Cancel Culture or Free Speech

I will try and look at the Channel 4 programme on catch up.

Where and when has she been intolerant and hateful?

Good question. I suspect it will be like the JKR one, in that if you ask what she said that was so bad, the silence from her detractors is deafening. They don't know - they've just been told that these women are Bad.

Doodledog I think that those who were protesting outside KS’s debate are going to find themselves on the wrong side of this story.

I have not seen anyone denying trans people their right to live/wear how/what they want.

I have seen people pointing out the biological impossibility of changing ones sex and wishing the rights of (natal) women to be respected and their woman only spaces retained.

In the interests of equality do we hear the same vociferous protests from and on behalf of Trans men ? Or do they tend to make far less fuss so they seldom even get a name check?

I know Dickens , I am agreeing with you.

Doodledog

*Where and when has she been intolerant and hateful?*

Good question. I suspect it will be like the JKR one, in that if you ask what she said that was so bad, the silence from her detractors is deafening. They don't know - they've just been told that these women are Bad.

She has stated that transgender women and transgender men deserve to live in dignity and should have the full protection of the law but with the proviso that “identifying as a woman” isn’t the same as being a woman.

Hardly intolerant or hateful .

As it's been brought into the discussion by you VS, can you give an example or a link to where KS has been intolerant and hateful?

If not, perhaps this is what you've been told at some point and taken on board without any proof and maybe the protesters last night have done the same thing, wrongly seeing her an an enemy of trans when she's nothing of the kind.

Well put Foxygloves

identifying as a woman isn’t the same as being a woman

Foxygloves

In the interests of equality do we hear the same vociferous protests from and on behalf of Trans men ? Or do they tend to make far less fuss so they seldom even get a name check?

Transmen were socialised as women. I think that is crucial. Most women are taught not to put their own needs first, not to talk over people and to consider the feelings of others. So are some men, of course, but on the whole, even if they are taught these things at home, life knocks them out of them.

There was something of a phone in this morning on London radio.

People held different views, but the majority of opinion seemed to be that people were getting sick and tired of small minorities trying to stop others having or giving opinions they may disagree with.

Regardless of what the subject is

I'm sure we've all met loads of people, through life, we've disagreed with, whatever the subject - and no one got cancelled! 🙄

Reasoned debate can be enlightening.

Screaming shouting, gluing, threats, vandalism etc (whatever the subject), just alienates people, and loses the argument.

It wasn't, actually, much of a protest anyway.

It took the police a while to unglue someone, but the activists were shouted down, by the audience, and swiftly removed from the debating room.

www.lbc.co.uk/news/trans-activists-interrupt-controversial-kathleen-stock-talk-oxford-university/

As I say I support peoples right to protest. I think its deeply counter productive for their cause as now Kathleen stocks views are on the BBC news and have a much wider audience but that's not really my problem.

I am still waiting for the reply from VioletSky telling us what Kathleen Stocker did or said that demonstrated her 'hate' of transgender people.

It is a classic underhand way of undermining someone. Accuse them of something they did not do and then go silent when they are challenged for the evidence. Mud then sticks.

Isn't Kathleen Stock a professor of philosophy? It would be interesting to have the view of scientists on this subject.

vintage1950

Isn't Kathleen Stock a professor of philosophy? It would be interesting to have the view of scientists on this subject.

Robert Winston has made his views clear.

Another protester, wearing a t-shirt saying "no more dead trans kids", glued themselves to the floor of the debating chamber in front of Prof Stock.

"No more dead-kids" full stop, would be a better mantra. And that matter could, for a start, be dealt with at least by recognising that mental health services in the UK - well, certainly England, are under-resourced and under-funded... and that body-dysmorphia could in part be due to the fact that too much emphasis is put on bodies female and male via the tabloid media, pornography, and the cosmetics industry, and the entertainment industry.

Just look at the "influencers" on Tik Tok - virtually all of them are posed at some point staring obsessively at themselves prior to taking a 'selfie'.

Any person, men in particular who have mental confusion in articulating ‘what is a woman’ just listen learn and look at the magnificent Prof Stock she embodies the absolute triumph of the essence of womanhood. Created in the womb of her mother, not constructed through society or medical intervention.

Stormystar

Any person, men in particular who have mental confusion in articulating ‘what is a woman’ just listen learn and look at the magnificent Prof Stock she embodies the absolute triumph of the essence of womanhood. Created in the womb of her mother, not constructed through society or medical intervention.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?

There was a huge march on the same day as the debate, part of the first Transpride event organised by a coalition of 10 student societies. It seems that students outside the Oxford Union were firmly opposed to her speaking.

I found Kathleen Stock somewhat ingenuous and couldn't somehow match her "I'm just saying this and I don't mean any harm" attitude to reality. She's an intelligent intellectual and must surely be aware of the effects of her views. Then I did just wonder if it was the situation so well described in the History Boys, that to develop a 'name' and prominence in your field you need to take an attitude that conflicts with accepted views.
(in the play it was the Holocaust). That doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she says just that it has probably been financially valuable for her,

Why couldn't she 'just say' that men can't become women and not mean any harm?

You are hearing hoofbeats and seeing zebras, I think.

Then I did just wonder if it was the situation so well described in the History Boys, that to develop a 'name' and prominence in your field you need to take an attitude that conflicts with accepted views.
(in the play it was the Holocaust). That doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she says just that it has probably been financially valuable for her.

No Glorianny, that’s just what some people would like to think.
You see being cancelled as financially viable? How weird.

I think last nights demonstration has probably ensured her further rise to prominence. But as I say that's the decision the protestors made.
If you mean she has taken a different viewpoint to a few very loud people on Twitter then yes she has done that.
It is the accepted viewpoint within NHS guidelines and within the law that you cant change sex.

Dickens, If, in the workplace, one employee accosts another - apropos of nothing - and informs them that as a trans woman they cannot be a woman - that can be taken as an inflammatory move. If, on the other hand, said employees are sitting in the lunch room having a discussion on the matter, and the same individual debates the point and says they don't believe that a biological male, identifying as a woman, can be a woman, that is an entirely different scenario. That is free-speech, not hate-speech. If however a rider is added to the observation, one that threatens or intimidates, that is hate speech, and could be considered to be transphobic - merely stating that you don't accept or believe a biological male can be a woman in the course of conversation, is not.

The equivalent to this would be a group of individuals sitting at lunch politely discussing ethnicity or homosexuality. Someone saying they think Black people have lower IQ levels than white people or that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, that marriage should be reserved for male/female couples who are able to naturally procreate. It would definitely be seen as discriminatory speech.

These things are free speech. But make free with things that are offensive to others and there will be repercussions. This may not be enshrined in law yet, but many companies have policies about it. Like it or not.

M0nica

I am still waiting for the reply from VioletSky telling us what Kathleen Stocker did or said that demonstrated her 'hate' of transgender people.

It is a classic underhand way of undermining someone. Accuse them of something they did not do and then go silent when they are challenged for the evidence. Mud then sticks.

Ahhh, demanding a reply. A classic gender critical response.

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.