Prof Stock on Woman's Hour today

[Bittermints]

Is this the week they're doing a lot of stuff on gender? Anyway, saw a tweet earlier from Professor Stock that she is on WH this morning. Don't know what time. Should be worth a listen. She is so clear and cogent.

J = Jane Garvey (interviewer)
S = Sally Hines
K = Kathleen Stock

That transcript is a thing of wonder. KS is a bloody good speaker isn’t she? Many thanks Orchid

I enjoyed listening to the squirming!

I'm very grateful for this transcript (hearing loss).

I'm bewildered by it. That has nothing at all to do with your transcription skills.

I can not begin to fathom how this came across on the radio. Prof. Hines very much needs to reflect upon this opportunity to put her ideas across to the general public and why it went awry.

I wish there were a civil and polite way of refusing to engage at all with the red herring of intersex. It's wholly inappropriate for their medical histories to be co-opted as the human shield for unrelated arguments.

Brilliant, thanks Orchid ❤️

That's brilliant Orchid, thanks for doing that for us all.

Lisa Muggeridge has an excellent video on Sally Hines.

Orchid, thanks for doing that. Man that Sally Hines looks even more batshit when it’s written down and you have time to read it. What a crock of shit. She was really flailing at the end there. The over technical intersex strawman got turned over, the attacks on feminists didn’t score any points so she fell back to the old mantra.

More of the same please WH. These lot can’t carry a glass of pop, never mind an informed debate.

What I don't understand about the "sex is a spectrum" arguments, is that even if it were (it's not) you still can't change along the spectrum. Someone with Klinefelter syndrome can't decide not to have it, and someone without it can't decide to have it.

Well precisely. It might be interesting to hear part two of the theory. Okay, sex is a spectrum and you can move along it by...?

It's a bit worrying that Hines is a professor, and a professor of gender at that. Her odd attempt at a bit of collective self-deprecation by claiming that neither she nor Stock are scientists sounds rather hollow, when her specialist subject is the one she is supposed to be bloody talking about.

Scientist or not, if she doesn't have all the pertinent information at her fingertips, how can she teach it. And why would you go on the radio as an expert if you know bugger all about it.

And yes, I know, there is no pertinent information because it's all nonsense.

Honestly, you you could stick a pin in any thread on here, and pick a poster at random who knows more about this stuff that she does.

I was at a dinner party earlier this evening. Three people had heard today’s Woman’s Hour and the conversation turned to the gender debate. Turns out every one of them was gender critical when given space to discuss the issues, a mix of men and women. Prof Stock and all the other clear, articulate women getting this into the public domain are doing a great job.

Good job Orchid
You've been very kind to SH and left out many of her ums and OKs but I think that keeps the focus on what she said rather than how poorly she said it :)

What I don't understand about the "sex is a spectrum" arguments, is that even if it were (it's not) you still can't change along the spectrum

I think that the claim that they are making is this: as we force physical reality into two artificial categories along lines that are to a great extent just decided arbitrarily anyway, we may as well shift those arbitrary distinctions a little to allow certain people to switch category if they want to. If it is all an arbitrary social convention anyway, then why not?

If nearly two percent of the population was genuinely neither biologically male nor female, as they try to claim, I don't think that this would be a completely ridiculous argument. That would mean that there would be an awful lot of people around who socially we treat as male and female for all intents and purposes, when they aren't really. So why not add a few more?

That is why the numbers do matter. And why they make up bullshit ones.

At this point I will confess to owning a Sally Hines tome. Some of it is interesting in terms of understanding the history of trans healthcare. I haven’t opened it for about ten years but I might have to give it a look
Back in the day when transsexuals were mtf or ftm, and not waving barbed wire wrapped baseball bats, she was reasonably sensible.
Such a shame. I came across her again a year or two ago and was horrified. She used to be well respected.

Prof. Hines has earned over £1 million in research grants from the ESRC for studying "pregnant men" (sic) and new gender identities.

I'd be asking for a refund.

Thanks for the transcript. I couldn’t listen to her simpering waffle.

Just listening to Farming Today, as is my wont. Haven’t heard the gender debate aired on there, oh no.

Trans sheep are sheep! Moo, I mean baa!

I'm officially ASAB : assigned Stock at birth

Thank you for the transcript Orchid. God I love Doc Stock.

I completely disagree

I know you do but the stats bear it out

However as an academic, can I just take slight issue with the idea that SH "earnt" £1m of RCUK money? That makes it sound like she is lining her pockets. That will have gone to fund surveys, database creation, research assistant salary. She just gets her professorial salary from her institution.

Just in case anyone reading thought any different

Good point, Johnny, but from my experience of working in a university I'd imagine that SH got a lot of kudos for bringing in that amount of money. The academics who taught me in the early 80s had a charmed life and could do what they liked not much, in most cases with very little scrutiny. Nowadays, academics are expected to:

1. Keep applying for grants - the more money you bring in, the better.
2. Get lots of articles published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.
3. Write a book or a book chapter or articles for the popular press or go on the radio/TV and keep firing off tweets to keep your media profile high, but ever mindful of not bringing your university into disrepute.
4. Do lots of teaching, marking and tutorial work and ensure the students are all delighted and give high ratings in the national surveys.
5. Endless admin and committee work.
6. Somehow or other squeeze in the actual work of doing the research and keeping up to date with developments in your subject.

What a life.

Follow the money: https://herriotts.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/the-usual-suspects-sally-hines/

And I was happy to do the transcript. I'm a bit odd in that I actually enjoy transcribing

Am v cross that I typed Kathryn rather than Kathleen tho. Sorry Professor Stock!

OrchidInTheSun Thank you so much for the transcript.
Its really important to be able to read & consider what was actually said.

orchid
Hines came across like a proselytising uncritical ‘blind believer’. It was kind of like a debate between a creationist and a scientist with Stock the scientist. Presenter kept trying to keep it to simple arguments to make the debate accessible to listeners but Hinds only had dogmatic mantras to repeat.

Thank you so much Orchid!