Free speech in peril as trans row engulfs Oxford University

Quote by Chryses

Absurd ideas need to be outed when presented, not legislated away.

That is, except for the ideas I think are absurd. Those are the ideas that we should all band together to suppress. Do you agree?

edited

What ideas do you deem absurd?

Conservative debate works.

Trans designer targeted by right-wing mob over ‘satanic’ Target-Pride collection says he’s getting death threats

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/target-lgbtq-trans-designer-pride-collection-boycott/

Quote by Magical_felix

Conservative debate works.

Trans designer targeted by right-wing mob over ‘satanic’ Target-Pride collection says he’s getting death threats

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/target-lgbtq-trans-designer-pride-collection-boycott/

Those people who don't want to see this merchandice in Target, can't seem to just walk by, ignore it or go elsewhere to shop. They have to make the product go away. Those people who don't want to hear Kathleen Stock speak at Oxford seem to have the same problem.

The start of the "debate"...

So, at the risk of putting my head above the parapet, I think this discussion has proved the need for debating societies of all sorts, especially those in universities, to be open to all voices. Furthermore, I think there is a need for more of these societies, amongst people of all backgrounds, races and classes.

The alternative is what has happened here; an exchange of strongly-held views degrnerating into insults and abuse. That is why debating, with its respectful boundaries, is needed, and those who wish to close down these spaces to people who hold contradictory views should be resisted.

As someone who works in a university, I find it appalling that the founding principles of the Enlightenment should be cast aside so glibly. Ard are we heading to a new Dark Ages of intellectual illiteracy and moral relativism?

We should value opposing ideas, embrace diversity of thought, and have the courage and moral fibre to defend our beliefs in an open exchange of views. Leave bullying and self-proclaimed moral superiority at the door, treat your opponent with respect, and make society a better place in the process.

Great argument here

Quote by Ironic

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

The world is grossly over populated. Too many humans are putting an enormous strain on the earth's resources. The planet is in peril because of overpopulation.

Sex is just as much about recreation as reproduction, and with gross over population it should be a lot more about recreation than reproduction.

Quote by AngelEthics

Those people who don't want to see this merchandice in Target, can't seem to just walk by, ignore it or go elsewhere to shop. They have to make the product go away. Those people who don't want to hear Kathleen Stock speak at Oxford seem to have the same problem.

Interesting interpretation.

I see this as a direct result of entertaining and eventually caving into harmful viewpoints.

Quote by NishasWorld

So, at the risk of putting my head above the parapet, I think this discussion has proved the need for debating societies of all sorts, especially those in universities, to be open to all voices. Furthermore, I think there is a need for more of these societies, amongst people of all backgrounds, races and classes.

The alternative is what has happened here; an exchange of strongly-held views degrnerating into insults and abuse. That is why debating, with its respectful boundaries, is needed, and those who wish to close down these spaces to people who hold contradictory views should be resisted.

As someone who works in a university, I find it appalling that the founding principles of the Enlightenment should be cast aside so glibly. Ard are we heading to a new Dark Ages of intellectual illiteracy and moral relativism?

We should value opposing ideas, embrace diversity of thought, and have the courage and moral fibre to defend our beliefs in an open exchange of views. Leave bullying and self-proclaimed moral superiority at the door, treat your opponent with respect, and make society a better place in the process.

This is all well and good in theory.

Let's not forget the debate in question is still happening, so even the preface of this thread is a farce. Someone with rhetoric that has been the basis for harm against the trans community was invited to debate. Those impacted by this and those who care for those impacted by this sought to protest it and otherwise express their malcontent with giving someone who reinforces this rhetoric a platform. Being against people's right to protest this is contradictory to the notion of "free speech is in peril."

Being that this thread is a farce, it's already the antithesis of everything you've posted.

Quote by Chryses

You are, again, mistaken.

You asserted the existence of the [set of absurd ideas}. (see above)

I requested you identify one member of that set.

You seem, for some reason, to be unable to make sense of the relationship you defined.

I already identified one member of the set of absurd ideas, which proves that the criticism was valid.

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 noll
Quote by Chryses

You are, again, mistaken.

You asserted the existence of the [set of absurd ideas}. (see above)

I requested you identify one member of that set.

You seem, for some reason, to be unable to make sense of the relationship you defined.

I already identified one member of the set of absurd ideas, which proves that the criticism was valid.

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.

Okay gentlemen, this pedantic "conversation" has run its course. Let this be the end of it. Please and thank you.

Quote by Dani

Interesting interpretation.

I see this as a direct result of entertaining and eventually caving into harmful viewpoints.

You see the ability to tolerate viewpoints you disagree with, rather than removing those viewpoints from public discourse, as a form of caving? Did I understand you correctly?

Quote by AngelEthics

You see the ability to tolerate viewpoints you disagree with, rather than removing those viewpoints from public discourse, as a form of caving? Did I understand you correctly?

No, you did not.

I see removing inclusive merchandise in response to hatred as a form of caving into hateful views that were given a platform.

Quote by Dani

This is all well and good in theory.

Let's not forget the debate in question is still happening, so even the preface of this thread is a farce. Someone with rhetoric that has been the basis for harm against the trans community was invited to debate. Those impacted by this and those who care for those impacted by this sought to protest it and otherwise express their malcontent with giving someone who reinforces this rhetoric a platform. Being against people's right to protest this is contradictory to the notion of "free speech is in peril."

Being that this thread is a farce, it's already the antithesis of everything you've posted.

Someone accused of spreading rhetoric, which supposedly causes harm to the trans community, was invited. I've yet to see rhetoric or harm, so framing it this way makes it seem like a lot of assumptions are just accepted, which clearly, they aren't.

Protests against this talk are expected and would be an excellent example of free speech. Shutting down the event entirely is a whole other matter.

Quote by Dani

No, you did not.

I see removing inclusive merchandise in response to hatred as a form of caving into hateful views that were given a platform.

We probably agree in spirit. Though I wouldn't limit this idea to inclusive merchandise.

Quote by AngelEthics

Someone accused of spreading rhetoric, which supposedly causes harm to the trans community, was invited. I've yet to see rhetoric or harm, so framing it this way makes it seem like a lot of assumptions are just accepted, which clearly, they aren't.

Protests against this talk are expected and would be an excellent example of free speech. Shutting down the event entirely is a whole other matter.

It's beyond accusation. The rhetoric is in print, and widely available. "Supposedly" is disingenuous (but you knew that already) because it's widely understood, proven, and documented that the belief that transwomen aren't women is the basis for discrimination and violence against transwomen.

Being that the event hasn't been shut down, the latter part of your post is moot. Free speech is not in peril. Please stop insulting me with your faux intellectualism.

Quote by Dani

It's beyond accusation. The rhetoric is in print, and widely available. "Supposedly" is disingenuous (but you knew that already) because it's widely understood, proven, and documented that the belief that transwomen aren't women is the basis for discrimination and violence against transwomen.

Being that the event hasn't been shut down, the latter part of your post is moot. Free speech is not in peril. Please stop insulting me with your faux intellectualism.

No, it's not beyond accusation. It's also not beyond opinion, so suggesting that this is a "given" and a good excuse to rescind an invitation is something I strongly disagree with.

The belief that trans women aren't women isn't the basis for harm against them. The belief that they're not worthy of respect or basic human rights, is. Recognizing a person's sex, no matter how they try to disguise it, is not being disrespectful nor infringing upon their rights. Neither is talking about it. Gay rights didn't get to where they are without debate.

Quote by AngelEthics

Neither is talking about it. Gay rights didn't get to where they are without debate.

and a hard-fought battle (that is still being fought). not to mention a lot of violence and deaths.

Quote by sprite

and a hard-fought battle (that is still being fought). not to mention a lot of violence and deaths.

Agreed.

I would argue, though, that we're in a better place now (at least for now) concerning gay rights because we didn't shrink from the debate, even when we were being called abominations and mentally ill.

Quote by AngelEthics

Agreed.

I would argue, though, that we're in a better place now (at least for now) concerning gay rights because we didn't shrink from the debate, even when we were being called abominations and mentally ill.

yes. things are better for now as you say, but those of us this issue affects know that things could change again - a lot of politicians are already actively working on moving things backward once more. Florida is the most vocal offender, but it's not relegated to just that state. if, by debate, you mean protests, like the one's that happened at the Stonewall nightclub, no, we didn't. those were hardly peaceful and non-violent (on the police's part, btw - those whose job it is to serve and protect). gay rights were won through so much more than debate. we endured. we protested. some of us were imprisoned. some of us died. and people wonder why we protest when people come with an agenda geared towards taking away those hard-earned rights again.

seriously, most trans people just want to be left alone to live their lives. why is that such an issue for people? it's really all most of us want, right? just to be left alone and live our lives as long as we're not hurting anyone else. i really would like someone to explain to me how, for example, drag queens are hurting anyone? how transitioning from MtoF or FtoM is hurting anyone? How loving someone of the same gender or whatever gender they choose to classify themselves as is hurting anyone?

so yeah, you think there's not going to be pushback when our rights are threatened? protesting a speaker seems to me to be fairly reasonable to me at this point in time.

Quote by AngelEthics

No, it's not beyond accusation.

So it's inaccurate to say that Dr. Stock has written and published that transwomen are not women after Dr. Stock has written and published that transwomen are not women?

Quote by AngelEthics

It's also not beyond opinion, so suggesting that this is a "given" and a good excuse to rescind an invitation is something I strongly disagree with.

Cool. I don't care, to be clear. But cool, I guess.

Quote by AngelEthics

The belief that trans women aren't women isn't the basis for harm against them. The belief that they're not worthy of respect or basic human rights, is. Recognizing a person's sex, no matter how they try to disguise it, is not being disrespectful nor infringing upon their rights. Neither is talking about it. Gay rights didn't get to where they are without debate.

The belief that transwomen aren't worthy of respect or basic human rights is rooted in the belief that transwomen aren't women, therefore, the belief that transwomen aren't women is the basis for harm against them. I accept that you choose not to understand this and am happy to move on from this part of the conversation. You're welcome.

The belief that transgendered people are "disguising" their sex is not only disrespectful, but also another form of rhetoric used to disparage transgendered people. It is such widely accepted disparaging that has made the fight for trans rights such a tumultuous (and deadly) one, in much the same way as the fight for gay rights, as these fights are intertwined.

Dr. Stock has just as much right to believe in and discuss whatever rhetoric she chooses. But it is hypocritical to claim free speech is being threatened because people openly oppose it by saying "Hey, the shit you're saying is how people have justified discriminating against and even killing trans people, and we'd rather you take that shit elsewhere." Which is all that has happened in this case.

People called to have her invitation revoked for an open debate, it hasn't been. It'll be interesting to see if Dr. Stock is as receptive to opposing views and challenges to her harmful rhetoric as you and many others are expecting/challenging others to be to her views.

Quote by sprite

yes. things are better for now as you say, but those of us this issue affects know that things could change again - a lot of politicians are already actively working on moving things backward once more. Florida is the most vocal offender, but it's not relegated to just that state. if, by debate, you mean protests, like the one's that happened at the Stonewall nightclub, no, we didn't. those were hardly peaceful and non-violent (on the police's part, btw - those whose job it is to serve and protect). gay rights were won through so much more than debate. we endured. we protested. some of us were imprisoned. some of us died. and people wonder why we protest when people come with an agenda geared towards taking away those hard-earned rights again.

seriously, most trans people just want to be left alone to live their lives. why is that such an issue for people? it's really all most of us want, right? just to be left alone and live our lives as long as we're not hurting anyone else. i really would like someone to explain to me how, for example, drag queens are hurting anyone? how transitioning from MtoF or FtoM is hurting anyone? How loving someone of the same gender or whatever gender they choose to classify themselves as is hurting anyone?

so yeah, you think there's not going to be pushback when our rights are threatened? protesting a speaker seems to me to be fairly reasonable to me at this point in time.

Of course we shouldn't take any right for granted. The right to abortion was rolled back when so many clearly thought it never would be, and that should be a warning to all of us.

Stonewall was a riot, though, not a protest. One with an understandable cause, but not exactly planned or intended to be peaceful. Debate and protest was part of how we won some of our rights, along with lobbying and hard work at the state level. We put up with Westboro's free speech because we had ours too.

I think the specific things you've brought up about trans people (and those that enjoy drag), are those that are only being objected to by people with a religious basis or political agenda. Most people don't care when an adult transitions or who they love, or how they organize their lives.

However, the argument happening around Dr. Stock is about the concerns of making trans women literally identical to women under the law in all areas with no exception. The outcome of doing this doesn't just affect trans people.

It is not inaccurate to say that Dr. Stock has said that trans women aren't literally women. It's also not transphobic rhetoric to say that.

I didn't know how to break up the quote, so I'm just answering that point above.

Quote by Dani

The belief that transwomen aren't worthy of respect or basic human rights is rooted in the belief that transwomen aren't women, therefore, the belief that transwomen aren't women is the basis for harm against them. I accept that you choose not to understand this and am happy to move on from this part of the conversation. You're welcome.

The belief that transgendered people are "disguising" their sex is not only disrespectful, but also another form of rhetoric used to disparage transgendered people. It is such widely accepted disparaging that has made the fight for trans rights such a tumultuous (and deadly) one, in much the same way as the fight for gay rights, as these fights are intertwined.

Dr. Stock has just as much right to believe in and discuss whatever rhetoric she chooses. But it is hypocritical to claim free speech is being threatened because people openly oppose it by saying "Hey, the shit you're saying is how people have justified discriminating against and even killing trans people, and we'd rather you take that shit elsewhere." Which is all that has happened in this case.

People called to have her invitation revoked for an open debate, it hasn't been. It'll be interesting to see if Dr. Stock is as receptive to opposing views and challenges to her harmful rhetoric as you and many others are expecting/challenging others to be to her views.

If you'd like to move on from the idea that recognizing someone's sex for what it is does not (or does) cause harm, that's fine. It's not that I don't or won't understand. It's that I disagree. If we're at an impasse, fine.

I think you could find a loophole for any speaker, claim they're causing harm to some group, and deny them the opportunity to speak. I'd hate to see academia work this way. I hope there is a YouTube for the public once this event happens because I would be interested in seeing it.

Quote by AngelEthics

If you'd like to move on from the idea that recognizing someone's sex for what it is does not (or does) cause harm, that's fine. It's not that I don't or won't understand. It's that I disagree. If we're at an impasse, fine.

I think you could find a loophole for any speaker, claim they're causing harm to some group, and deny them the opportunity to speak. I'd hate to see academia work this way. I hope there is a YouTube for the public once this event happens because I would be interested in seeing it.

I accept that you're a proponent of harmful rhetoric because of whatever mental gymnastics you use to disqualify it as such. It would save you a lot more time if you didn't wrap it up in pseudointellectualism. Then people wouldn't run the risk of engaging you in good faith only to be repeatedly hit with all the ways you and others who think like you believe you have a say in how transgendered people perceive themselves, and how challenges to those perceptions are accompanied by further marginalization of transgendered people as well as threats to their lives and way of being.

You and I are done now. Cheers.

Quote by AngelEthics
However, the argument happening around Dr. Stock is about the concerns of making trans women literally identical to women under the law in all areas with no exception. The outcome of doing this doesn't just affect trans people.

You'd think that any man who was halfway alert would NEVER want to be treated identically to how women have been treated in the United States of America for the last 300 years - when the colonists first arrived on our shores and told the women to unload the damned long boats, clean the hunted animals, cook the meals and mind those children while their at it.

With as much crap as women have had to endure even since the formation of the country in 1776... hard pass.

Why would I want to be treated like a 3rd class person in my own country?

Quote by AngelEthics

Of course we shouldn't take any right for granted. The right to abortion was rolled back when so many clearly thought it never would be, and that should be a warning to all of us.

Stonewall was a riot, though, not a protest. One with an understandable cause, but not exactly planned or intended to be peaceful. Debate and protest was part of how we won some of our rights, along with lobbying and hard work at the state level. We put up with Westboro's free speech because we had ours too.

I think the specific things you've brought up about trans people (and those that enjoy drag), are those that are only being objected to by people with a religious basis or political agenda. Most people don't care when an adult transitions or who they love, or how they organize their lives.

However, the argument happening around Dr. Stock is about the concerns of making trans women literally identical to women under the law in all areas with no exception. The outcome of doing this doesn't just affect trans people.

Stonewall did not start out as a riot. the riot occured in 1969. protest had been ongoing since 1966 by The Mattachine society who began by having 'sip ins' where they openly displayed their sexuality at bars and taverns. when the bar was raided in 69 it turned into a riot when police officers entered the club, roughed up patrons, and arrested 13 people, including employees and people violating the state’s gender-appropriate clothing statute (female officers would take suspected cross-dressing patrons into the bathroom to check their sex). that was followed by 6 days of protests.

you left out homophobes and bigots. drag queens and trans people are being objected to by people with a religious basis, a political agenda, and homophobes and bigots. but i mean, does that make it ok? oh, it's not everyone who 'objects' to trans people. it's only about 30% of everyone. 30% of 332 million people is what? i'm bad at math, forgive me... about 100 million people, give or take? like you said, most people don't care. enough do. and those who do hold a lot of power. the power, for instance, to enact laws.

Quote by WellMadeMale

You'd think that any man who was halfway alert would NEVER want to be treated identically to how women have been treated in the United States of America for the last 300 years - when the colonists first arrived on our shores and told the women to unload the damned long boats, clean the hunted animals, cook the meals and mind those children while their at it.

With as much crap as women have had to endure even since the formation of the country in 1776... hard pass.

Why would I want to be treated like a 3rd class person in my own country?

thing is, they are not men. they are women born into the wrong body. that's how it's been described to me by enough who would KNOW. it's not about becoming a woman, it's about outwardly looking as who they really are. and vice versa in the case of FtoM.

Quote by AngelEthics
It is not inaccurate to say that Dr. Stock has said that trans women aren't literally women. It's also not transphobic rhetoric to say that.

so what is it, then? misguided? uneducated? uninformed? biased? bigoted?

Quote by Chryses

It would only require an active imagination, and the desire to avoid a debate.

categories of speech not protected by the second amendment. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.