Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Kathleen Stock on BBC Woman's Hour today

419 replies

Justme56 · 03/11/2021 09:50

Just seen this on twitter.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
SidewaysOtter · 03/11/2021 21:36

@NotBadConsidering

We're all rightly furious for Kathleen Stock

Why? What did she say that made you furious?

I think the poster here meant for as in "on behalf of" rather than "because of".
NotBadConsidering · 03/11/2021 21:35

Sorry ignore that, my comprehension fail

NotBadConsidering · 03/11/2021 21:35

We're all rightly furious for Kathleen Stock

Why? What did she say that made you furious?

SidewaysOtter · 03/11/2021 21:32

... if you silence student demos when there's no evidence of violence or threat present that's a very dangerous road.

Except that the general movement here has evidence of violence and threat. Whether or not that particular protester was violent and threatening, they were lending credence to those who were.

For all the "We want to be heard" nonsense that gets bandied about, as @Lammysaurus ' excellent post highlights, no-one seems to want to come forward and speak.

Ekofisk · 03/11/2021 21:32

@Shirazboobaloo

Not sure where I was condescending but I genuinely feel my post was misconstrued

You called me “love” and then questioned my understanding.

As a journalist, what is your definition of “condescending”?

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 03/11/2021 21:26

[quote Shirazboobaloo]@EkofiskNot sure where I was condescending but I genuinely feel my post was misconstrued

I referred to www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59148324 as posted by previous poster and my concern was that attributed comments in there were not attributed to any source or referenced.

Many will read the BBC news article without having heard WH interview today and I believe that the report on BBC News website did a disservice

As a journalist I would never ever reference something in print (or on website) without being clear as to what I was referencing and why - and more importantly being sure to say that no one was available to comment

Print journalism is different to broadcast and very much lasts longer as article will be there once WH interview gone[/quote]
It was misunderstood, possibly still is.

The article was Kathleen Stock speaking about her experience. First hand, primary source.

How would you like her to have referenced herself?

Clymene · 03/11/2021 21:25

What are the unattributed comments that you, as a journalist, are objecting to @Shirazboobaloo ?

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 03/11/2021 21:24

@Aber77

Hmm... of course I don't condone violence or intimidation and I fully support Kathleen Stock, but not all the protestors are extremists. The demonstrator we spoke to felt let down by their university and felt they needed to protest to be heard. They didn't condone violence or intimidation - they were very clear that was wrong and they hated being associated with it. They stressed they were peacefully demonstrating and just wanted the University to provide a fair hearing. I thought it was naive and ill judged, but I really didn't see anything like mob rule. We're all rightly furious for Kathleen Stock, but if you silence student demos when there's no evidence of violence or threat present that's a very dangerous road.
The problem is what they perceived their grievance to be,

A lecturer had a different perspective than they did.

She didn't threaten them, or disdain them, or say they didn't exist etc etc etc.

What was actually wrong?
Like all right minded beings she knows humans can't change sex?
Women and children deserve to be safeguarded against theviolence of men?

I don't want to silence student demos. But I do want to educate them into something more closely approximating "having a point"

And do you not see that they, whether silently standing , posting fliers or masking up and lighting flares, silenced Kathleen Stock when there was no evidence f violence or threat present ?

You can't have it both ways. But that is what you are saying, what you have taught your daughter!

Shirazboobaloo · 03/11/2021 21:23

@EkofiskNot sure where I was condescending but I genuinely feel my post was misconstrued

I referred to www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59148324 as posted by previous poster and my concern was that attributed comments in there were not attributed to any source or referenced.

Many will read the BBC news article without having heard WH interview today and I believe that the report on BBC News website did a disservice

As a journalist I would never ever reference something in print (or on website) without being clear as to what I was referencing and why - and more importantly being sure to say that no one was available to comment

Print journalism is different to broadcast and very much lasts longer as article will be there once WH interview gone

GreyhoundG1rl · 03/11/2021 21:19

@Aber77

Hmm... of course I don't condone violence or intimidation and I fully support Kathleen Stock, but not all the protestors are extremists. The demonstrator we spoke to felt let down by their university and felt they needed to protest to be heard. They didn't condone violence or intimidation - they were very clear that was wrong and they hated being associated with it. They stressed they were peacefully demonstrating and just wanted the University to provide a fair hearing. I thought it was naive and ill judged, but I really didn't see anything like mob rule. We're all rightly furious for Kathleen Stock, but if you silence student demos when there's no evidence of violence or threat present that's a very dangerous road.
Sorry, that's complete bollocks Hmm. Shame on you declaring yourself "furious for Katherine Stock" then typing that bilge.
Ekofisk · 03/11/2021 21:10

@Shirazboobaloo

Good.

Try dropping the condescension then.

Aber77 · 03/11/2021 21:09

Hmm... of course I don't condone violence or intimidation and I fully support Kathleen Stock, but not all the protestors are extremists. The demonstrator we spoke to felt let down by their university and felt they needed to protest to be heard. They didn't condone violence or intimidation - they were very clear that was wrong and they hated being associated with it. They stressed they were peacefully demonstrating and just wanted the University to provide a fair hearing. I thought it was naive and ill judged, but I really didn't see anything like mob rule. We're all rightly furious for Kathleen Stock, but if you silence student demos when there's no evidence of violence or threat present that's a very dangerous road.

Shirazboobaloo · 03/11/2021 21:06

@Ekofisk

"Are you having a bad evening sweetie?"

I'm grand thanks

QueenSue · 03/11/2021 21:02

Anti-Woman Activists (AWAs)
Oh I like this. Spot on.

Ekofisk · 03/11/2021 20:58

[quote Shirazboobaloo]@EkofiskIt it was "piss poor" love - a bit like your understanding[/quote]
Ah bless. You missed my autocorrect comment.

Are you having a bad evening sweetie?

littlbrowndog · 03/11/2021 20:56

@Lammysaurus

That BBCWomensHour Twitter thread - same one previously linked - is an education in the tactics and arguments typically used by Anti-Woman Activists (AWAs)

My "Top Ten" (OK, actually just the first ten, reading from top down with the thread expanded):

(1) It's transphobic because I say so. No, I can't define "transphobia" and I'm too stupid/deceitful to see/admit that the term has been widely appropriated and misused. Which, by the way, is actually transphobic.

(2) She was asking for it. Someone points out that making credible death threats isn't peaceful protest, to which the misogynist replies that this doesn't excuse what Stock said, and adds that there would have been no need to punish her if she'd stayed in line.

(3) Pretending women are human is SO BORING! Plus repeat lies from 1 & 2, same misogynist as before.

(4) nAzIs !!!!! (Of course, if you point out the fascism of this bigot's own stance, it'll be all "bUt GoDwIn'$ lAw!!!!") In the same tweet: wE aLrEaDy vOt3d!!!!!"

(5) When will you let the Sussex student protestors speak? This is a really popular one but no one can name anyone for WH to interview because they are all scared of being disciplined and/or of public scrutiny. Yet, the same question gets posted over and over in attempt to imply that the programme is biased.

(6) Repeat made up nonsense originally leveraged against a different woman writer (Helen Joyce) who is also targeted by AWA bullies... which is OK because women are all alike??

(7) Disagreeing with me is hate speech. And if you call me on my nonsense, I can't talk to you because hate.

(8) When flailing, roll out trans people as cannon fodder and completely infantilise them - it's OK, this is a men's movement, they've only ever been collateral damage. They're not real, resiliant individuals just as capable of living life and speaking up as anyone else, and can handle having a reasonable discussion.

(9) Always a classic: they're denying my existence! (I don't know how). They want to take away my rights! (I don't know which rights). This one isn't necessarily a misogynist (it may be someone who just believes whatever gets tweeted by children in Ohio) but is often weaponised by misogynists and AWAs.

(10) Accuse someone of transphobia, and in response to requests for examples, evidence, proof: I didn't/couldn't read it, but it could be transphobic and I don't know it's not, so there's your proof of transphobia!!. Again, not exclusive to AWAs (could just be idiots/small children), but a big favourite of theirs.

There's some serious overlap in 9 and 10 to just general lack of critical thinking and basic research and debate skills but hard to tell if these AWAs really lack those skills, or just believe others do and want to take advantage of that for their own gain. (Or they've studied with their High Priest of Male Privilege, Steve Bannon, and are following his advice to just sling really random shit(e) in the hope of distracting people.)

Fucking awesome
HoardingSamphireSaurus · 03/11/2021 20:51

That's assuming you meant me. Cos Floral hasn't responded to you directly.

Too many of us hoarding dinosaurs around at the moment Smile

Shirazboobaloo · 03/11/2021 20:49

@EkofiskIt it was "piss poor" love - a bit like your understanding

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 03/11/2021 20:49

Maybe go read that before slagging me off

I did. And I didn't slag you off, I asked you some questions. Tried to clarify/understand what you meant!

Ekofisk · 03/11/2021 20:43

*piss poor.

My auto correct hates cats.

Ekofisk · 03/11/2021 20:42

Maybe go read that before slagging me off

I did.

Hence me referring you to the WH interview that it is describing.

Maybe you need to rethink your “puss poor journalism” comment.

Shirazboobaloo · 03/11/2021 20:32

@Ekofisk @HoardingFloralBuntingInACervix

Wow back off will you!

I was referring to the BBC news article as written by Eleanor Lawrie with unsubstantiated claims and quoting unreferenced sources saying Prof Stock is a "transphobe"

Hence my linking to @Whatstheweatherlike as she mentioned the article being posted

Maybe go read that before slagging me off

Gastonia · 03/11/2021 20:30

Especially odd, as they made sure there was some video.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 03/11/2021 20:26

That's the same as when Raquel Rosario Sánchez was on WH.

The radio info didn't mention her name. BBC website covered it on the front page for a while. News, not a sausage!

Gastonia · 03/11/2021 20:23

I've been watching the bbc news channel this evening, and it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, despite the prominence on the bbc website.