.

I'm not talking about hurt feelings I lovecheese

I'm talking about violence

If I can stand here and say, no violence is acceptable and I will never speak or act in such a way to inspire any form of hatred and violence towards anyone no matter how disgusting I find their views

Can you?

Thank you Rosie51. Well said.

Two other into that "debate"

To be a paid member (unobtainable for many students) or invite

To ensure no bias, trans people or a representative should have been invited

Routes not other

Well said, Rosie. If reasoned debate is beyond people, character assassination is the next line of attack.

VioletSky

I'm not talking about hurt feelings I lovecheese

I'm talking about violence

If I can stand here and say, no violence is acceptable and I will never speak or act in such a way to inspire any form of hatred and violence towards anyone no matter how disgusting I find their views

Can you?

I say no violence is acceptable.

But who is it committing the violence?
Towards JKR?
Towards Kathleen Stock?
Towards females?
Which people speak in support of this violence by refusing to condemn those who commit the violence?
Which people constantly slate females, calling them transphobic for wanting to protect females from the violence?