Kathleen Stock was on Good Morning Britain This Morning

And is that man still vulnerable when hes 30, or 60?

When does he acknowledged that no one sees him as vulnerable anymore, but a threat in women's spaces.

And how are women supposed to know who is a vulnerable 21 year old man and who is a predatory, habitual sex offender? Hmm?

I've always thought so, but willing to have my mind changed. However, yes he is indeed a fuckwit, based on that "interview" alone.

Its interesting that he envisaged a 21 year old man transitioning.

Is that because his son is around that age and he is thinking about a real person, or is 21 the safe age between the difficult issues of 'child transitioners' and 'middle aged staight male transitioner'.

I don't think they do find it in the slightest bit controversial. It's only because there is an ideology that is being challenged, making it difficult to articulate.

We have somehow come to the conclusion that to oppose this ideology sounds intolerant, illiberal, mean, wrong, unfair.

Many people are under the impression that trans people as a cohort are an oppressed minority. Wanting to just get on and have a semblance of a life without abuse and victimisation.

Stephen Whittle, from Press for Change speaks about this all the time. In fact Whittle is on the same programme as Kathleen Stock - Gender Wars, describing exactly that.

But of course, the reality, and indeed stonewall's definition is that the cohort is also made up of cross dressers, drag queens and transvestites. We know from trans widows that self confessed fetishists are also part of the cohort. And from sports that male individuals claiming to be women are also part of it. Not to mention rapists and sexist offenders.

Many who make up the cohort are far from oppressed and marginalised. Quite the opposite.

No one in their right mind would view a rapist being given access to incarcerated women as the victim in the equation.

And you can see the reality butting up against people when they speak.

On the one hand they've been told that the entire cohort is an oppressed, victimised minority. And on the other hand, they see the reality with their own eyes.

Balls was always going to be out of his depth, in part because he is an ex politician arguing with a feminist. Balls is debating - he's trying to win the conversation by claiming popularity, being progressive, supporting policy. Stock isn't debating, shes describing womens experiences now.

A zinger line (not that he came up with any) that would win a debate falls flat when everyone sees that the outcome is middle aged men following women and girls into sex segregated spaces.

The expressions on Balls face are telling. He supports a 'progressive' policy that he cant really justify and he hasn't demonstrated that he even understands, other than saying he believes it and so does everyone else. Its a progressive policy thats still unpopular and unworkable after nearly 20 years.

The fact is, he knows the policy he supports isnt justified or popular. But rather than see that as a failing in policy, his politics and his attitude, he blames the people who do not support him and those who are not in a position to hold such luxury beliefs.

Hhhmm, I wonder why I was deleted. I'll try again.

'It’s very easy to be kind when you’ve got absolutely nothing to lose. Men who unquestioningly support gender ideology really haven’t considered how it affects women. And if they have considered it, they don’t care.'

Spot on! They have the luxury of not having to give it any thought, they don't need to

Exactly @Datun Since when is stating a scientific fact tolerated as free speech?

The Oxford Union should be ashamed of itself / themselves / whatever.

Mine too. Just when I think it can’t be blown any more, along comes something even more 😵

Some parents are too busy teaching their children about accounts and social smarts, they neglected science and having a moral compass regarding lies.

Absolutely. My mind is continually blown by this

Yes, Simon Edge is doing well of writing parodies of this nonsense, but the reality is really beyond even his wild imaginings. (The End of the World is Flat and In the Beginning are both excellent, of course.)

Really, the only argument Ed has here is “I’m kinder than you. I let people be who they want to be.”

It’s very easy to be kind when you’ve got absolutely nothing to lose. Men who unquestioningly support gender ideology really haven’t considered how it affects women. And if they have considered it, they don’t care.

That centre ground he’s banging on about. That’s all GC women ever wanted! The chance to talk about this conflict of interests and how it can be resolved, or compromises reached. But no, anyone questioning it (as Kathleen has) is branded an extremist and risks being deplatformed, smeared, cancelled, hounded out of a job etc - simply for saying sex is real and it matters in some circumstances. It’s insane.

I am so impressed with the way she manages to keep her cool while repeatedly being accused of holding 'extreme' views! Makes her sound like some crazy radical when all she's doing is saying humans can't change sex and going along with a pretence that they can has real world negative implications for women.

Professor Whinston has this a lot, he said Said so on Question time. It's not an educational issue, there is something wrong with the wiring in some people's brains, no matter the IQ.

'Its's reality. It's science. It's biology. It is truly truly fucking nuts that anyone thinks this is controversial.'

It's ridiculous. She must feel like she's having to explain to people that water is wet and the sky is blue

I find it difficult to tolerate that it is being framed as Doctor Stock has the right to speak at the Oxford Union as part of 'free speech'. Its's reality. It's science. It's biology. It is truly truly fucking nuts that anyone thinks this is controversial.

He picked the wrong team.

The Cooper/Ball family should be a lesson to any future PM considering minister of families, wait to appoint them when you know they produced a good product in their own home first!

@FlirtsWithRhinos Yes that is a brilliant post! Puts it perfectly.

I'm wondering how Ed Balls coped when his offspring went through the inevitable toddler cat phase. Did he rail at Yvette Cooper for not allowing them to literally be cats, through the magic medium of her compliance and belief?

What else can you possibly expect from a middle aged ex-labour party MP? Misogyny. Dressed up, of course. The Labour Party hates women. Mind you, so does Gillian Keegan, Penny Mordaunt and lots of Tory tosspot handmaidens.

True. And of course anyone would be out of their depth. This is why the mantra was always no debate.

You can't possibly defend a premise that starts with the idea that you can change sex, and ends with rapists being given state sanctioned access to incarcerated women.

There is no rational, or indeed humane, defence of this ideology. None.

TRAs are invited to speak all the time - Posie Parker's rallies, billboard Chris does it, numerous Podcasters. They never will. Because they end up looking as stupid as Ed Balls just did.

He is a populist who has backed the wrong horse here and the panic behind his eyes shows that he realises it too.

Haven't finished catching up with this thread but this genuinely made me snort my lunch over the table.