Kathleen Stock was on Good Morning Britain This Morning

[dunBle]

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.

I am so impressed with the way she manages to keep her cool while repeatedly being accused of holding 'extreme' views! Makes her sound like some crazy radical when all she's doing is saying humans can't change sex and going along with a pretence that they can has real world negative implications for women.

Really, the only argument Ed has here is “I’m kinder than you. I let people be who they want to be.”

It’s very easy to be kind when you’ve got absolutely nothing to lose. Men who unquestioningly support gender ideology really haven’t considered how it affects women. And if they have considered it, they don’t care.

That centre ground he’s banging on about. That’s all GC women ever wanted! The chance to talk about this conflict of interests and how it can be resolved, or compromises reached. But no, anyone questioning it (as Kathleen has) is branded an extremist and risks being deplatformed, smeared, cancelled, hounded out of a job etc - simply for saying sex is real and it matters in some circumstances. It’s insane.

Yes, Simon Edge is doing well of writing parodies of this nonsense, but the reality is really beyond even his wild imaginings. (The End of the World is Flat and In the Beginning are both excellent, of course.)

Absolutely. My mind is continually blown by this

Some parents are too busy teaching their children about accounts and social smarts, they neglected science and having a moral compass regarding lies.

Mine too. Just when I think it can’t be blown any more, along comes something even more 😵

Exactly @Datun Since when is stating a scientific fact tolerated as free speech?

The Oxford Union should be ashamed of itself / themselves / whatever.

'It’s very easy to be kind when you’ve got absolutely nothing to lose. Men who unquestioningly support gender ideology really haven’t considered how it affects women. And if they have considered it, they don’t care.'

Spot on! They have the luxury of not having to give it any thought, they don't need to

Hhhmm, I wonder why I was deleted. I'll try again.

Balls was always going to be out of his depth, in part because he is an ex politician arguing with a feminist. Balls is debating - he's trying to win the conversation by claiming popularity, being progressive, supporting policy. Stock isn't debating, shes describing womens experiences now.

A zinger line (not that he came up with any) that would win a debate falls flat when everyone sees that the outcome is middle aged men following women and girls into sex segregated spaces.

The expressions on Balls face are telling. He supports a 'progressive' policy that he cant really justify and he hasn't demonstrated that he even understands, other than saying he believes it and so does everyone else. Its a progressive policy thats still unpopular and unworkable after nearly 20 years.

The fact is, he knows the policy he supports isnt justified or popular. But rather than see that as a failing in policy, his politics and his attitude, he blames the people who do not support him and those who are not in a position to hold such luxury beliefs.

I don't think they do find it in the slightest bit controversial. It's only because there is an ideology that is being challenged, making it difficult to articulate.

We have somehow come to the conclusion that to oppose this ideology sounds intolerant, illiberal, mean, wrong, unfair.

Many people are under the impression that trans people as a cohort are an oppressed minority. Wanting to just get on and have a semblance of a life without abuse and victimisation.

Stephen Whittle, from Press for Change speaks about this all the time. In fact Whittle is on the same programme as Kathleen Stock - Gender Wars, describing exactly that.

But of course, the reality, and indeed stonewall's definition is that the cohort is also made up of cross dressers, drag queens and transvestites. We know from trans widows that self confessed fetishists are also part of the cohort. And from sports that male individuals claiming to be women are also part of it. Not to mention rapists and sexist offenders.

Many who make up the cohort are far from oppressed and marginalised. Quite the opposite.

No one in their right mind would view a rapist being given access to incarcerated women as the victim in the equation.

And you can see the reality butting up against people when they speak.

On the one hand they've been told that the entire cohort is an oppressed, victimised minority. And on the other hand, they see the reality with their own eyes.

Its interesting that he envisaged a 21 year old man transitioning.

Is that because his son is around that age and he is thinking about a real person, or is 21 the safe age between the difficult issues of 'child transitioners' and 'middle aged staight male transitioner'.

I've always thought so, but willing to have my mind changed. However, yes he is indeed a fuckwit, based on that "interview" alone.

And how are women supposed to know who is a vulnerable 21 year old man and who is a predatory, habitual sex offender? Hmm?

And is that man still vulnerable when hes 30, or 60?

When does he acknowledged that no one sees him as vulnerable anymore, but a threat in women's spaces.

Well done to KS on keeping your cool during EB's infuriating interviewing style, the last minute of that interview was so poignant when she was given a chance to say her piece.

I've just had another look at the clip, the penis one.

Kathkeen says if you ask most people can a woman have a penis, most people will say no.

And Ed says yeah and I agree with that.

Can it possibly be that Ed Balls thinks that most men who say they are women have had genital surgery?

Does he understand that something like only 5% of transwomen have genital surgery? The rest are completely intact.

Is that where this disconnect is coming from?

Can it possibly be that Ed Balls thinks that most men who say they are women have had genital surgery?

I dont think so. Although he wasnt an MP for the GRA debates, he was when the PC of GR was included into the EqA. He knows that to be protected by GR, no surgery is required.

Also, he talks about 'a vulnerable 21 year old'. That would be extremely young for someone to have been through a full diagnosis, reflection and surgery. At least very young for an average man who wants to be seen as a woman.

I suspect him saying that about genital surgery is him trying to kerp up with the official labour view. Which, to be fair on Balls, is more confusing than the GRA and EqA.

She’s never allowed past the ‘you’re denying the right for trans to exist’ deliberate misinterpretation of her arguments. Stuck always on the defensive explaining that’s not what she’s saying.

She must feel a bit like Galileo being condemned for his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun. So now to say that being a woman is rooted in our biology and our bodies has become “formally heretical”. It is mind boggling insane that people capable of being faculty at Oxford declare this.

Ed is an idiot, but so was Charlotte Hawkins. I can understand a man being sexist. I can't grasp women not taking an active stance against this nonsense when it's presented to them. What sort of rubbish question did she ask at the end? I mean why?

Just testing to see if my name comes up correctly.

And I truly wish Prof Stock or anyone else would stop being labelled ‘gender critical’ and instead given the correct label ‘women’s rights advocate’. That would go a long way to correcting the bullshit misrepresentation eg BBC article today "Kathleen stock: gender critical academic determined to do talk".

Would be much more accurate but perhaps not such a good reflection on the BBC if their headline was "Kathleen stock: woman’s right advocate determined to do talk". FFS.

That is a great point and I think is a major reason behind the censorship we've seen in recent years. For example the "ItsAFetish" forum on Reddit was supposedly deleted by the administration for "promoting hate" but really the issue was that it reported upon and archived evidenced of the most unsavoury portion of this cohort, that transactivists would rather not have showcased.

Hi again. I'm hoping to publish a short blog post tonight about this, quoting from this thread, if posters are ok with that - specifically quoting (with acknowledgement) from the posts of @FlirtsWithRhinos and @WallaceinAnderland?

(I mostly write about archaeology and women's history; but I've done previous blog posts on my website about Mumsnet webchats with both Labour and Conservative politicians that have been discussed on FWR.)