Page 3 | Kathleen Stock was on Good Morning Britain This Morning

dunBle · 2023-05-29T06:34:14+00:00

although she got talked over by Ed Balls quite a lot. It'll be on ITV1+1 at about 7:40 I think until just before 8am.

Hepwo · 29/05/2023 21:09

Really what is the difference between Ed's position and Kathleen's?

He's magnanimously conceded sports and prisons and said women can't have a penis, so what is the difference?

Apart from he believes he's a good guy and she's not?

Fuck off Ed.

Melroses · 29/05/2023 22:35

Melroses · 29/05/2023 17:17

Ah - this is all because she is on Gender Wars this evening.

I am starting to look forward to it now 😁

It's tomorrow, isn't it..........I'm twirly.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/05/2023 22:48

Former professor who argues trans people cannot expect all rights afforded by biological sex

Kathleen Stock thinks males can't use the men's toilets or compete against other males? News to me. Idiotic journalism.

WallaceinAnderland · 29/05/2023 22:50

Forwarder · 29/05/2023 19:21

The Guardian has misquoted her about children. She said something about Irreversible changes to children's bodies causes upset, upset to their parents. Note the comma.

The Guardian are truly scum promoting this stuff.

KS is so cool though isn't she? After all she's been through, still able to laugh at pompous mansplaining prats.

The context:

KS response to question from Charlotte Hawkins

CH - But do you feel to a certain extent we are in a different world now, you know, you talk about you know this has evolved over however many years and this dates back to whenever, but we're in a different world now aren't we, where situations are different and you know that the views that you put out do cause a significant amount of upset. There are a number of, you know, Ed talked about the one hundred Oxford based staff members who signed this response letter, we know that back in 2021 600 philosophers from around the world, er, were critical about what you had to say as well. Does that not make you think, do you know what, perhaps I need to modify the way, the language I'm using, when you know it's causing upset?

KS - What, are we going to stop talking about things because they cause upset? No. Of course we're not.

CH - No, not necessarily what I'm talking about. Of course it's important to have debate.

KS - We have to talk about the things that cause upset because that's precisely the points at which pressure groups and activists will try to steer the conversation in particular directions so we have to have freedom of speech, we have to be able to talk about this. Now of course I am causing upset but I'm telling you that the position I'm fighting against causes a lot of upset. You know, you've got male rapists in female prisons, that causes a lot of upset. You've got children transitioning, doing things to their bodies that they can't take back. That causes a lot of upset and their parents are very upset about it. You've got huge numbers of women unable to talk about sex based rights in their workplaces because they feel stifled. That causes upset. So there are two different sets of interests here and we need to have a conversation without one side, my side in particular, being constantly told that I'm somehow evil and bigoted for even raising these questions which are extremely socially important.

FrancescaContini · 29/05/2023 22:55

RoyalCorgi · 29/05/2023 17:26

Ed Balls is a fuckwit, isn't he?

Yes. He went on Strictly so 🤦‍♀️

ArabeIIaScott · 29/05/2023 23:04

Nominative determinism in action, then.

Mmmnotsure · 29/05/2023 23:40

More media focus. Kathleen Stock is main story on Telegraph front page tomorrow:
"PM backs feminist in Oxford row over free speech".

TheBiologyStupid · 29/05/2023 23:43

ArabeIIaScott · 29/05/2023 23:04

Nominative determinism in action, then.

I guess the collective noun for Eds is a scrotum...?

TheBiologyStupid · 29/05/2023 23:49

Mmmnotsure · 29/05/2023 23:40

More media focus. Kathleen Stock is main story on Telegraph front page tomorrow:
"PM backs feminist in Oxford row over free speech".

Thanks!

There's an archived copy here: https://archive.ph/w7MGt

Welcome to nginx

https://archive.ph/w7MGt

bluedomino · 30/05/2023 00:12

Oh my, she was fabulous. So patient and calm. He showed us exactly how ignorant on the matter he is. Balls is caught up in 1...his showbiz world, where he needs to be woke and misogyny is the norm
2...his Labour views, where women can have penises and be naked around children and rapists only need a wig to be allowed into a women's prison and
3...his son with his woke views. He needs to look like a cool Dad, one who thinks its ok to call men women and no harm will come of it. Try to look like he believes its ok for a males (who on average punch 160% harder than a female) to compete against women. And win against women.

This interview shows what Balls really thinks of women. They are just background noise in his stupid little narcissistic head.

I can't believe he has a daughter. But then he thinks it's acceptable as a married man to apply to be on middle aged Love Island. There is obviously nothing he won't say, do or pretend to think, as long as people are looking at him.

There was a moment, after Prof Stock made a particularly good comeback, when he looked at her of a fleeting second with absolute hate. It was a micro expression which showed his reaction to a woman besting him.

FigRollsAlly · 30/05/2023 00:58

TheBiologyStupid · 29/05/2023 23:43

I guess the collective noun for Eds is a scrotum...?

Show quote history

😂

Kucinghitam · 30/05/2023 05:59

TheBiologyStupid · 29/05/2023 23:43

I guess the collective noun for Eds is a scrotum...?

Show quote history

Especially if one is Ed Balls and the other is Ed Davey

Helleofabore · 30/05/2023 07:28

And Izzard.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 30/05/2023 07:38

Male interviewers disproportionally interrupt women speakers. I hear it all the time. Also Ed Balls is a fuckwit of the highest order. It is a pretty common view to say that men are not women, even if they call themselves a woman.

heartsinvisiblefury · 30/05/2023 07:41

She was amazing and made Ed Balls look even stupider than he made himself. What a woman 🙌👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

xabia · 30/05/2023 07:51

@FlirtsWithRhinos
What a brilliant post. Thank you!

BadSkiingMum · 30/05/2023 08:16

Kathleen Stock is so calm and clear.

I think there was a moment in the middle when the good Mr Balls seemed to be teetering on the edge of GC views…

InsertSomethingMotivationalHere · 30/05/2023 08:23

She is just fantastic - she knows she's dealing with complete idiots but remains so calm and controlled. Ed Balls came across as smug and condescending.

BezMills · 30/05/2023 08:47

Dunning-Krüger is his middle name. Of course he would want to manterrupt his mansplanations to a woman who wrote an entire book laying out her case. Because obviously she hasn't given the topic as much thought as he has.

AutumnCrow · 30/05/2023 09:04

PurpleBugz · 29/05/2023 19:52

Agreed. So hard to put that point into words for others and this does so perfectly.

@FlirtsWithRhinos can I steal your wording for a sort of leaflet I'm putting together for myself/friends/family to explain GC position?

Show quote history

It’s great wording 👍

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 30/05/2023 09:18

TheBiologyStupid · 29/05/2023 23:49

Thanks!

There's an archived copy here: https://archive.ph/w7MGt

Show quote history

Nice to see the Telegraph quoting Balls verbatim

he makes himself sound deranged

FrancescaContini · 30/05/2023 09:29

Helleofabore · 30/05/2023 07:28

And Izzard.

How could we forget him? I’m loving “a scrotum of Eds” 😂

Datun · 30/05/2023 09:30

PriOn1 · 29/05/2023 20:55

Whittle is smarter than that.

It’s likely the real reason is that nobody who takes the time to listen to her could fail to see how reasonable and considered her views are.

Any claim that her views are extreme is a desperate attempt to silence her because they can’t afford for anyone to hear what she has to say.

Show quote history

Yes, Kathleen stock is moderate by anyone's standards. And incredibly articulate, can think on her feet.

She's a huge threat.

TinyTopknot · 30/05/2023 09:35

There was a moment, after Prof Stock made a particularly good comeback, when he looked at her of a fleeting second with absolute hate. It was a micro expression which showed his reaction to a woman besting him.

Yes! This stood out to me more than anything else in the interview. Pure hatred oozed from every pore. It was chilling.

Datun · 30/05/2023 09:38

FlirtsWithRhinos · 29/05/2023 18:42

EB - Someone who has transitioned and wants to be a woman, I think it's fine to call them a woman. I don't know why you don't want to allow them to make that choice

I realise there's no point in answering EB on this thread, but as this line typifies one of the bad faith arguments that gets flung arount by TRAs a lot I think it's worth providing the counter anyway.

No, Ed. It's not that I don't want to allow "them" to make that choice.

It's that the choice they want to make for themselves forces a new definition of womanhood onto all women whether we want it for ourselves or not.

Because the only way to believe that male people can be called women is if one believes that a woman, which I also am, is a woman not because of her body, with all that entails socially and physically, but because of something in her mind.

And if society belives that, it believes that woman's rights and protections, and indeed women's experiences, needs and political voice, are not shaped by the needs and challenges of the female-bodied half of humanity but by those who feel they have a female mind.

As a female-bodied person, I look at the history of my sex's fight to escape from the legal, social, intellectual, political and cultural margins where male people kept us, and to be recognised as complete, equal and worthwhile humans in our own right. To understand and define ourselves rather than accept the definitions men placed upon us based on what they observed and assumed. To tell our own stories in our own voices, not simply be the characters in narratives written from the outside by men. And I am not prepared to go back to Womanhood being something men decide for us.

So it's not that I don't want to allow them to make a choice for themselves, it's that the choice they want to make for themselves is also a choice they are also making for me, and it is that which I cannot accept.

Brilliantly articulated.

Yes. It's forcing a new definition of woman. A sexist and detrimental one at that.

To understand and define ourselves rather than accept the definitions men placed upon us based on what they observed and assumed.

And I am not prepared to go back to Womanhood being something men decide for us.

Ed doesn't even notice that this is all about men defining what women are, it's not computing. He's so used to it, he doesn't see any difference.