Debate on Tran's and a comment about Kathleen Stock

[Hawkins003]

For all the knowledgeable mumsnetters
Who's correct and who's mistaken ?

This is how it started

#oxfess23322
Not gonna lie, #Oxhate to the Oxford Union hosting the "Gender Critical" Kathleen Stock later this term. As a trans guy who just wants to live his life with joy and is more than well aware of the increasing Western stripping and dehumanisation of trans rights, the last thing we need now is promotion of such people who actively push back against a minority who just want to live their lives, especially from such a prestigious university. Trans people are people, we are valid and we deserve respect and not being exposed to such bigotry

Then the response by one commenter was

I don't know much about the whole debate, but then what about the freedoms etc that have been won by certain genders now getting eroded ?

Then a person replied in two parts saying

That isn't really to do with transgender people just wanting their right to live as their desired gender- that's more to do with the increasing enforcement of toxic patriarchal ideas and rising fascistic tendencies of the Western world as a result of the weaknesses of democratic systems popular conservative governments and men such as Trump who then in turn bring along misogynistic allies who stay long after such leaders are gone. This in turn makes misogynists generally more confident to speak their actual mind. Karl Popper's Tolerance Paradox can also be inserted into this conversation

This was their second part

And the problem with this is that along with this number of people in politics with misogynist ideas comes a majority of misogynists in law making sectors- think the Supreme Court - that when harmful proposals such as the repeal of Roe Vs Wade are put through a Supreme Court vote, then the more likely that it is that such laws will go through. And the problem with such systems as the jury in the Supreme Court is that once they are elected or chosen, then they are there for the long term and can't be gotten rid of

As far as I can work out, the argument seems to be:

Don't permit any woman to talk about supporting women's rights (which in theory may lead to people feeling that I should stop misogynistically using women's spaces without conscience for the harm I do to women while doing it) in case theoretically one day that butterfly flap might become Trump/someone else bad getting into power who turns out to have misogynistic theoretical proposals to put before government for their consideration.

The US Democrats failed to legislate for abortion at the federal level because a Brighton based academic says there is no such thing as a lesbian with a penis?

Translation: "women should shut up".

What's your opinion OP?

She's speaking there on 30 May according to their website. Hopefully they'll put it on their youtube channel so if you're not sure what you think now, you could wait and listen to her talk.

Or just search for some of her other excellent talks and interviews.

One female doesn't want another female to speak because if she does a fairy dies? So bored of the hyperbole.

Yes, I was struggling to see the connection!

Personally my philosophy is it's up to each individual who and what they want to be.
The politics of all of it, I'm basically out of my depths, I usually rely on the wisdom of mumsnetters to help shape my perspectives,

I usually rely on the wisdom of mumsnetters to help shape my perspectives

Seriously?

Maybe try thinking about it for yourself.

Trying to identify the rights that transpeople don't have or are losing is a good place to start.

You might want to consider the post that you already quoted where that question was completely dodged and why that was.

The trouble is these things don't happen in a bubble.
I have no issue with transwomen being transwomen and I support their rights not to be ridiculed or abused for being so.

But I do not support trans women are women because that brings us into the obvious which prison, which toilets, which sports, which refuge, which rape support group. All quite reasonable issues and the sorts of questions raised by Stock.

Have you looked at what she says rather than what is implied about what she says?

You cannot say the rights of one group don't impact on the other and it's much more complex than which toilets to use and applies both ways. It is doing a disservice to transwomen to change their medical status so they no longer get prostate checks for example, or to confuse the language of awareness campaigns so that people who may not speak English as a first language do not understand who needs a smear test.

All of this should be able to be discussed and debated without being shouted down as transphobic or subject to the hate campaign that Stock was.

As for the argument about misogyny, it doesn't make sense. In a misogynistic world women need greater protection not less, and there will be more people seeking loop holes to exploit it surely?

But in order to do that I need research material and as fellow mumsnetters seem to have a better perspectives on the different perspectives and philosophy etc, it seemed a good starting perspective to then build upon.

Kathleen must feel extraordinarily powerful, she prevented Presidents Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden from making Congressional Law on abortion, despite being thousands of miles away and the Dems having a 50 year period to get it done in.

Have you read Kathleen Stock? Do you think she's "hatefull"?

It's difficult to comment on what you've posted because it's just one person saying KS shouldnt be platformed with no evidence for this, and then some word salad about Republicans in the US.

Or you could Google Kathleen stock and read what she actually wrote.

Don’t rely on other people to form your opinions for you.

Loads of videos where you can listen to Kathleen Stock explain her own arguments. For example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJhndRR4vF0

Then tell us what you think of the trans man’s claim that they must be protected from such ‘bigotry’.

I wouldn’t worry about trying to make sense of the word salad and international confusion in the other paragraphs you quoted.

So on order to prevent the rise in misogyny we must silence any woman that dares speak out against the most rampant misogynist movement that reduces women to whatever a man says we are.

Their oppression is pretend.
Trans people in the UK have the exact same rights as anyone else OF THEIR SEX CLASS.
What they demand is that we pretend a man is a woman if he says so, and allow that man to completely ignore the rules that apply to every other men because it hurts their feeling to be told no.

The US abortion fight began the minute Roe v. Wade was codified and has continued full force ever since (around fifty years). In other words, it has been going on forever and is not based on the transgender debate.

They forced-birth side was successful because finally the Supreme Court was stacked with enough right-wingers, and even that process took several years.

On the start of the quoted debate, it's not true that transgender activism would be "just about people wanting to live their lives", because all of it requires extreme changes in how everybody else lives:

Language must be rewritten so that all women who are women because they are female are now stripped of their own identities as embodied identities are invalid.

Female single-sex spaces must be destroyed so that any male person can enter any such space by simply arguing that they are transgender.

Female sports will become mixed sex sports and few female people will reach the podium.

Female short-lists, scholarships and awards will now be open for anyone who identifies as a woman which means less likelihood that any particular person of the female sex will get a place on that short list or get the scholarship or award. When all these were created because of an under-representation of female-bodied people, the outcome is unfair.

It's really common to try to set the boundaries for a debate from the start in a way which makes it harder to argue opposing points.

Here that is done by simply stating that transgender people "just want to live their lives", so anyone who points out the clashing rights would then be seen as stopping transgender people form doing that and then being seen as a bigot.

JolyGoodBloviator

Not to derail, but excellent username!

They don't just want to live their lives though do they? They want to redefine the whole language so that they "are" something they're not, they want to force everyone to lie about their own perceptions, they want to prevent kids going through puberty with unknown and potentially devastating medical consequences, and TW want to appropriate rights of a disadvantaged group they don't belong to.

I need research material

Then I suggest you read the threads on this topic. Here's one:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4787131-what-rights-do-transpeople-believe-they-do-not-have

From what I've read, she's also responsible for the murder of Emmett Till, the Jim Crow laws (especially the fountains) and the Holocaust.

Also she looked sideways at my guinea pig and it stopped laying.

You'd never know it to hear her speak.

Very much appreciated thank you

I've been to university and I think these two paragraphs are witless bollocks. Hope that helps.

Not gonna lie, #Oxhate to the Oxford Union hosting the "Gender Critical" Kathleen Stock later this term. As a trans guy who just wants to live his life with joy and is more than well aware of the increasing Western stripping and dehumanisation of trans rights, the last thing we need now is promotion of such people who actively push back against a minority who just want to live their lives, especially from such a prestigious university. Trans people are people, we are valid and we deserve respect and not being exposed to such bigotry.

The only correct response to this by students at "such a prestigious university" is to go along to the event with an open mind, listen carefully, and politely put across their point of view at the end. Although they might not fare very well if the outcome of the similar debate at the University of Cambridge is anything to go by: https://unherd.com/thepost/kathleen-stock-wins-free-speech-debate-at-cambridge/

It's worth noting that the sky didn't fall in, despite professor Stock taking part in the Cambridge debate, so the "trans guy" who posted the original comment was probably being a little overdramatic.

why is it that "bigotry" always turns out to consist of anything other than total capitulation to the core mantra of "TWAW"? It's almost as if these people cannot handle any degree of challenge whatsoever. Must be very weird to live like that.