Kathleen Stock on BBC Radio Scotland this morning

[howonearthdidwegethere]

www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/m0000lc4

It's about 1hr25m in (although there's a good piece beforehand about Winston Churchill and the suffragettes).

Kathleen is great. A reasoned discussion and the presenter seems genuinely neutral/well informed, which, as we know, is rare.

More of this please, BBC!

oooh good

listening now

(the sufragettes bit is v interesting)

LOL, loving the Suffragettes bit! What a lead-in! What a reminder of our foremothers. Kathleen Stock is so very good.

Oh my gosh - bbc Scotland! They need it up there

oh god the woman on the other side of this, is tying herself into appalling logical and terminological knots "we don't know what their chromosones are"

The truth is so much easier to speak of. Well done Kathleen.

This person who is against Prof Stock is conflating the very rare intersex variations with trans issues, and denying the obvious warning by professionals within the prison systems that this WILL BE ABUSED.

gah - Vicki: exposure to prenatal hormones have impact on brain and so gender identity....

presenter helpfully drags everyone to reality land again. passports/legal system

then back to nonsense again
no one would do this unless they meant it
no one would join that discriminated against group

Kathleen stock hoves it straight back to the evidence given by Gires to maria miller's commitee (men will self identify for pernicious purposes)

Also, gender dysphoria is NO LONGER NEEDED TO BE TRANS! What this person is saying is technically wrong, when you compare it to the "trans umbrella." Additionally, it makes no sense to change the laws before even your whole concept of "gender identity" is fully understood. It may be affected by pre-natal hormone levels, but so is allegedly sexual orientation, and there is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that social/environmental influences plays a role.
See again the story of trans activist Alex Drummond at Stonewall, who only thought they were trans after attending a gender studies course.
Well done Prof Stock.

For the record, I think there is actually now a lot of potential clout that can be gained from a certain kind of person saying they are trans.

See the example of Charlotte Clymer who was previously thought of as a creepy male feminist, but after declaring themselves a woman has got lots more media support.

Do I think actual dysphoric transsexuals do this on a whim? Absolutely NOT.
Do I think there are worrying people already who are potentially exploiting the trans idea for their own gains? There is enough evidence here (including Karen White/Ian Huntley) for me to say: I really believe this to be true.

The whole point is there are no clear boundaries for what trans even means anymore. And if it's just as easy as paperwork, without needing to undergo any physical changes or psychological assessments, then I fail to see how this isn't a red carpet glaringly big loophole that will undermine women's rights.

heresy

Yes. We all know of several individuals who've gained political power and been lauded in the media; had their photos taken with other powerful people and been given credence as 'advisors' despite their youth, inexperience, mental health vulnerabilities and lack of expertise on anything relevant. Like for example: Safeguarding. children, child development, womanhood. Their sole claim to fame is their 'trans' status. That privileges them

So well put Chrysanth