Free speech in peril as trans row engulfs Oxford University

Quote by Chryses

Are you able to post excerpts from work Dr. Stock has published that are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats?

P.S. "Fighting words" are words meant to incite violence, at least as I understand them.

edited

when have i accused Dr Stock of any of those? I was just clarifying matters for those that seem to have a lot of opinions and yet don't really say much.

Quote by Chryses

So there is nothing to complain about Dr. Stock exercising her right to free speech.

edited: typo

i have every right to complain about anything i feel like, actually. isn't that the point of this entire thread?

Quote by Chryses

It would follow from your assertion above that you endorse Dr. Stock exercising the same rights.

would it? are you sure? or are you simply hopeful?

Quote by Chryses

Or are the rights of some people more equal than the same rights of others?

apparently, they are. let's make a list. in the US, the rights of the rich are more equal than the rights of the poor. the rights of men are more equal than the rights of women. the rights of the ethnic majority are more equal than the rights of the ethnic minority. the rights of straight people are more equal than the rights of gay people. the rights of CIS people are more equal than the rights of trans people. that's a starter for you. i could add more, but i think you get the idea.

Quote by Chryses

I am sure you believe all of that to be true.

Do you, or do you not, believe your right to free speech is more equal to that of Dr. Stock?

The government isn’t persecuting Dr. Stock for anything she has said, Penny Chryses.

Fucking guy doesn’t even know what free speech is.

It all comes down to conservatives not minding their own business and being unable to stop thinking about what other people do with their own bodies or who they have sex with. Conservatives seem to think that people doing what they want in the privacy of their bedrooms somehow affects them.

Conservatives just need to mind their own fucking business really.

Quote by Chryses

I have found sprite to be quite capable of expressing herself when she wants to do so. Still, I am sure she appreciates your gallant effort in her defense.

While I have your attention, do you, or do you not, believe your right to free speech is more equal to that of Dr. Stock?

Would you care to contribute? The right to free speech is, after all, the point of this thread.

You don’t understand what free speech is. People not wanting to listen to her is not a free speech issue lol

Quote by Chryses

You have exercised your right to free speech and have chosen not to contribute to the thread topic.

I didn’t read this and whatever else you quoted. And I’m not stopping you from talking to yourself and since I’m not the government your right to free speech hasn’t been infringed.

You have the right to say whatever bullshit you want. You don’t have the right to force me to take you seriously.

Quote by Chryses

That, too, is unrelated to the thread topic.

It’s exactly what the thread is about.

Quote by Chryses

Oh yes?

In what way does "Since I’m not the government your right to free speech hasn’t been infringed." relate to the Oxford student union attempting to coerce the debating society to withdraw its invitation to Dr. Stock?

They’re not the government either.

You conservatives don’t know what the 1st amendment is. You seem to think it means people need to listen to shit they don’t want to listen to.

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?

I'm going to make a guess that you're not transgendered. 😉

Though, for some trans people, oppression is validation of their gender. Andrea Long Chu just won a Pulitzer for the book Females. This is a quote, in reference to her definition of femaleness. "In all cases, the self is hollowed out, made into an incubator for an alien force. To be female is to let someone else do your desiring for you, at your own expense." She's said that sissy porn made her trans.

Quote by sprite

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

Or literally true.

People call the question, "What is a woman?" a gotcha question. I think it's the most basic concept. Is it a word describing sex or gender? I think this is something that would come up in Dr. Stock's debate. If it''s really a debate, there will be good arguments for both.

Quote by AngelEthics

Or literally true.

People call the question, "What is a woman?" a gotcha question. I think it's the most basic concept. Is it a word describing sex or gender? I think this is something that would come up in Dr. Stock's debate. If it''s really a debate, there will be good arguments for both.

I'd say woman describes gender. Same for man. For sex there's female/male.

Transgender folks are no more confused than the cis part of society IMO. Our society pushes for this binary concept of man- and womanhood. People's genders are on a spectrum, but this binary concept suggests that only the extremes are valid, or real, or natural. Many if not most folks will, to a certain extend, try to align with those extremes because that's how we're brought up. For cis gendered folks the closest extreme aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth. For trans folks the closest extreme is that on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I believe that if our culture/society didn't push for this binary concept as much as it does, that more people would feel comfortable floating in the middle of the spectrum, instead of feeling the need to gravitate to one side or the other. There would be more non-binary folks, and less trans/cis folks as a result, I think.

Quote by noll

I'd say woman describes gender. Same for man. For sex there's female/male.

Transgender folks are no more confused than the cis part of society IMO. Our society pushes for this binary concept of man- and womanhood. People's genders are on a spectrum, but this binary concept suggests that only the extremes are valid, or real, or natural. Many if not most folks will, to a certain extend, try to align with those extremes because that's how we're brought up. For cis gendered folks the closest extreme aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth. For trans folks the closest extreme is that on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I believe that if our culture/society didn't push for this binary concept as much as it does, that more people would feel comfortable floating in the middle of the spectrum, instead of feeling the need to gravitate to one side or the other. There would be more non-binary folks, and less trans/cis folks as a result, I think.

If woman describes gender then trans women are women.

I would argue that it doesn't. Female/male describes sex only. A mare is a female. When I write mare though, you know I'm talking about the female sex of a specific species (and in this case age). What is that word, like doe, mare, or hen for human females? There are many words for gender (trans, cis, fluid, nonbinary, agendered, etc.).

I agree with you on gender expression, though. Whether it's how you like to dress or what interests you hold, your sex shouldn't matter. Nor should your interests or dress need to fall into a pink or blue box. An honest assessment would probably show that everyone is some form of nonbinary.

Quote by AngelEthics

If woman describes gender then trans women are women.

I would argue that it doesn't. Female/male describes sex only. A mare is a female. When I write mare though, you know I'm talking about the female sex of a specific species (and in this case age). What is that word, like doe, mare, or hen for human females? There are many words for gender (trans, cis, fluid, nonbinary, agendered, etc.).

Horses can't talk so they can't tell you what their pronouns are.

I agree with you on gender expression, though. Whether it's how you like to dress or what interests you hold, your sex shouldn't matter. Nor should your interests or dress need to fall into a pink or blue box. An honest assessment would probably show that everyone is some form of nonbinary.

But yet we should allow people to keep repeating that some non-binary folks are 'confused' and false, while others are true? Even though life is already tougher and more dangerous for the former group?

Should we then also keep giving platforms to people who say that, even though all people have mixed heritages to some degree, some ethnicities are false, while others are true? That's what Russia has been telling about Ukraine for instance. And it's very clear why they're doing that: it's not because they simply want to have a debate about what is or is not Ukrainian identity in order to advance our common understanding about that subject. No, it's a tool to weaken the support for Ukraine.

Quote by AngelEthics

I'm going to make a guess that you're not transgendered. 😉

Though, for some trans people, oppression is validation of their gender. Andrea Long Chu just won a Pulitzer for the book Females. This is a quote, in reference to her definition of femaleness. "In all cases, the self is hollowed out, made into an incubator for an alien force. To be female is to let someone else do your desiring for you, at your own expense." She's said that sissy porn made her trans.

lol

Quote by noll

But yet we should allow people to keep repeating that some non-binary folks are 'confused' and false, while others are true? Even though life is already tougher and more dangerous for the former group?

Should we then also keep giving platforms to people who say that, even though all people have mixed heritages to some degree, some ethnicities are false, while others are true? That's what Russia has been telling about Ukraine for instance. And it's very clear why they're doing that: it's not because they simply want to have a debate about what is or is not Ukrainian identity in order to advance our common understanding about that subject. No, it's a tool to weaken the support for Ukraine.

Gender, when it comes to the non-binary, seems to be more of a non-issue. Timothy LeDuc is a non binary figure skater. However, they compete with a woman in pairs. Quinn is a nonbinary soccer player who plays on the women's team. There's no objection there.

The thing about Ukraine is that there was no debate, because that's not how Russia works. They declared Ukraine, or at least pieces of it, Russian, and invaded based on that premise. It's an excuse.

Quote by Chryses

I am sure you believe all of that to be true.

Do you, or do you not, believe your right to free speech is more equal to that of Dr. Stock?

which version of free speech are you addressing? the Constitution 1st amendment or the more universal version? can't really answer that until i know where you're coming from.

Quote by AngelEthics

The thing about Ukraine is that there was no debate, because that's not how Russia works. They declared Ukraine, or at least pieces of it, Russian, and invaded based on that premise. It's an excuse.

There's a lot of propaganda. And foreigners who, either because they're useful idiots, or because they align with Russia, use these Russian points in debates in western media. And sometimes debates are used specifically to propagate a certain message.

Quote by AngelEthics

Female/male describes sex only. A mare is a female.

When I write mare though, you know I'm talking about the female sex of a specific species (and in this case age).

What is that word, like doe, mare, or hen for human females?

Brood stock?

Quote by noll

There's a lot of propaganda. And foreigners who, either because they're useful idiots, or because they align with Russia, use these Russian points in debates in western media. And sometimes debates are used specifically to propagate a certain message.

There is a lot of propaganda but nobody trying to disseminate that propaganda really wants it in a debate where it can be picked apart. They want their mouthpieces to go onto the news in places it won't be challenged and pound that message repeatedly until people are saying it without thinking about what they're saying.

Quote by WellMadeMale

Brood stock?

Maybe some people would like it to be the term. "A person with a uterus" isn't far from that.

Quote by AngelEthics

There is a lot of propaganda but nobody trying to disseminate that propaganda really wants it in a debate where it can be picked apart. They want their mouthpieces to go onto the news in places it won't be challenged and pound that message repeatedly until people are saying it without thinking about what they're saying.

So, then my question still stands: should we then also keep giving platforms to people who say that, even though all people have mixed heritages to some degree, some ethnicities are false, while others are true?

Quote by ElCoco

Once you start down the road of saying, "You're allowed to talk about this, but you're not allowed to talk about that," there will always be someone ready to say, "Well, since you've already decided they're not allowed to talk about that, and this other thing is almost the same, you shouldn't allow them to talk about it either."

If we're trying to find out what kinds of free speech should be facilitated with a platform or not, then we'll have to establish where the line is precisely, and then what makes the difference.

So, I ask you the same question: should we keep giving platforms to people who say that, even though all people have mixed heritages to some degree, some ethnicities are false, while others are true?

Quote by noll

So, then my question still stands: should we then also keep giving platforms to people who say that, even though all people have mixed heritages to some degree, some ethnicities are false, while others are true?

My opinion is yes, but not without challenge. Russia/Ukraine information, or misinformation, is handled by Russia TV, which isn't even pretending to be free press, and propagated through places like social media where you can easily create an echo chamber. I would have no objection, though, to academic debate on the question. I'm fairly confident that the history of the region would make a strong argument that Ukraine is a legitimate state with independent ethnicity.

I also wouldn't object to a topic that was personally offensive to me. If Andrea Long Chu wants to talk about her idea of the feminine or debate it's validity, I wouldn't shut that down, if I had the power to do so.

Quote by noll

If we're trying to find out what kinds of free speech should be facilitated with a platform or not, then we'll have to establish where the line is precisely, and then what makes the difference.

So, I ask you the same question: should we keep giving platforms to people who say that, even though all people have mixed heritages to some degree, some ethnicities are false, while others are true?

Not just any platform, though. A debate.

I didn't have any objection to removing Trump from the Twitter platform. He was abusing free speech using that platform. And by abusing free speech, I mean inciting people to violence. There's a reason why the man doesn't like debates.

Quote by AngelEthics

Not just any platform, though. A debate.

I didn't have any objection to removing Trump from the Twitter platform. He was abusing free speech using that platform. And by abusing free speech, I mean inciting people to violence. There's a reason why the man doesn't like debates.

But a public debate is a platform as well. So should we keep inviting to public debates people who say that some ethnicities are false, while others are true, thereby giving the impression that their ideas are just as valid/credible as any other?

Tolerating intolerance is what has historically led to fascism.

Tolerating intolerance is what has led to stochastic terrorism in America.

I'm opposed to censorship of all variety, but not when it comes to Nazis - especially emboldened Nazis who won't stay in the shadows where they were banished to 80 years ago. Those motherfuckers should never enjoy freedom of speech.

I'm somewhat surprised that we're at a point in our human history, where we simply endure the resurrected Nazi Party in America and throughout the world.

78 years ago, we finally started the extermination of the more heinous Nazi members with the Nuremberg Trials. I find it difficult to believe that nary a word was printed or even whispered about forever outlawing the Nazi Party and any references to it in the future.

Should've given it some teeth too. But, apparently this was not on the menu when it came to dealing with future Nazis recruited from anywhere in the world.

We've been paying for this transgression ever since - and I specifically remember this fucked up 1977 event - where I was troubled that the ACLU was actually representing the NAZI party in America.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis

We lost millions of decent human beings during WWII fighting Nazis. They should be an extinct species at this point in time, but - that is not what has occurred.

We're going to have to face up to these imbeciles and nitwits yet again...And deal with the head of the snake in the appropriate manner.

If you're claiming to be a Nazi or a 'neo-nazi' then you have placed yourself on the endangered species list immediately.

just a note - free speech comes with a caveat - it doesn't cover the consequences of speaking freely. it's not some absolute law that says that everything you say is given a free pass. do i have the freedom to declare that all men should be castrated at age 16? sure i do. that doesn't mean that i am legally protected from being boycotted, etc, for making the statement.