Free speech in peril as trans row engulfs Oxford University

Quote by AngelEthics

We know that gender is a social construct. However, science doesn't support there being more than two sexes. You can't even make this argument without suggesting people with disorders of sexual development are, in fact, additional sexes. I could make a convincing argument that this isn't true. Again, debate.

How does saying that sex isn't on a spectrum scrutinize the humanity of trans people, when the vast majority of this small population wouldn't fall into their idea of a sex "spectrum" anyway? I would be willing to bet that "debating the humanity of trans people" is nowhere in Dr. Stocks planned statements.

Science does, in fact, support multiple sexes. People with disorders of sexual development can be described as intersex, and research supports how harmful the results can be of assigning these people to a binary understanding of sex.

It's nowhere in Dr. Stock's planned statements, sure, but it's what's happening. What are Dr. Stock's motivations for insisting that transwomen are not women if not to be exclusionary? And we already see the harm, discrimination, and violence such exclusion is causing to transwomen.

What form of advocacy comes out of insisting that transwomen are not women?

Quote by Tantaleyes

Not everybody is able to debate the issues, but prefer to attack their opponents in the hope of discrediting their opinions.

Reasonable people don't think of bees as fish. Those are legal contortions, or if you'd like, legal fictions.

I agree. Reasonable people know that fish and bees are two different things but accept the legal fiction because the outcome is positive for bees without taking anything away from the fish protected under the same laws. The question (and the debate) is whether this is also true if women and trans women fall under the same legal heading in all things.

Quote by Dani

Science does, in fact, support multiple sexes. People with disorders of sexual development can be described as intersex, and research supports how harmful the results can be of assigning these people to a binary understanding of sex.

It's nowhere in Dr. Stock's planned statements, sure, but it's what's happening. What are Dr. Stock's motivations for insisting that transwomen are not women if not to be exclusionary? And we already see the harm, discrimination, and violence such exclusion is causing to transwomen.

What form of advocacy comes out of insisting that transwomen are not women?

No, sex is about reproduction. There are exactly one of two roles a human can play in reproduction. That's the explanation of why there are two sexes. Now, if you an show me a human that's ever reproduced by another method, I'd be open to that discussion. However, there currently isn't.

Dr. Stock has two motivations, as far as I can tell from her writings: (1) to make sure that in an academic setting, discussion and debate isn't abandoned because it might contain ideas a person doesn't want to hear (2) that woman have a right to certain protections under the law that exclude anyone born male.

Quote by Tantaleyes

It's always possible for women and trans women fall under the same legal fiction. Laws can be passed and laws can be repealed. One problem with that legal fiction is that if you say they do fall under the same legal fiction, you'll be creating two classes of women, one with XX chromosomes and one with XY chromosomes. you're just moving the distinction from male/female to transwoman/woman.

Exactly. And those people who are women, both in the legal and biological sense, could get a little miffed at being considered a subgroup of their own sex. The question, IMO, is there a greater good (for both women and trans women) that comes out of recognizing trans women as women? That would be another excellent topic to have platformed.

Quote by AngelEthics

No, sex is about reproduction. There are exactly one of two roles a human can play in reproduction. That's the explanation of why there are two sexes. Now, if you an show me a human that's ever reproduced by another method, I'd be open to that discussion. However, there currently isn't.

Dr. Stock has two motivations, as far as I can tell from her writings: (1) to make sure that in an academic setting, discussion and debate isn't abandoned because it might contain ideas a person doesn't want to hear (2) that woman have a right to certain protections under the law that exclude anyone born male.

Biological sex and the definitions/implications therein are not just about reproduction. Yikes.

To be clear, you believe Dr. Stock wrote a book positing that transwomen aren't women to preserve the art of debate? And the mere notion that acknowledging transwomen as women is a threat to women's rights is more transphobic rhetoric that advocates for the exclusion of transwomen being allotted the same protections as ciswomen, so we're right back where we started.

Speaking of the sanctity of debate, in the context of this forum, I view people who create multiple accounts to echo the same sentiments are a threat to debate here in the Think Tank. It's a dead giveaway (and quite entertaining to say the least) when someone creates an account and within a couple of days or so, makes a beeline to the Think Tank to turn it into an echo chamber of the same 2-3 voices. Sloppy work indeed. But such desperation does give me hope that if one has to stoop to such measures to drive their point(s), they've already lost the plot.

The truly sad part is that it is such behavior that resulted in the Think Tank being shut down, and I'm sure if it were to happen again, it's not a decision that'd be reversed.

Quote by Ironic

Yes. Sex is about reproduction. There's sexual and asexual reproduction. Humans reproduce sexually.

so... since i don't plan on reproducing, i shouldn't be having sex? serious question, btw. is that your stand on it?

Also, that seems to be the argument being thrown in the face of LGTBQ people.

Quote by Ironic

Transwomen are not women is only a lie if transwomen is predefined as women.

For people who don’t think of transwomen as women but instead think of them as surgically altered homosexuals (gay or lesbian), the basic assumption is faulty.

Men are not women is not hate speech and isn’t a lie.

perhaps we, as a society/culture, need to change our predefinitions, then. as for your second statement, just because someone doesn't think of transwomen as women, doesn't mean they aren't. it's not the assumption that is faulty, it's their perception. and no, men are not women. That said, transwomen are not men.

Quote by Ironic

And maybe some day in the future, that'll be the way it plays out. That's someday in the future. The effort to suppress the discussion (that may lead to a change in our predefinitions) is happening now.

It's a bad idea to try to suppress discussing or debating an idea, even if, at first, you don't agree with it.

so, in the meantime they should just get over it and accept that they aren't subject to equal treatment or equal protection. i mean, are you, personally, ok with that? treating them like they are somehow lesser because they are trans? yes, the effort is happening now - both the effort to gain equality as well as take away rights. what should they/we if the anti-trans movement wins? reminds me of a time in our great nation when black people were legally considered 3/5s of a person, tbh.

It's a bad idea to try to suppress discussing or debating an idea, even if, at first, you don't agree with it

you might want to think that true - would have to say that's not true in all cases.

Quote by Ironic

Your sex, my sex, and everybody's sex doesn't depend on engaging in some form of activity. I hope that clears things up for you.

When you say ""that", what argument are you talking about? I'm asking because I don't see how the sex of gays and lesbians would be off limits for debate.

sex is, by definition, an activity. Gender is not, but yeah, sex is. and let me get this clear, you're suggesting that there should be a debate on whether or not gays/lesbians can have sex? lol good luck with that.

Quote by Ironic

And maybe some day in the future, that'll be the way it plays out. That's someday in the future. The effort to suppress the discussion (that may lead to a change in our predefinitions) is happening now.

Just because somebody thinks transwomen are women doesn't mean they are women.

It's a bad idea to try to suppress discussing or debating an idea, even if, at first, you don't agree with it.

fyi - homosexuality remains illegal in an estimated 70 countries, and is punishable by death in 11.

Ya'll forgot the topic of the thread is about free speech and not "what is a woman". The very loud anti-trans crowd that has popped up in the last year seems to think that their views should be platformed anywhere they want. They think that if people don't want to listen, it is the same as suppressing their "free-speech" which is not what free-speech is at all.

Quote by Dani

Biological sex and the definitions/implications therein are not just about reproduction. Yikes.

To be clear, you believe Dr. Stock wrote a book positing that transwomen aren't women to preserve the art of debate? And the mere notion that acknowledging transwomen as women is a threat to women's rights is more transphobic rhetoric that advocates for the exclusion of transwomen being allotted the same protections as ciswomen, so we're right back where we started.

Speaking of the sanctity of debate, in the context of this forum, I view people who create multiple accounts to echo the same sentiments are a threat to debate here in the Think Tank. It's a dead giveaway (and quite entertaining to say the least) when someone creates an account and within a couple of days or so, makes a beeline to the Think Tank to turn it into an echo chamber of the same 2-3 voices. Sloppy work indeed. But such desperation does give me hope that if one has to stoop to such measures to drive their point(s), they've already lost the plot.

The truly sad part is that it is such behavior that resulted in the Think Tank being shut down, and I'm sure if it were to happen again, it's not a decision that'd be reversed.

To be clear, I believe Dr. Stock wrote a book out of concern that suddenly there seemed to be a specific subject where debate and discussion wasn't even entertained. How can you see Lia Thomas and honestly say that isn't a threat to the intent of Title IX? But that even discussing it is it a threat to trans people?

I am posting under a single account. I came here to read a specific writer, scanned the forums, found a topic I was interested in, and commented.

Quote by AngelEthics

To be clear, I believe Dr. Stock wrote a book out of concern that suddenly there seemed to be a specific subject where debate and discussion wasn't even entertained. How can you see Lia Thomas and honestly say that isn't a threat to the intent of Title IX? But that even discussing it is it a threat to trans people?

I am posting under a single account. I came here to read a specific writer, scanned the forums, found a topic I was interested in, and commented.

The fact that you've predictably named Lia Thomas, who's the face of fearmongering when it comes to anything anti-trans, is incredibly telling.

As to the latter half of your post, welcome and Happy Lushing, lol. 😊

Quote by Ironic

Has anybody even suggested anything like that in this thread?

Yes. Several times over, which is why the conversation has evolved the way that it has.

Quote by Ironic

You're wrong about the definition of sex.

Sex Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

"sex : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures."

Why are you saying I"m "suggesting that there should be a debate on whether or not gays/lesbians can have sex"? I didn't say anything like that. Please stay on topic.

Conversations branching off of a common topic while still in the same land of the original subject matter is not considered going off topic. In the event that something does veer off topic, a moderator will say so or otherwise intervene by removing or editing a post.

Please leave the moderating to the moderators. Thank you.

Quote by Ironic

Who? Who suggested in the meantime they should just get over it and accept that they aren't subject to equal treatment or equal protection?

Several times over?

Every post that seeks to exclude transwomen from women, with equal rights and protections.

Please see the following:

Quote by Tantaleyes

'Trans women are still males with male genitalia' - university lecturer airs controversial views | The Argus

... “However, many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way.”

Quote by AngelEthics
The question (and the debate) is whether this is also true if women and trans women fall under the same legal heading in all things.

Quote by AngelEthics

Dr. Stock has two motivations, as far as I can tell from her writings: (1) to make sure that in an academic setting, discussion and debate isn't abandoned because it might contain ideas a person doesn't want to hear (2) that woman have a right to certain protections under the law that exclude anyone born male.

Well, who cares about the Oxford Union. Free speech and lively debate is alive and well on Lush. 🤣

Quote by Ironic

I did,

For Tantaletes, are you referring to the post where she quoted Dr. Stock? I haven't seen anything T's posted that could be confused with in the meantime they should just get over it and accept that they aren't subject to equal treatment or equal protection

 

Your first “quote” of AngelEthics' refers to a question. It isn't her opinion. 

 

Your second "quote" of AngelEthics' is her interpretation of Dr. Stock's motivation. 

 

So, nobody in this thread has posted a suggestion along the lines if, in the meantime they should just get over it and accept that they aren't subject to equal treatment or equal protection

quote from some guy named Ironic:

And maybe some day in the future, that'll be the way it plays out. That's someday in the future. The effort to suppress the discussion (that may lead to a change in our predefinitions) is happening now.

Just because somebody thinks transwomen are women doesn't mean they are women.

Quote by Dani

The fact that you've predictably named Lia Thomas, who's the face of fearmongering when it comes to anything anti-trans, is incredibly telling.

As to the latter half of your post, welcome and Happy Lushing, lol. 😊

I can name other trans athletes that have been on the podium over the last few years, this is just the most famous. . The point, though, is that there is an issue to discuss, which is where trans and women's rights conflict or appear to conflict. When that happens, there needs to be a discussion.

Quote by NishasWorld

I agree it’s probably a waste of everyone’s time, and this side of the pond, it’s unlikely to excite much interest. But it’s not a reason to cancel anyone, is it? As I said, absurd ideas will be outed. 🙂

But how often do those absurd ideas need to be outed? If I tell you Santa Claus is real, would you deem it necessary to keep having that discussion with me? I'd hope not. By giving absurd ideas a platform, you also give them some credibility.

Quote by Chryses

You can also say you are the King of America. Saying so does not make it so.

Your post was again off-topic, and when you begin posting on-topic, I will respond to the substance of your posts.

On-topic in public, off-topic not in public threads, or not at all Buz,

knock it off, both of you.

Quote by Chryses

In this instance, the organization is not Oxford. The organization is the Oxford debating society, and It is not in peril.

Who or what at Oxford is in peril?

Is free speech really in peril at Oxford?

And should there be a limit on free speech at a university?

Should free speech that endangers life or the physical well being of people be limited?

Who all encompasses trans row at Oxford? And in what way are the engulfing Oxford University?

Quote by Chryses

There needs to be, and it will be wherever that discussion is possible. It remains to be seen if the Oxford debating society will stay the course. 30-MAY-23 is Der Tag, I believe.

I think this is going to happen.

Quote by Buz

Is a man pretending to be an online woman to support his own agenda, a Trans, or just a phony? Would a pretend female character by a man be a pretend Trans?

Or is it free speech for a man to create a pretend female character to espouse his agenda?

Or is free speech best served denying a false persona a voice - a voice that is false?

Is Oxford really in peril because real transgenders speak out?

No, Oxford isn't really in peril. If this happens, there will be protesters and counter protesters. Dr. Stock will have her event and everyone will move on.

Is free speech in peril? Yes. It's not because of this particular event and my opinion doesn't change whether this goes forward or not. It's because there's a lot of people out there that don't want to see these hard debates happen at all. Being able to speak freely isn't a given.

Quote by Chryses

What absurd idea are you referring to?

The absurd ideas mentioned earlier in the conversation.

Quote by Chryses

Perhaps if you read some of the other posts in this thread, you would be in a better place to ask questions within it.

Quote by Chryses

Do you think that post of yours is on-topic?

This old whyo is so far in the closet he's living in Narnia as the white queen

Admitting who you really are is wonderful, but pretending you aren't what you are, while hating what you are and spreading that hate, is low. Very very low. Maybe the worst thing you can be.

Quote by Chryses

As you have chosen not to respond to my question of what idea you think is absurd, both of the ideas above may be what you consider absurd.

As you are notorious for not responding to questions, I think TTT readers may get a chuckle out if you're response to Noll.

But go ahead. I wouldn't want to silence you.

This is why conservative whining, I mean debate is important.

Checkmate libcucks

Quote by Chryses

Had there been but one (which was and remains my question) idea advanced in this thread, that criticism would be valid. As that is false (there has been more than one), so too is that criticism.

I mentioned "absurd ideas", not one absurd idea. So your question makes no sense.