Quote by Buz

Is a man pretending to be an online woman to support his own agenda, a Trans, or just a phony? Would a pretend female character by a man be a pretend Trans?

Or is it free speech for a man to create a pretend female character to espouse his agenda?

Or is free speech best served denying a false persona a voice - a voice that is false?

Is Oxford really in peril because real transgenders speak out?

No, Oxford isn't really in peril. If this happens, there will be protesters and counter protesters. Dr. Stock will have her event and everyone will move on.

Is free speech in peril? Yes. It's not because of this particular event and my opinion doesn't change whether this goes forward or not. It's because there's a lot of people out there that don't want to see these hard debates happen at all. Being able to speak freely isn't a given.

Quote by Chryses

There needs to be, and it will be wherever that discussion is possible. It remains to be seen if the Oxford debating society will stay the course. 30-MAY-23 is Der Tag, I believe.

I think this is going to happen.

Quote by Dani

The fact that you've predictably named Lia Thomas, who's the face of fearmongering when it comes to anything anti-trans, is incredibly telling.

As to the latter half of your post, welcome and Happy Lushing, lol. 😊

I can name other trans athletes that have been on the podium over the last few years, this is just the most famous. . The point, though, is that there is an issue to discuss, which is where trans and women's rights conflict or appear to conflict. When that happens, there needs to be a discussion.

Quote by Dani

Biological sex and the definitions/implications therein are not just about reproduction. Yikes.

To be clear, you believe Dr. Stock wrote a book positing that transwomen aren't women to preserve the art of debate? And the mere notion that acknowledging transwomen as women is a threat to women's rights is more transphobic rhetoric that advocates for the exclusion of transwomen being allotted the same protections as ciswomen, so we're right back where we started.

Speaking of the sanctity of debate, in the context of this forum, I view people who create multiple accounts to echo the same sentiments are a threat to debate here in the Think Tank. It's a dead giveaway (and quite entertaining to say the least) when someone creates an account and within a couple of days or so, makes a beeline to the Think Tank to turn it into an echo chamber of the same 2-3 voices. Sloppy work indeed. But such desperation does give me hope that if one has to stoop to such measures to drive their point(s), they've already lost the plot.

The truly sad part is that it is such behavior that resulted in the Think Tank being shut down, and I'm sure if it were to happen again, it's not a decision that'd be reversed.

To be clear, I believe Dr. Stock wrote a book out of concern that suddenly there seemed to be a specific subject where debate and discussion wasn't even entertained. How can you see Lia Thomas and honestly say that isn't a threat to the intent of Title IX? But that even discussing it is it a threat to trans people?

I am posting under a single account. I came here to read a specific writer, scanned the forums, found a topic I was interested in, and commented.

Quote by Tantaleyes

It's always possible for women and trans women fall under the same legal fiction. Laws can be passed and laws can be repealed. One problem with that legal fiction is that if you say they do fall under the same legal fiction, you'll be creating two classes of women, one with XX chromosomes and one with XY chromosomes. you're just moving the distinction from male/female to transwoman/woman.

Exactly. And those people who are women, both in the legal and biological sense, could get a little miffed at being considered a subgroup of their own sex. The question, IMO, is there a greater good (for both women and trans women) that comes out of recognizing trans women as women? That would be another excellent topic to have platformed.

Quote by Dani

Science does, in fact, support multiple sexes. People with disorders of sexual development can be described as intersex, and research supports how harmful the results can be of assigning these people to a binary understanding of sex.

It's nowhere in Dr. Stock's planned statements, sure, but it's what's happening. What are Dr. Stock's motivations for insisting that transwomen are not women if not to be exclusionary? And we already see the harm, discrimination, and violence such exclusion is causing to transwomen.

What form of advocacy comes out of insisting that transwomen are not women?

No, sex is about reproduction. There are exactly one of two roles a human can play in reproduction. That's the explanation of why there are two sexes. Now, if you an show me a human that's ever reproduced by another method, I'd be open to that discussion. However, there currently isn't.

Dr. Stock has two motivations, as far as I can tell from her writings: (1) to make sure that in an academic setting, discussion and debate isn't abandoned because it might contain ideas a person doesn't want to hear (2) that woman have a right to certain protections under the law that exclude anyone born male.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Not everybody is able to debate the issues, but prefer to attack their opponents in the hope of discrediting their opinions.

Reasonable people don't think of bees as fish. Those are legal contortions, or if you'd like, legal fictions.

I agree. Reasonable people know that fish and bees are two different things but accept the legal fiction because the outcome is positive for bees without taking anything away from the fish protected under the same laws. The question (and the debate) is whether this is also true if women and trans women fall under the same legal heading in all things.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.