Cancel Culture or Free Speech

what I believe is transphobic dialogue

What someone believes to be transphobic isn't necessarily so.

Perhaps a robust definition of transphobic would help. It'd certainly help me. Whether I agreed with it is another matter.

Glorianny

If you google Channel 4 Gender documentary 2018 criticism the account should come up.
Far more concerning to me is this blog by the transpeople who appeared in the documentary complaining about how they were misled and misrepresented.
And it reveals something I had suspected that Kathleen Stock left Sussex for a highly paid job at a private American college.
Propaganda is taking over the narrative here.

c4genderwars.blogspot.com/2023/05/when-it-comes-to-trans-and-non-binary.html?m=1

That she accepted another position two weeks after leaving Sussex is in no way proof that she left to take that position. My own son was made redundant and within the week had been headhunted for a position with a rival company. Have you even seen the gauntlet she had to run on a daily basis? The posters, the chanting etc. When transpeople say they are made to feel unsafe and distressed by a billboard saying Woman:adult human female, what on earth should Kathleen Stock feel at the vile posters and placards held up for her? You really have to bury your head in the sand not to think that could make working at Sussex untenable for her.

Glorianny

NanaDana

Still waiting for some concrete evidence which shows that Kathleen Stock's views are "hateful and intolerant". I suspect it's going to be a long wait. Also, to suggest that she is being "disingenuous" , as in "slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth" (Cambridge dictionary) just won't wash. She is clearly sincere, honest and unambiguous about what she feels, and that's exactly what some people are unhappy about.. including the "book-burners" who want to close her down. Also to suggest that her stance may be about "making money" is a very cheap shot indeed, and is merely designed to cast unsupported aspersions. A desperate resorting to unwarranted innuendo adds nothing to a reasoned argument.

I wonder how many people would have bought or read her books had she simply discussed something quite rationally without being quite so vocal about her views? Not many I bet.
She could quite easily have discussed the subject, and the repercussions her views might have on others. She didn't.

Exactly! And opting to go to work at a university with a renowned Queer Studies program (since the mid 1980s I think) and then taking an anti stance...

Instant notoriety. She'd have just been 'more of the same' if she'd been at Oxbridge or somewhere traditional.

Of course being left wing is relevant. But then many people who claim to be now aren't really. They are somewhere slightly to the right of Tony Blair which isn't exactly left.

What has that to do with this? And how are you defining 'left' and 'right'? I am confused as to why you say 'of course being left wing is relevant'. Relevant to what?

To be honest if people want to call me right wing they can crack on it isnt true but you know. I think right wing people have the right to speak too

Smileless2012

"hounding someone for a response" !!! I didn't I was still waiting for a response GagaJo I said "I'm waiting for a reply too" so if you're going to quote me, please do so correctly.

I didn't quote you. It wasn't about you.

Possibly you do the same thing, but I hadn't noticed that.

Namsnanny

Ah, I see you have found her on unherd

Not found, was aware of, in particular the most clearly provocative, rude and condescending article I've seen in the subject.

For a woman who believed flying trans flags on campus was a "personal attack" against her and styles herself a "moderate"

Well it just doesn't look good

Anyway
I've shared an article explaining what I believe is transphobic dialogue, it's up to those asking for answers to take the time to read it or not.

You've said Kathleen Stock "apparently" tweeted approval for Posie Parker. That's not the same as actually doing so so is there any evidence.

I don't see what KS view on abortion has to do with her books and talks on trans gender.

Namsnanny

But just repeating what you think someone said is not personal.

Its key to understanding why there are differing views.

Sorry, this was to VS

Doodledog

Galaxy

Many of those who are at the forefront of this debate in this country are left wing feminists, in fact at one stage the only party who was saying biological sex was important was the socialist party

I sometimes wonder whether people understand what right and left wing mean. 'Right wing' is used as a vague insult to people they don't agree with, but not everything is a left/right issue.

I don't see the trans debate as being about left/right. People from both 'wings' can support either 'side' without contradicting their other political beliefs (and few intelligent people are 100% one or the other anyway). The authoritarianism usually associated with the Right comes from the TRAs, but there are Left wing dictators too, so even that doesn't apply.

I agree that most people I know who are biological realists are also leftie feminists, but then a lot of my friends are leftie feminists, so that was always likely to apply. I don't see voting intention as relevant to the trans debate though - as evidenced by the Mail being the most likely paper to report from a biologically realist perspective. The Graun sold out ages ago.

Of course being left wing is relevant. But then many people who claim to be now aren't really. They are somewhere slightly to the right of Tony Blair which isn't exactly left.

But just repeating what you think someone said is not personal.

Its key to understanding why there are differing views.

The first paragraph of that post was not about you, Galaxy

It has always puzzled me why Kathleen Stock would apparently tweet approval for Posie Parker a woman who would happily "annihilate " women who stand in her way.
www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/04/posie-parker-trans-women-annihilated/
And doesn't think women should have abortions.
twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1539337442649587712?lang=en

But then you learn she's working in the States and all becomes clear

Galaxy

Many of those who are at the forefront of this debate in this country are left wing feminists, in fact at one stage the only party who was saying biological sex was important was the socialist party

I sometimes wonder whether people understand what right and left wing mean. 'Right wing' is used as a vague insult to people they don't agree with, but not everything is a left/right issue.

I don't see the trans debate as being about left/right. People from both 'wings' can support either 'side' without contradicting their other political beliefs (and few intelligent people are 100% one or the other anyway). The authoritarianism usually associated with the Right comes from the TRAs, but there are Left wing dictators too, so even that doesn't apply.

I agree that most people I know who are biological realists are also leftie feminists, but then a lot of my friends are leftie feminists, so that was always likely to apply. I don't see voting intention as relevant to the trans debate though - as evidenced by the Mail being the most likely paper to report from a biologically realist perspective. The Graun sold out ages ago.

Ah, I see you have found her on unherd

Namsnanny

I've posted an article to explain above

It's a long read but will help you understand

Getting into this on a personal level would not be a good idea on this thread with such opposing views.

Discussion on this Jeremy Vine now

Sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act. Gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic. It's perfectly ok to discuss issues relating to both those subjects.

VioletSky

Namsnanny hmm well

Seeing as I'm awake and alone with my thoughts.

Many on this thread won't agree with me on what constitutes transphobic language, especially when it comes to protected beliefs and at the moment it is a bit difficult to navigate but it likely won't stay that way. There are scenarios we can look at that give hints of where it is headed.

Scenarios that are starting to run parallel with clamping down on racism and homophobia.

Hate crime

Transgender people are protected against hate crime. A hate crime is if the offender has demonstrated hostility based on transgender identity during an assault or been motivated to assault by hostility to transgender identity. So if a person were to assault a trans woman shouting that they are biologically a man and can't change sex, that would likely be classified as a hate crime as the crime is shown to have occured due to the victims trans status.

Trans people are afforded protections against discrimination under the equality act.

So work places cannot discriminate against trans people, and they also cannot create a hostile environment. So if a trans person were coming to work or school and facing someone staying "you can't change sex, you are a man" the employee or student can argue that creates a hostile environment and the organisation would need to investigate.

Many work places, organisations and platforms have policies in place for inclusive language and set their own rules for what language is considered hostile or transphobic. For work places this also includes employees social media and how they conduct themselves out of work. So if a worker is saying "you can't change sex, you are a man" this may violate their policies on trans inclusion.

We have historically seen many people lose their jobs after using racist or homophobic language. They won't be arrested for it but there are real world consequences. The same may already be happening in regards to transphobia and if it isn't, it likely will soon.

Then if we look at families and friendship groups. What members of family and friendship groups classify as transphobia also matters and that is another way that real life consequences may be implemented simply by saying that a trans women is a man.

That's my thoughts on it anyway, others will have a different perspective but I think it's a wait and see in 20 years or so like other issues

But you havent answered my question, or did I miss it in amongst the above?

what do you think KS actually said that constitutes intolerant and hateful?

This is important.
For if she has been ascribed a position by others, without having said certain things
That would be a) a mistake
B) a lie or C) propaganda to promulgated an ideology.
Upon which many people have invested their emotional commitment.
Is that wise?

To answer questions and gain an understanding of my views as a trans inclusive or intersectional feminist and what constitutes transphobic dialogue, the whole article would need to be read. Kathleen stock as a representative of a different view does feature among others and the article explains what trans people and their allies will happily debate and what they should not have to as a protected characteristic under the equality act. It explains well which aspects of gender critical views are inherently transphobic even though many are simply unaware of this due to the media.

It's an interesting read and much less inflammatory and deliberately condescending and rude than articles Kathleen stock has written for Unherd.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09612025.2022.2147915

If you google Channel 4 Gender documentary 2018 criticism the account should come up.
Far more concerning to me is this blog by the transpeople who appeared in the documentary complaining about how they were misled and misrepresented.
And it reveals something I had suspected that Kathleen Stock left Sussex for a highly paid job at a private American college.
Propaganda is taking over the narrative here.

c4genderwars.blogspot.com/2023/05/when-it-comes-to-trans-and-non-binary.html?m=1

The leading activist last nights seems to have very limited respect for others.

So, are we supposed to show him/her respect?

And, yes, I know it's the DM, but they are one of the few without a paywall.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12140963/Trans-protester-stormed-Kathleen-Stocks-speech-anti-Republican-called-royals-parasites.html

I'm glad Kathleen Scott was able to give her speech. Chanting outside by objectors is standard at the Oxford Union – happened before and will happen again.

I'm also glad Debbie Hayton, who is a transwoman, has spoken up in support of KS's "biological reality" views.

Got picked up for referring to Debbie Hayton as she though, even though I know she's male. Politeness is sometimes wacky.

Hang on a minute. What was the 'manipulated question ?

VS says
From what I've read Stock seems to be now championing herself as a polite moderate in this debate but her past history says sadly otherwise and she has come across as intolerant and hateful, which led to this
She ( VS ) was asked what she thought KS had said in the past (by Namsnanny at 00:27:23), and then Riverwalk (at 07:19:05) asked when and where KS had been intolerant and hateful .

How are they 'manipulated questions'? They are both asking for clarification of something VS said herself - her words.

These accusations of people 'twisting', and 'manipulating' and 'hounding' really need to stop. They are attempts to smear the posters who dare to have a different opinion, and I, for one, strongly object to it. I am not a reporter of posts, as I think that it is better to show these tactics for what they are, but I am so fed up with it, as it happens on every thread on this subject .
That is the pattern, and it is very unfair.

Hear, hear. Well said!

Is that the article which they had to retract part of because of libel. I think she is seeking further legal advice.