Free speech in peril as trans row engulfs Oxford University

To exclude someone from a debate because you think their views are absurd is crazy. If their views are absurd, they will not bear scrutiny and will be exposed as such. But to exclude someone because you think they are wrong is to misunderstand what debates are for, and you probably shouldn't be anywhere near one.

Universities should be places where issues can be discussed openly and respectfully, but too many people want to impose their views on others rather than convince them of their veracity or worth. As such, cancelling people willy-nilly should be anathema in an academic setting. Unless someone is inciting violence, I can see few reasons why anyone should be cancelled.

I think we have to be careful not to confuse insensitivity with hate too. Hate speech is abusive or threatening speech. Mislabeling people as transphobes, homophobes, when they dislike an action by a transgender or gay person doesn't mean they expressed dislike or hate for the person.

An example are people who think a transgender competing in female sports is unfair. Maybe some truly hate transgenders. And maybe they don't. The thought above doesn't conclusively say. It's unfair to call that person a transphobe or someone who used hate speech.

Just because people say something that hurts your feelings, doesn't make it hate speech.

That said, I know many do deal with hate speech and have felt their lives threatened by others. We should all take action in those circumstances! I just urge caution in bringing hate against others who have not really abused or threatened anyone... just shared differing views. Maybe even just shared text found in the Bible.

And I am a sensitive, peace-seeker. Negative energy, hate, anger, etc from others affects me greatly. But, I try to be fair-minded too, even when emotional.

Quote by NishasWorld

To exclude someone from a debate because you think their views are absurd is crazy. If their views are absurd, they will not bear scrutiny and will be exposed as such. But to exclude someone because you think they are wrong is to misunderstand what debates are for, and you probably shouldn't be anywhere near one.

Universities should be places where issues can be discussed openly and respectfully, but too many people want to impose their views on others rather than convince them of their veracity or worth. As such, cancelling people willy-nilly should be anathema in an academic setting. Unless someone is inciting violence, I can see few reasons why anyone should be cancelled.

Not just violence-inciting. The earth is flat/6000 years old/created in 6 days are some non-violent views that, for good reason, have no place at Universities either.

Quote by KimmiBeGood

Just because people say something that hurts your feelings, doesn't make it hate speech.

That said, I know many do deal with hate speech and have felt their lives threatened by others. We should all take action in those circumstances! I just urge caution in bringing hate against others who have not really abused or threatened anyone... just shared differing views. Maybe even just shared text found in the Bible.

I agree that we should be careful with the use of the term hate speech. But the fact that something comes from the Bible doesn't automatically exonerate something from being hate speech IMO.

These are four quotes from Dr. Stock's book Material Girls:

“A first thing to note, in case it’s unclear, is that I am not arguing against legal protections for trans people against violence, discrimination or coercive surgeries. I enthusiastically support these protections.”

“Gender identity theory doesn’t just say that gender identity exists, is fundamental to human beings, and should be legally and politically protected. It also says that biological sex is irrelevant and needs no such legal protection.”

Here are four axioms of modern trans activism, which I’ll be examining from different angles in this book. 1. You and I, and everyone else, have an important inner state called a gender identity. 2. For some people, inner gender identity fails to match the biological sex – male or female – originally assigned to them at birth by medics. These are trans people. 3. Gender identity, not biological sex, is what makes you a man or a woman (or neither). 4. The existence of trans people generates a moral obligation upon all of us to recognise and legally to protect gender identity and not biological sex.

Trans people are trans people. We should get over it. They deserve to be safe, to be visible throughout society without shame or stigma, and to have exactly the life opportunities non-trans people do. Their transness makes no difference to any of this. What trans people don’t deserve, however, is to be publicly misrepresented in philosophical terms that make no sense; nor to have their everyday struggles instrumentalised in the name of political initiatives most didn’t ask for, and which alienate other groups by rigidly encroaching on their hard-won rights. Nor do trans people deserve to be terrified by activist propaganda into thinking themselves more vulnerable to violence than they actually are.

Quote by Ironic

There's no hate speech or lying in that text.

No.

But, more importantly, she defines the debate that the students don't want to see happen.

Where sex-based and gender-based rights conflict, which takes priority?

Quote by noll

I agree that we should be careful with the use of the term hate speech. But the fact that something comes from the Bible doesn't automatically exonerate something from being hate speech IMO.

Agree. Many people have used the Bible as a weapon. I more meant that if someone is asked if they believe in gay marriage, and that person said that based on his/her interpretation of the Bible, he/she didn't think that's what God intended, that isn't hate speech, imo. I feel badly that opinion would hurt a gay person's feelings, but, I don't think the person sharing their opinion is being abusive or threatening. BTW, I support gay marriages.

I was raised by the most conservative parents on the planet. And my son is one of the most liberal. I am conservative in my choices, but liberal in that I don't care what others do as long as they aren't hurting someone. And I definitely don't think I'm one to judge. I'm kinda a loner for many reasons and just try to look at things fairly.

Quote by NishasWorld

To exclude someone from a debate because you think their views are absurd is crazy. If their views are absurd, they will not bear scrutiny and will be exposed as such. But to exclude someone because you think they are wrong is to misunderstand what debates are for, and you probably shouldn't be anywhere near one.

The Jewish Space Lasers Cause Forest Fires Coalition is delighted to hear it. 🙄

Some views are so blatantly absurd, crazy, hostile, and loaded with obvious violent motives that they MUST NOT be ennobled by getting a platform. Period.

Debates are NOT for handing a microphone to the people who, cloaked in sociology language, are calling for people's exclusion from society, disenfranchisement (because mentally ill people can't vote, can they), denial of medical care, denial of access to public spaces, and denial of visibility and representation, and criminalisation.

Quote by Ironic

There's no hate speech or lying in that text.

That text is a preface, laying out the viewpoint of pro-trans-rights activists.

The rest of the book is dedicated to contradicting all of it one by one.

Quote by noll

Not just violence-inciting. The earth is flat/6000 years old/created in 6 days are some non-violent views that, for good reason, have no place at Universities either.

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. 🙂

Quote by cydia

The Jewish Space Lasers Cause Forest Fires Coalition is delighted to hear it. 🙄

Some views are so blatantly absurd, crazy, hostile, and loaded with obvious violent motives that they MUST NOT be ennobled by getting a platform. Period.

Debates are NOT for handing a microphone to the people who, cloaked in sociology language, are calling for people's exclusion from society, disenfranchisement (because mentally ill people can't vote, can they), denial of medical care, denial of access to public spaces, and denial of visibility and representation, and criminalisation.

But you conflate different things here. As I said in my post, crazy is fine to debate (it can be a challenge to debate a crazy idea, and hones your debsting skills), but violent motives should (in my opinion) be beyond debate because it’s outside the parameters of reasonable debate. I’m not sure I understand the context of the rest of what you say, but the argument that someone is trying to exclude someone from society is certainly contestable, and should be contested, I would have thought. It’s not creating a malign idea, it’s putting it back in its box, isn't it? Sorry if I've misunderstood your argument.

Quote by KimmiBeGood

I think we have to be careful not to confuse insensitivity with hate too. Hate speech is abusive or threatening speech. Mislabeling people as transphobes, homophobes, when they dislike an action by a transgender or gay person doesn't mean they expressed dislike or hate for the person.

An example are people who think a transgender competing in female sports is unfair. Maybe some truly hate transgenders. And maybe they don't. The thought above doesn't conclusively say. It's unfair to call that person a transphobe or someone who used hate speech.

Just because people say something that hurts your feelings, doesn't make it hate speech.

That said, I know many do deal with hate speech and have felt their lives threatened by others. We should all take action in those circumstances! I just urge caution in bringing hate against others who have not really abused or threatened anyone... just shared differing views. Maybe even just shared text found in the Bible.

And I am a sensitive, peace-seeker. Negative energy, hate, anger, etc from others affects me greatly. But, I try to be fair-minded too, even when emotional.

The whole ‘phobic’ term is problematic to me. A phobia is an irrational fear of something, not a dislike or opposition to it. It strikes me that labelling people as having a nervous condition because they disagree with something is an attempt to stifle debate on an issue that may, or may not, require discussion. If an issue isn't clear cut, it should be discussed.

Quote by NishasWorld

But you conflate different things here. As I said in my post, crazy is fine to debate (it can be a challenge to debate a crazy idea, and hones your debsting skills), but violent motives should (in my opinion) be beyond debate because it’s outside the parameters of reasonable debate. I’m not sure I understand the context of the rest of what you say, but the argument that someone is trying to exclude someone from society is certainly contestable, and should be contested, I would have thought. It’s not creating a malign idea, it’s putting it back in its box, isn't it? Sorry if I've misunderstood your argument.

I think what you are missing is that a lot of people have already "contested" a lot of conservative ideas and have decided that they don't agree. This is especially true in places of higher learning. Everyone has a right to debate and have free speech and all of that but, and it's a big but, people do not have to listen to them. Conservatives seem to think that free speech means the right to being platformed, and that is just not the case.

Quote by Magical_felix

I think what you are missing is that a lot of people have already "contested" a lot of conservative ideas and have decided that they don't agree. This is especially true in places of higher learning. Everyone has a right to debate and have free speech and all of that but, and it's a big but, people do not have to listen to them. Conservatives seem to think that free speech means the right to being platformed, and that is just not the case.

This new verb, ‘platformed’, is one I don't like. If we mean, ‘allowed a voice’, then most people should have their voice heard. The context is everything though. In the context of debates though, as in the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, it should be an open, apolitical space. It’s not a political party conference, where partisan views are to be expected, it is a universal platform. Why some, usually left-wing, groups think it is theirs to command is preposterous.

I’m not sure where you’re from, Magical_felix, but in the UK we have had some timely reminders of what happens when ideology trumps debate and, by extension, common sense.

What is the point in debating things with people who agree with you? That is navel gazing, not debate.

something that i feel the need to add. i've been pretty careful about not posting in this particular thread much for the simple reason that it's a pretty emotional topic for me and i think that, at times, our logic goes right out the window and we simply react. i have real issues with the spat of hatred that the Trans community has been dealing with - a natural reaction, being human, is to lash back at anyone not give their 100% support to anyone labeling themselves as Trans, gender fluid, non-binary, etc. I don't think that furthers the debate much, honestly.

that said, i do have to wonder why people can't simply say 'hey, i don't get it, it doesn't apply to me, but i don't like the idea of anyone having to deal with hate or discrimination, and who am i to judge what they feel is hurtful and what isn't. also, think about it, when you're being assaulted on a daily basis with verbiage and actions (In 2023, so far, anti-trans bills continue to be introduced across the country seeking to block trans people from receiving basic healthcare, education, legal recognition, and the right to publicly exist. here's the count as of today: 549 bills in 49 states. 71 passed. 376 active. 102 failed) it's easy to see why people who ARE affected are very sensitive to anything that can be viewed as Anti-tran. i mean, just mention gun control and the gun folk get all whipped up and angry - how is that okay and this isn't?

Quote by NishasWorld

This new verb, ‘platformed’, is one I don't like. If we mean, ‘allowed a voice’, then most people should have their voice heard. The context is everything though. In the context of debates though, as in the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, it should be an open, apolitical space. It’s not a political party conference, where partisan views are to be expected, it is a universal platform. Why some, usually left-wing, groups think it is theirs to command is preposterous.

I’m not sure where you’re from, Magical_felix, but in the UK we have had some timely reminders of what happens when ideology trumps debate and, by extension, common sense.

What is the point in debating things with people who agree with you? That is navel gazing, not debate.

Let me know how many churches are giving equal time to speakers talking about gay rights.

Like I said, freedom of speech doesn't mean people need to be forced to listen to you.

You can say 2+2=5 all you want, doesn't mean MIT students need to sit there and listen.

Quote by Magical_felix

Let me know how many churches are giving equal time to speakers talking about gay rights.

Like I said, freedom of speech doesn't mean people need to be forced to listen to you.

You can say 2+2=5 all you want, doesn't mean MIT students need to sit there and listen.

This is what I’m talking about. You have strong feelings which are completely valid, and in your presumably American context, there’s a tension between your views and those of others, seemingly from personal experience.

But when did I say you should be forced to listen to me? The point is, you shouldn’t forced to listen to people you disagree with, you should choose to! If you disagree with them, tell them why. Listen to what they have to say. You might not be convinced, but hey, is it your goal that the world should be a homogeneous cesspool of conformity? Or are you just an ideological imperialist?

That’s why debate is important.

No problem has ever been solved by intransigence and bigotry.

As for your last claim that I say ‘2+2=5’, what exactly are you talking about? I know these soundbites sound good, but in front of this worldwide audience, I’d be delighted if you could explain how my comments merit that.

Without having the debate here in this thread, there is a debate to be had. No matter the venue suggested (libraries, universities, public parks for open mic events), no matter the speakers suggested (Dr. Stock, Kellie-Jay Keen, Riley Gaines) there's a significant chance that a crowd of people will show up not to express their views, but to make sure no views are expressed. Two screenings of the documentary Adult Human Female has been shut down due to safety concerns. Riley Gaines was locked in a classroom for three hours for her own protection for speaking on this topic. Conversation around this issue is toxic and needs to be less so.

Quote by NishasWorld

The whole ‘phobic’ term is problematic to me. A phobia is an irrational fear of something, not a dislike or opposition to it. It strikes me that labelling people as having a nervous condition because they disagree with something is an attempt to stifle debate on an issue that may, or may not, require discussion. If an issue isn't clear cut, it should be discussed.

This definition of "phobic" is always used to counter being labeled as phobic, be it transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. Like many words, phobic has multiple meanings. Phobic is defined as having an extreme irrational fear or strong aversion to something. Aversion is defined as a strong dislike or disinclination. Therefore labeling someone who dislikes or opposes something as phobic is neither incorrect nor problematic. It's accurate.

Furthermore, transphobia is defined as dislike of or strong prejudice against transgendered people, a definition that was born out of the "strong aversion to" definition of phobic.

Quote by Ironic

The only text from Dr. Stock that's been posted here isn't hate speech and doesn't contain lies.

If there's text of hers that'll rebut this, post it.

Quite simple, actually. Dr. Stock posits that transwomen are not women. Those are her words. It is a lie, because they are, and there's a plethora of evidence to support this.

It is hate speech because it is the rhetoric used to incite/support discrimination and violence against transwomen. All violence and discrimination experienced by transwomen can be tied back to the belief that transwomen are not women.

Quote by Tantaleyes

That's nonsense. At least if you're using English.

agorophobia - Search (bing.com)

It's not nonsense, unless you view the Oxford Dictionary as nonsense, of course.

What does the definition of agorophobia from Bing have to do with the Oxford Dictionary definitions of phobic and aversion? You posting this only cements instead of counters my point that the root words phobic/phobia have multiple meanings.

Quote by Tantaleyes

More nonsense. 'Phobia' ia a mental disorder.

agorophobia: An anxiety disorder characterized by a specific fear of particular places and situations that the person feels anxious or panics, such as open spaces, crowded places and places from which escape seems difficult.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a phobia is an extreme irrational fear or aversion to something. Because again, multiple meanings.

You repeatedly posting a definition that adheres to the irrational fear aspect of the definition of phobia/phobic doesn't change the fact that phobic and phobia are both defined as irrational fear or aversion to something.

Quote by Tantaleyes

If the root words phobic/phobia have multiple meaning, then "phobic" doesn't necessarily mean Dr Stock or anyone else hates transwomen.

Transphobia/transphobic does, as transphobic/transphobia is defined as dislike of or strong prejudice against transgendered people. Excluding transwomen from being considered women is a form of transphobia.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Thanks for agreeing that phobic doesn't necessarily mean hated or dislike.

Thanks for helping me further prove my point at your expense. It's one of my favorite things about you.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You're as welcome to select your meaning as Dr. Stock is to hers.

I'm aware, and I don't need your permission. Dr. Stock has transphobic views that are harmful to transgendered people.

Quote by Tantaleyes

I didn't give you permission.

It's your choice to call Dr. Stock's text hate speech.

And you still haven't quoted it.

Oh but I did. Dr. Stock says "Transwomen are not women."

This is transphobia and hate speech because such rhetoric causes violence and discrimination against transwomen. The end.

There's a part of the debate right there. Are trans women, women? It depends on whether you think that "woman" designates gender or sex. Classically, it's a word that describes sex. If people would like to change that, I personally don't think it's appropriate to do so without a discussion.

Quote by AngelEthics

There's a part of the debate right there. Are trans women, women? It depends on whether you think that "woman" designates gender or sex. Classically, it's a word that describes sex. If people would like to change that, I personally don't think it's appropriate to do so without a discussion.

Why? Science already supports more than two sexes. It's already known that gender is a social construct.

And the sex argument is used to challenge the gender argument, because the goal is to debate and scrutinize the humanity of trans people, and using those findings to cause further harm through legislation.

That's why even entertaining someone's humanity as a debate is both hateful and harmful.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Everybody gets their sex from their chromosome. Only a few question their gender.

Yes, and all of the words that designate sex are being used for gender, as well. It can be confusing for people who don't follow the issue. I've seen trans female used along side of trans woman. One of the reasons Dr. Stock is accused of transphobia is because she calls legal designations of trans women as female/women a legal fiction, like corporations being people or like bees being designated as fish for conservation purposes.

Again, something worthy of debate.

Quote by Dani

Why? Science already supports more than two sexes. It's already known that gender is a social construct.

And the sex argument is used to challenge the gender argument, because the goal is to debate and scrutinize the humanity of trans people, and using those findings to cause further harm through legislation.

That's why even entertaining someone's humanity as a debate is both hateful and harmful.

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.