Cancel Culture or Free Speech

Hate speech is subjective

I can only dream to fast forward 20 years so society can adapt to changes and adopt the new definition of human rights

Presumably those at the Union were more intelligent than the protesters outside.

Yes. A debate not a shouting down. Obviously far above the capabilities of the crowd of activists outside

There is a programme on Ch4 tonight at 10.00 called Gender Wars, which is going to discuss issues such as this.

The summary says:
Sex and gender are at the heart of one of the most polarising issues of our times. With views from various sides of the debate, is there an end in sight to the conflict?

I don't know how much depth it will go into, but I will definitely be watching.

Anyway, I don't think that hate speech is subjective at all. We have laws which protect 'protected groups', and that includes transpeople, who are not as marginalised as we keep hearing.

It is against the law to incite racial hatred, or to commit a criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity, as those things would be considered a hate crime.

Simply saying that males can't be women is not hate speech - in fact it is now a protected belief. I think it is a sad reflection on our times that people cannot bear to hear criticism of their prejudices and want to silence others, to the point where a debating society refuses to allow debate in one of the most prestigious universities in the land. Robust debate is an essential requirement for a decent education, and actions like this one deny that opportunity to those who want to benefit from it.

As a student at Glasgow University in the early 1960s, I often attended debates at the Union (or Dialectic Society)

The whole point was to stir up and examine controversial issues of the day.

What is wrong with today's student debaters that they want to avoid controversty ? Without controversy there is nothing to debate

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University_Dialectic_Society

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University_Dialectic_Society

Hithere

Hate speech is subjective

I can only dream to fast forward 20 years so society can adapt to changes and adopt the new definition of human rights

Exactly. Wouldn't it be nice to just skip all the hate and arguing, and just get to the new normal without the battle?

Germanshepherdsmum

Presumably those at the Union were more intelligent than the protesters outside.

That's a very loaded value judgement. Not objective at all.

Who said it had to be objective? However, on analysis of what they were shouting and looking at their posters I'd say any 'lack of objectivity' was squarely in their court.

I listened to a vox pop with the leaders of tonight's protests in Oxford.

According to him. Kathleen Stock's speech meant that Oxford was no longer a safe place for transgender people. Obviously, he did not have time to tell us what were the dangers that immediately arose from Kathleen Stock's speech, but I have given up expecting any of these 'activists', whether transgender, animal rights, or climate activists to say anything that makes sense or to sit down and have a civilised discussion with their opponents, with each side treating each other with respect.

Yes, the leader was 'tired of having to explain'. That, along with 'educate yourself' is a typical response from someone with no coherent argument. I could understand that if the reporter stuck a microphone in front of someone coming out of the pub, but outside the Oxford Union? It's a terrible indictment of both the Union itself and the state of 'democracy' that we find ourselves living in if someone with that level of privilege is unable to express their feelings better than that.

GagaJo, how do we know what 'the new normal' will be? There is already a backlash against the authoritarianism that has got us to this point. I would also love there to be no censorship, no fighting and no suppression of alternative views, and with luck we will get there - but not as long as people like these protestors are allowed to silence anyone who expresses an alternative view to their own.

I compare this to same sec marriage

What is now a given it raised all eyebrows in the past

You see two men or two women getting married as the same as men in womens space?
I think they have a right to protest, I also think it has been hugely beneficial, if there had been no protest then the speech would not be making BBC headlines. It has given a lot of exposure to gender critical views, lots of people will be hearing those views and thinking well yes of course female spaces are important, of course you cant change sex.

What similarities are there between same-sex marriages and women losing their rights to safe spaces?

I can see absolutely none.

Doodledog

What similarities are there between same-sex marriages and women losing their rights to safe spaces?

I can see absolutely none.

There are no similarities, thus you see none.

No you cannot change sex! Sex is biological. You can be any gender you like, identify as a hippopotamus if that takes your fancy but you cannot change your chromosomes and that is what defines sex.

The Pendulum has swung now to far, who are these people telling us how we should think. My opinion is mine and no amount of bullying will alter that. Because that’s what these people are doing, bullying. No one cares what gender anyone is, but it seems they want a medal, to grind anyone else that’s straight, to suffer for it. as if we are freaks, It would seem schools and Universities are employing people now with their own sick agenda. Employers must be terrified just whom they are employing.

I am an amateur archaeologist. I have never, excavated a skeleton, but I have seen and handled them when studying the subject.

In the past the only way the gender of skeletons could be indentified was by any grave goods, if any, that accompanied them in death. Certain items were identified as being male and other items female.

Now DNA analysis gives us the biological sex of the skeleton and sometimes male skeletons have female grave goods and vce versa, but that tells us nothing of how that person sawthemselves. Often nothing accompanies the skeleton and all we have is biological sex. Gender disappears on your deaath bed, only biological sex lives beyond it.

Nothing that Kathleen Stock has said about gender identity can be described as "hate speech". She is merely expressing her view, which she is fully entitled to in law, that a male cannot simply elect to be a female. Those who are trying to close the debate down remind me of "book burners". The protesters would no doubt be horrified by that description, as they perhaps see themselves a champions of liberty, but in effect they are quite the opposite. Finally, for one of the the protesters' leaders to subsequently claim that Kathleen Stock's speech "now means that Oxford is unsafe for transgender people" is utterly ludicrous.

M0nica

I am an amateur archaeologist. I have never, excavated a skeleton, but I have seen and handled them when studying the subject.

In the past the only way the gender of skeletons could be indentified was by any grave goods, if any, that accompanied them in death. Certain items were identified as being male and other items female.

Now DNA analysis gives us the biological sex of the skeleton and sometimes male skeletons have female grave goods and vce versa, but that tells us nothing of how that person sawthemselves. Often nothing accompanies the skeleton and all we have is biological sex. Gender disappears on your deaath bed, only biological sex lives beyond it.

The shape of the pelvis has been known to be indicative of biological sex for many years.

MOnica
It couldn’t be plainer than that, could it?

Hithere

Hate speech is subjective

I can only dream to fast forward 20 years so society can adapt to changes and adopt the new definition of human rights

Yes!

Let's skip to the good part

Inciting hatred through speech is bad, just as bad as showing your hatred by harming, endangering and threatening females by your actions.
Let’s hope the new definition of human rights puts a stop to that.

30 years ago, the resistance to accept that gay people had the same rights as straight people was very much present

For example, marriage

Now, it is cis vs trans war.