Free speech in peril as trans row engulfs Oxford University

It’s a shame the haters fail to see and understand that we are all entitled to our own perspectives and truths. I often wonder if it is fear at the root of their horrible behaviors…?

Racism, sexism, trans- and homophobia, anti-Semitism and other such nonsense aren't opinions or views. They're hatred, violence and human vileness dressed in a nice suit to try and get in the door.

The task of any free and tolerant society should be to employ a bouncer or ten, to keep such trash out. A bullshit filter. Bullshit is does not fall under "speech". It is not protected, and it should certainly not be ennobled by inviting it into the University of Oxford for a "debate".

Debate on what, anyway?

Kathleen Stock is of the uninformed "opinion" that transwomen and -men and NBs are all just confused; that this confusion is spreading, threateningly, to the children who are, apparently, mass-transitioning at the pushing of their parents and health care providers; and that legislature that makes it less horrendous for transfolk to get legal recognition of their actual gender identity is somehow a threat to ciswomen and their "safe spaces".

All of which is a) patently untrue and betrays a lack of basic understanding (or, in her case, acknowledgment) of... ANYthing, really, sex and gender, and b) faux-scientific material that merely serves as (yet) a(nother) reason to vilify, demonize and, ultimately, vicitimize a minority group in society that's already the subject of absolutely brutal behaviour from all sides.

Stock is entitled to her perspective. Lord knows that bajillions on Facebook share it and equally crow about how "You cannot switch genders!" and "They're groomin the kids!" and "They need to be institutionalised!". (Such people very frequently wear red baseball caps in their avatars, and one starts to think that maybe the headgear is on too tightly? Maybe it's blocking the flow of oxygen...?)

She should not be entitled to hoist her perspective up onto an esteemed, internationally recognised platform that purports to be one of learning, understanding, and science. And the people who work for said platform should definitely not help her up. It's indeed a "discouraging development" that an associate professor feels the need to provide a leg-up to the bullshit-in-a-suit. Makes you wonder what kind of work Dr Biggs is doing, really... oh, hang on, he's busy running multiple accounts on twitter...

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-linked-to-oxford-sociology-professor/

Quote by Ironic

Assuming there's more than one POV on the subject, which has more evidence supporting it?

There's more than one POV on absolutely every subject. But not all POVs are equally valid, and some POVs (which aren't POVs but bullshit in a suit) simply mustn't be entertained. Not even for entertainment value.

When you want to have an actual, scientifically fruitful discussion about forest fires, you cannot invite proponents of the Jewish Space Lasers Theory of Forest Fire Causation to the table.

Quote by cydia

Racism, sexism, trans- and homophobia, anti-Semitism and other such nonsense aren't opinions or views. They're hatred, violence and human vileness dressed in a nice suit to try and get in the door.

The task of any free and tolerant society should be to employ a bouncer or ten, to keep such trash out. A bullshit filter. Bullshit is does not fall under "speech". It is not protected, and it should certainly not be ennobled by inviting it into the University of Oxford for a "debate".

Debate on what, anyway?

Kathleen Stock is of the uninformed "opinion" that transwomen and -men and NBs are all just confused; that this confusion is spreading, threateningly, to the children who are, apparently, mass-transitioning at the pushing of their parents and health care providers; and that legislature that makes it less horrendous for transfolk to get legal recognition of their actual gender identity is somehow a threat to ciswomen and their "safe spaces".

All of which is a) patently untrue and betrays a lack of basic understanding (or, in her case, acknowledgment) of... ANYthing, really, sex and gender, and b) faux-scientific material that merely serves as (yet) a(nother) reason to vilify, demonize and, ultimately, vicitimize a minority group in society that's already the subject of absolutely brutal behaviour from all sides.

Stock is entitled to her perspective. Lord knows that bajillions on Facebook share it and equally crow about how "You cannot switch genders!" and "They're groomin the kids!" and "They need to be institutionalised!". (Such people very frequently wear red baseball caps in their avatars, and one starts to think that maybe the headgear is on too tightly? Maybe it's blocking the flow of oxygen...?)

She should not be entitled to hoist her perspective up onto an esteemed, internationally recognised platform that purports to be one of learning, understanding, and science. And the people who work for said platform should definitely not help her up. It's indeed a "discouraging development" that an associate professor feels the need to provide a leg-up to the bullshit-in-a-suit. Makes you wonder what kind of work Dr Biggs is doing, really... oh, hang on, he's busy running multiple accounts on twitter...

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-linked-to-oxford-sociology-professor/

Exactly.

Hate speech is not protected speech.

in other anti-trans news, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill wednesday that will let the state take transgender minors away from their families if they are receiving gender-affirming care.

Quote by Ironic

It's true that all POVs aren't equally valid. That's why there needs to be free speech - so the different POVs can be compared. The idea of actively suppressing others' opinions reminds me of how medieval church dogma was used. Not good then, and not good now.

cool. i believe that all men are potential rapists and should be castrated at birth. that's my POV.

there is a difference between allowing free speech and allowing hate speech. thing is, now that it's not as popular to hate black people, people are finding other people to hate. Trans people seem to be the most popular target these days and it's still kind of okay to hate them in our society, so people are jumping on the bandwagon while they can. that's not a difference of opinion, that's pure bigotry and hate.

oh, and i should mention that the hatred of Jews seems to be growing in popularity too.

Quote by JustAMan

It’s a shame the haters fail to see and understand that we are all entitled to our own perspectives and truths. I often wonder if it is fear at the root of their horrible behaviors…?

sure we are. but we're not all entitled to voice them in a publicly sanctioned setting. you can go ahead and hate - fill in your 'favorite' minority here - that doesn't give you the right to openly debate your opinions at a publicly funded academic setting. there does need to be a line drawn, and if something falls under the guise of hate speech, i think that's a clear sign that the line has just been crossed.

btw, let's take an informal poll. raise your hand if you or a minority that you represent have never been the target of hate speech. thing is, it's easy to say, FREE SPEECH FOR EVERYONE if you've never been the recipient of hate speech, threats, property damage, or violence simply because you're a member of a minority. some of you are lucky, and will never experience it. thing is, you have to remember that it's very hard to have any kind of perspective if that's true. not a condemnation. simply a fact.

Quote by Tantaleyes

I'm in favor of free speech for everyone, and I'm a member of a minority group that's received a lot of hate speech, threats, property damage, and violence.

but what about hate speech? do you draw the line there, or do you think that should be allowed as well?

Quote by Ironic

It's true that all POVs aren't equally valid. That's why there needs to be free speech - so the different POVs can be compared. The idea of actively suppressing others' opinions reminds me of how medieval church dogma was used. Not good then, and not good now.

"That's why there needs to be free speech"

There is. Free speech means that the government doesn't prevent you from disseminating your opinion, however moronic, unfounded and incendiary it is, via censorship or pressure.

But Oxford University, far as I know, is not a government body. It is not obligated to provide a platform for the Jewish Space Lasers Brigade. And it shouldn't, because that would make Oxford University complicit in spreading news about how the rich Jews of the world are setting shit on fire.

Nobody is suppressing anyone's opinion by not inviting them to a debate. Particularly not when their opinion isn't an opinion but rather bullshit in a suit.

The Jewish Space Laser Brigade has nothing to contribute to a debate on forest fire prevention. We know this. You know this. Everyone knows this. Their grandma knows this. There is no doubt about this in any way. They have nothing valid to offer to be compared to other POVs, because their entire thing is not actually about forest fires but about anti-Semitism.

The same thing is true for Kathleen Stock and her ilk. It's not about gender studies, about sociology, or anthropology. Her entire thing is denial of observable reality for the sake of anti-trans sentiment. And if you don't want to acknowledge the existence of reality, you don't actually have a point of view of it. You've got your eyes closed. You cannot contribute meaningfully to a debate about a topic you refuse to acknowledge.

Quote by Tantaleyes

But what's hate speech isn't the same for everybody.

We disagree on the fringes. We agree on the basic stuff.

If it's a lie, a factual untruth about people, accusing them of something they're not actually guilty of, for the sake of rallying others against them - that's hate speech. Incitement.

That's what Stock's stuff is. It's wrapped in sophisticated words, with a shiny veneer or sociology on it. But it's still just incitement.

Quote by Ironic

Now if Ms. Stock posts nastiness of that kind, I can see people objecting to giving her a platform.

Is that the kind of thing she says about trans people?

Yes.

Quote by Ironic

Antisemitism isn't for me, either.

I'm not sure your belief that Ms. Stock's opinions are as offensive as someone saying, for example, “Satanic Jews.” That's the real deal!

Now if Ms. Stock posts nastiness of that kind, I can see people objecting to giving her a platform.

Is that the kind of thing she says about trans people?

If it has to be as on-the-nose as "Satanic Jews!" for you to qualify as hate speech, we're gonna have a bad time. 96% of Hitler's speeches wouldn't ping your hate speech radar and would apparently not be "the real deal".

Kathleen Stock sticks her speech in a suit of concern for the kids and sociology lingo, like most published transphobes do. But at the basis of her entire ouevre is the claim that gender identity isn't actually a thing. Which is an assertion on par with the idea that, actually, left-handedness isn't actually a thing.

Why anyone would want to hear that person speak on any topic at all is a mystery.

(And by that I mean it's not a mystery at all, sadly. The secret ingredient, as always, is glee.)

Quote by Tantaleyes

I'd expect that if all she was peddling were lies they'll be exposed in a debate. Oxford's the British version of the US's Harvard, so her adversaries should sophisticated enough to be able to disassemble the BS easily, wouldn't you think?

Entertaining hate speech under the guise of a "debate" only further harms those on the receiving end of the hatred. Giving lies and hatred a platform is an unnecessary cost to those who will be harmed.

Quote by Tantaleyes

What's this "hate speech"? What are the lies?

In the rhetoric offered by Stock, of course.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You keep talking about it, but never showing it. Why?

Several reasons. The onus isn't on me to do so. The information is easily accessible. I don't engage in free labor for strangers on the internet, especially those with multiple accounts. Etc.

Quote by Tantaleyes

OK. You call it "hate speech" but can't back up your words.

I absolutely can, as you well know. I'm just not gullible enough to fall into your distraction tactics, is all. You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people with whom I've ever had the displeasure of conversing.

You rarely, if ever, know of what you speak. You instead choose to take the obtuse approach without actually meaningfully engaging in the conversation at hand, and instead choose to antagonize those capable of coherent thought. You are an absolute bore, all 3-4 iterations of you, if I'm being completely honest.

So while yes, I can back up my words, you are unworthy of the effort of doing so. I hope this clears things up for you (all 3-4 of you, that is).

And I know you'll attempt to casually dismiss everything I've said thus far as irrelevant, which is a dead giveaway to how ever many versions of you there are, however it doesn't make anything I've said less true.

Our world is WAY OVERDUE a COMMON DEFINITION OF HATE SPEECH.

Quote by JustAMan

I find it ironic that 2 of Lushstories’ moderators talk about free speech and hate speech as though they support one and not the other, and yet after reporting UNPROVOKED hate speech and BULLYING from at least 2 people in this Think Yank and another thread, at least 2 of them continue their behaviors which clearly violate Lushstories’ Policy, are ALLOWED to continue these behaviors. Where is the accountability anywhere in our society? Talk is cheap! Please stop protecting your buddies and hold them accountable?!

For the millionth time, people disagreeing with you isn't hate speech. You only bring this up when your opinions are opposed. It's grown quite stale. Hate speech is a bannable offense on this site, and isn't taken lightly.

Things get intense in the Think Tank. This space was built for that. If you can't handle that about the Think Tank, there's a plethora of other forums on this site to enjoy.

Please let this be the last time I have to address this with you. Thank you.

Quote by Dani

For the millionth time, people disagreeing with you isn't hate speech. You only bring this up when your opinions are opposed. It's grown quite stale. Hate speech is a bannable offense on this site, and isn't taken lightly.

Things get intense in the Think Tank. This space was built for that. If you can't handle that about the Think Tank, there's a plethora of other forums on this site to enjoy.

Please let this be the last time I have to address this with you. Thank you.

Sure. I’ll add this to my “account.”

Quote by JustAMan

Sure. I’ll add this to my “account.”

Thank you for your acquiescence.

Quote by JustAMan

Quote by JustAMan

Our world is WAY OVERDUE a COMMON DEFINITION OF HATE SPEECH.

here's a little help for you. me calling you entitled or dumb isn't hate speech. me calling you an entitled or dumb - insert ethnic, gender, etc. slur here - would be considered hate speech. if any of my "buddies" did something like that, i'd step in. if they just called you dumb, i'd let it go. get it? seriously, how many times does Dani have to explain it to you? simply disagreeing with you is kind of what the Tank is all about. it says it in the freaking description. https://www.lushstories.com/forum/the-think-tank/forum-rules

Quote by JustAMan

Our world is WAY OVERDUE a COMMON DEFINITION OF HATE SPEECH.

Remember when you were talking about a secret cabal of powerful people controlling the entire world in the conspiracy thread, and I ridiculed you for it because what you were alluding to is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

You were trying to dress one of the oldest and most racist conspiracy theories in a suit.

This is the same thing... Do you understand now?

Quote by Chryses

Patience, we are taught, is a virtue.

please stay on topic. thanks.

Quote by Ironic

I gave you an example of hardcore antisemitism. I get a sense you think Ms. Stock is as hardcore anti-trans.

Ms Stock is hardcore anti-trans. Can't get any more anti-anything than to allege that all people of the anything-group are actually mentally ill child-castrators who want to watch people pee in public bathrooms. Her cloaking this "opinion" in sociology lingo makes no actual difference. Again: If you think that only absolutely overtly spelled-out incitement to killing people qualifies as "hardcore hate", you need to re-calibrate your sensors. They're too blunt to be useful. You're missing EVERYthing.

"I wonder why the debating society doesn't see it your way." And I wonder why you wonder. Does the existence of systematic transphobia puzzle you? Why? The debating society wants the attention (because that brings the money) and they're fine with blatant transphobia on their stage. Mystery: Solved. And, of course, it looks good in the media when you can make it look like you're championing free speech and academic freedom and all these noble ideals. Unfortunately, as several other people in this thread, as well as the Oxford students who oppose Kathleen Stock's bs, have pointed out: hate speech isn't free speech.

Quote by Ironic

I'm not sure I'm missing everything, but I'm sure I don't see hate for others as easily as you do.

From what you said above, I understand you think the debating society's invitation was motivated by greed and "systematic transphobia". What makes you think that? Has it shown signs of greed and "systematic transphobia" before?

"I don't see hate for others as easily as you do."

See an optometrist, then? Stock is not subtle. Her writing is not subtle. It echoes precisely the slanderous and hateful stuff that was (and unfortunately still is, thought it's not taken seriously anymore) said and written about homosexual men: mentally ill, trying to make others (and particularly children) gay, sexually deviant and absolutely into non-consensual stuff. Precisely the same, just swapped the subject because gay bashing isn't as en vogue any more.

"What makes you think that?"

1. Only transphobes invite transphobes to lay out their scientifically-veneered transphobia in front of an audience. And lo and behold, Oxford University is employing Dr Michael Briggs, who let it be known that "transphobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons” via his not-so-covert second twitter account. Just an example, of course.

2. Greed for public interest and press coverage (and the money that comes with it) is the only other reason I could think of why anyone would read something written by Kathleen Stock on the subject of transgenderism and think, "Yeah, her. I want her to hold our microphone." (without being actively a fan of her hatred.) She's obviously not got anything to say on the subject itself (since she denies it actually exists), so nobody who's interested in fruitful debate would be interested in all the nothing she has to say.

Quote by Ironic

I'm comfortable with how I see hate speech. I'd like to see what you think is an example of Ms. Stock's hate speech. You've said several times now that Ms. Stock was or is upfront in her hate speech, but you haven't provided an example yet. Why?

I thought the debating society extended the invitation. Are you saying Dr. Briggs did? What does Dr. Briggs have to do with this issue?

Just because you can't think of another reason for the debating society to extend the invitation doesn't mean there isn't one. For example, the society may think this is an important issue that should be discussed. Just because it is obvious to you that Ms. Stock doesn't have anything to contribute to the debate about transgenderism doesn't mean everyone else thinks it's obvious too. Clearly, some people don't share your opinion, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

why do you insist upon interrogating her?

Quote by Ironic

Since cydia's free to not respond to my questions, it's not an interrogation. She's willingly participating in our conversation. I'm trying to understand why she's so upset about someone - Ms. Stock - speaking her mind.

I hope you're not saying that only certain people can ask questions in the TT.

no. just pointing out that you were accusing me of the same thing in another thread. feels a bit like hypocrisy now.

Quote by Ironic

So, was I right then, or am I right now?

my comment was meant as sarcasm. yours was just whiny. conversation over due to veering off topic.