Mail article about the letter attacking Kathleen Stock

[RoyalCorgi]

Here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9123083/Academics-slam-government-awarding-OBE-anti-trans-professor.html

Wow the comments all supporting her. Good

A lot of those people who signed were from USA and other countries

Love you pro stock ❤️❤️❤️

It's time to tell the USA to get the *@ck out of our women's rights

US men I meant

"When did having an opposing view become such an issue. Whatever you view why do you feel the need to cancel someone else's opinion. This woman has the right to say what she has said as other people have the right to hold a different view." Has 2830 Likes currently. 6 Dislikes.

I suspect this overstates the status of those who signed. I think most of them are students or people who studied philosophy once, not professors or lecturers. Plus only a small minority of them are in the UK.
Random American philosophy students are welcome to have an opinion on who our government should give gongs to for contribution to scholarship but they shouldn’t expect to be taken very seriously.

It lays bare the petty, malicious, thought policing going on in academia and demonstrates that the hyperbole being used is a dramatic overreaction to what Prof Stock is actually asking for. It is a good article.

Kathleen had a theory in the market-place,
Random other people want her banned
OBE, ob--la-dah, ah-ha
La-La-La-La-La-La land.

Comments are based.

I think the gender debate is going to be the end of the prefix 'sorry it's a DM article, but...' . No-one has to subscribe or like them (either due to their past or that awful sidebar), but you've go to admit, they're one of the few publications that have consistently covered the issue, generally been factual or at least not blatantly institutionally captured, and used their massive reach to get the issue into living rooms of people who wouldn't normally care about academic philosophers fighting on Twitter.

It's a good reminder that, in normal-people-land, the content of the letter from Ishikawa et al isn't interesting for controversy or boldly speaking up for the marginalised, but for being batshit insane and going against basic, self-evident truths apparent to anyone with eyes.

I have no idea why US academics think they have the right to comment on our honours system. It really is nothing to do with them. I am, however, worried when I see names from reputable UK universities on the letter.

A lot of the Mail comments are supportive of Professor Stock's right to hold and express her own opinions, which is good. But I don't think anyone has addressed the substance of this, which is that Professor Stock is right, and the academics attacking her are proposing a view that is completely insane. Yes, this is about free speech, but it's not just about free speech. It's not as if Kathleen Stock has some disturbing far right views that we reluctantly feel obliged to defend. She simply believes that biological sex is real and that women and girls have the right to single-sex spaces free from men. This should be, and once was, an entirely unexceptional view. It is the people who claim to believe that men can be women and that, once a man says he's a woman, he therefore has access to women's spaces and women's sports, who are the extremists. They should be subjected to ridicule, mockery and scorn at every available opportunity.

Ah! How well they prove her point! At every turn they show a wider audience that she has a valid point to make!

Pity the headline again focusses on toilets!

It is the people who claim to believe that men can be women and that, once a man says he's a woman, he therefore has access to women's spaces and women's sports, who are the extremists. They should be subjected to ridicule, mockery and scorn at every available opportunity.

Agree

But I don't think anyone has addressed the substance of this, which is that Professor Stock is right, and the academics attacking her are proposing a view that is completely insane.

I may be optimistic in my assumptions, but I strongly suspect that many of those commenting are not so much interested in free speech as a theoretical concept, but instead are fully aware of the arguments Kathleen Stock is making and feel strongly that she should be allowed to make them.

It seems likely the Mail now has enough GC readers of specific articles such as this one, that they would jump right past having to explain why they think she should be allowed to speak and couch their comments in general terms.

The headline is misleading, though, as the whole point of the argument is that transgender males (transwomen) are not the same as women. I think a lot of people are still confused about this issue.

"after she argued women should NOT be forced to share toilets with transgender females" says the headline. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't she saying the opposite? I might have it confused....actually, I am confused.

@ clownfish - thank you!

A brave woman. I hope this doesn't damage her career too much.
I hope she knows that there are many of us who support her being able to openly give an informed opinion and not bowing to the pressure to stay silent.

@dayoftheclownfish

The headline is misleading, though, as the whole point of the argument is that transgender males (transwomen) are not the same as women. I think a lot of people are still confused about this issue.

It would definitely be helpful if journalists could get their heads around this.

@JustSpeculation

"after she argued women should NOT be forced to share toilets with transgender females" says the headline. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't she saying the opposite? I might have it confused....actually, I am confused.

The quote is women should not be made to share toilets and changing rooms with transgender women which is right, if you squint at it in the spirit of generosity!

But technically... who the fuck knows any more?

But technically... who the fuck knows any more?

I'm still finding the terminology all a bit "vessel with the pestle/ flagon with the dragon"...

@dayoftheclownfish

The headline is misleading, though, as the whole point of the argument is that transgender males (transwomen) are not the same as women. I think a lot of people are still confused about this issue.

I agree. Referring to 'transgender females' and 'transgender women' makes it seem as though the people who shouldn't be in women's spaces are women who are transgender, i.e. women who identify as men.

They should make it clear that the 'transgender females' are actually men who identify as women.

I'm sure that some of the people nodding along with 'transwomen are women' think that they're saying that women are still women even if they identify as transgender.

@JustSpeculation

But technically... who the fuck knows any more?

I'm still finding the terminology all a bit "vessel with the pestle/ flagon with the dragon"...

I just want to say that I love your reference here. Glad to see another fan.

It’s good to see the article - I’m getting a bit fed up of US commentators applying their political/cultural situation to the U.K.

This whole business about "transgender females" is really important. By allowing trans activists to define the terminology we've helped them to muddy the waters and advance their argument. Every time we say "trans woman" when we mean "trans identified male" we concede important ground. Kathleen Stock doesn't want to exclude "trans women" from women's spaces. She wants to exclude men.

It’s good to see the article - I’m getting a bit fed up of US commentators applying their political/cultural situation to the U.K.

I completely agree, the ignorance is palpable. While everyone has an opinion it does not mean that an opinion from another unrelated/unaffiliated country is valid or worth considering especially in regards to policy.

How many of those commenters have been to the UK or outside the US at all? Most probably have not ventured to most states in the US much less countries outside of the US.

How many of those commenters know anything about the UK beyond TV shows, SM, and MM? Probably net zero.

Signed, an American

@RoyalCorgi

This whole business about "transgender females" is really important. By allowing trans activists to define the terminology we've helped them to muddy the waters and advance their argument. Every time we say "trans woman" when we mean "trans identified male" we concede important ground. Kathleen Stock doesn't want to exclude "trans women" from women's spaces. She wants to exclude men.

100% spot on

Most people I speak to about it are completely backwards in what they understand the terms to mean i.e. transwoman = woman/female and transman = man/male... and they look at me like I have 1,000 heads when I explain it is the opposite of their understanding. Then the complacency sets in for them and they are lost to me.

Quite effective strategy on part of the TRAs. Scary stuff.

What is the clearest and most succinct definition? I think the public are confused and as PPs have pointed out this is useful to the trans lobby. I suspect if they wrote 'trans male' in the headline people would assume they were referring to ftm transmen. What is the most effective way of explaining who we are taking about?