Quote by AliRegretsNothing

When Kathleen Stock first came to popular attention after very publicly resigning from her academic job, my first thought was that if I were a trans PhD student and was assigned her as my supervisor I would not be very happy opr comfortable about it. I wondered then whose academic freedom would be undermined? She has said she has no problem with trans people and supports protection for them but it comes across to me anyway as being rather condescending, as if such people were to be pitied.

As for toilets, it sometimes happens that the queue for the Ladies is way too long (women, as usual, being under-provided for) and I use the Gents instead. I wonder what Dr Stock does?

I think Dr. Stock's focus is more on women and less on transwomen. What do women have a right to expect from public spaces, like prisons, restrooms, and changing areas? In medical care, particularly intimate medial care, does a woman have a right to request the sex, not the gender, of the person giving her a pelvic exam or breast exam? Does a disabled woman have the right to be bathed by the sex of her choice?

I would expect that restroom queue for the ladies to get longer if anyone feminine-identifying can use the space. If society wants to go this route, we should seriously consider new building codes for restrooms sizes.

I suppose gluing yourself to the floor is an option. 🤣

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/kathleen-stock-talk-debate-oxford-union-trans-activists-b1084614.html

I don't attend Pride any more.

When I first started marching, it was about visibility and political organization. There were all kinds of people with clipboards looking for people to support political initiatives or to volunteer. It lasted a day, then a weekend, and was family friendly. There was a bounce house and a place for kids to fight with foam swords.

Then it was corporate. Some people were still around with clipboards but it wasn't about LGBT issues. I think Verizon was one of the first booths I saw that wasn't local support, but the next year it was health insurance companies, cruise lines, local casinos, and beer companies.

The last time I went, there was a lot of fetish wear, which, whatever. Except, that part of what I liked about Pride was that it was a big party, fun for most, and you could bring the whole family. Since it really isn't that any longer, I don't go. Though, it's not about safety. People threw things at us from the sidewalk the first year I marched.

Quote by scorpiopassion67

Hello. Looking at the expressions on a woman's face, makes me wonder what thoughts are running through her mind. Is she thinking: "What is taking him so long?" "Why did I think this guy would be a good fuck?" "Did I remember to set my alarm clock?" "What time is my hair appointment?" 😊😊😊 Please share some thoughts that may run through your mind when you're making love. Thanks.

This made me laugh.

Typically, I'm at least thinking about sex, even if the sex isn't great. If it isn't, I'm trying to figure out how to make it better. If it's our first time, I might be thinking something like, "Damn he's hairy." or "What does her tattoo say?". If I'm thinking about my hair appointment, I'll try to do something to reset the situation, so I'm not, like changing positions.

I stay out of the genres that are a turn off for me, so that helps a lot. Screamers in bed, especially with looooong, drawn out wooorrrds. Character inconsistencies, like a virgin saying, "Use me as your dirty cum dumpster." Physical impossibilities, like digging a ditch in a string bikini or having full on intercourse while driving. Sex without plot. Plot without sex.

Quote by noll

It's a very privileged position belonging to all majority groups. Chances that others' freedom of speech will cause you actual hurt, other than hurt feelings perhaps, are very slim, perhaps even totally non-existent.
So, from such a position, to say that we should keep giving platforms to all kinds of speech, even those we know contribute to the dehumanisation of groups of people, is rather safe and easy.

What if you're not white, male, or hetero? Is it OK, then, to express this opinion, or does one need another level of marginalization, like a disability?

Quote by ElCoco

Yes, to all of that. And sprite's reminded us that we should take responsibility for what we say.

I don't think that people who argue for importance of sex need that reminder, especially if you're in the UK. Starting with Kathleen Stock, who resigned from University of Sussex after 18 years there, because of recent institutional harassment. The same is true of Maya Forstater, whose fellowship at the Centre for Global Development wasn't renewed when she posted gender critical views on line. Allison Bailey, a barrister and lesbian, faced the same treatment when she objected to her court aligning with Stonewall to demonstrate their inclusivity.

They continue to speak on this topic, even though they have all lost something for doing so.

Quote by ElCoco

Societies aren't precise. Everybody knows different societies have different norms that change over time. The idea of 'calculating' a 'precise line' is a non-starter.

The right way to mark the limits to freedom of speech is with rules big and bold enough to be obvious to people.

I think we already have this to a large degree. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded place. You can't directly threaten someone. You can't lie about someone when speaking or writing that could cost them income. You can say things other people don't like.

In the UK, though, there are tighter rules on what you can say. That's true in Canada, too. I don't want to see us go that way.

Quote by noll

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?

Yes, we should. Your conclusion is one I disagree with, though. I think debate lets people decide which ideas are valid and credible.

Fresh, healthy food available and affordable to all.

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 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 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 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 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.

I do like a good story with the sex. If there's a good story, there can be a conflict. Everything is hotter with a conflict.

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 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 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.

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 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.

I just finished The Hustler by Walter Tevis and started The Color of Money last week.

Not bad. Not my favorite, but still worth the effort.

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 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 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 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

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 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.

Quote by WellMadeMale

Banning all abortions nationwide.

Book bans & jailing librarians: https://crooksandliars.com/2023/05/republicans-take-next-step-book-ban-laws

Rolling back desegregation in Arkansas (for starters): https://www.wsj.com/articles/arkansas-seeks-end-to-school-desegregation-settlements-227dff43

Dissolution of the FBI.

Continued onslaught of persecution towards all minorities, LGBTQ especially.

Cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

Shutting down elections and confiscating vote tabulation machinery. (Gerrymandering voting districts & shutting down long established polling/voting locations available to the public. - also belong to this sub-group).

Rolling back child labor laws:

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/27/1172544561/new-state-laws-are-rolling-back-regulations-on-child-labor

*Have I missed any of the big ticket planks the Republicans can hang their hat on during the 2024 debate season?

Of course this is what they're doing, but this isn't what they're going to be advertising. I suspect in 2024, the last thing they're going to want to talk about is abortion. It will be immigration, how old Biden looks, gender ideology, how old Biden looks, light talk about guns, how old Biden looks, and is Kamala Harris really America?

You know, all of the important issues.

I agree with Magical Felix about medial breakthroughs that are held back. I don't think you need dark money for this. You just pull money from research when you have a treatment and not a cure. Pharma makes a lot more money from an HIV treatment that you take the rest of your life than a cure you take once.

There might be some truth around UFO/UAP cover ups. I can't get into Bigfoot or Nessie, though.

I do think Melania had a body double to stand in for her at some of Trump's events. 😉