Kathleen Stock on the Moral Maze at 8pm today 31 May 2023 - Cancel Culture

[IwantToRetire]

I heard this mentioned earlier today but their web site doesn't mention her https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mcgk

But she has now tweeted to confirm https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1663963828336435201

(I think its a pretty pretentions radio series, but who knows what they will manage today.)

I will be watching this on catch up later - thanks for mentioning it

Listening now. Dr Stock was calm, reasonable and eminently sensible. Dr Clara Barker seemed to be defensive and the panel noted the lack of willingness to answer questions in a straightforward way. The debate is focusing on whether “cancel culture” represents a threat to liberal, democratic values. Stock was robust in her assertion that women she talks with are genuinely frightened of repercussions if they speak about women’s rights.

Oooh 4 mins from the end of the programme it gets quite heated in Stock’s defence.

I think it was Melanie Phillips who spoke very fiercely about Stock being “hounded out of her job” and subject to terrible threats. Phillips says Stock has not been “cancelled” as she has continued to speak out “but at what cost”.

If anyone knows Dr Stock, please could they pass on my genuine thanks to her? The courage she shows - and all the women in the public eye who articulate so clearly the erosion of women’s rights - is awe inspiring and I admire her tremendously.

Yes I'm very glad that but at the end "but at what cost" was said. It was in response to someone say but she hasn't been cancelled and if it hadn't been said the listeners may not have known she's lost her job etc

As always I think they barley scratched the surface. You had to know the background to pick up on the importance on some of the comments and I think most people don't

Yes, it was Melanie Phillips.

There are so many other examples that didn't get mentioned - Jo Phoenix hounded out of the Open University and, along with Rosa Freedman, cancelled by the University of Essex; the two failures to screen Adult Human Female at the University of Edinburgh; the de facto cancellation by the University of Bristol of a discussion by prominent lawyers and criminologists, including Jo Phoenix (again) and Akua Reindorf who wrote the independent review that prompted the University of Essex to apologise to her, FFS... But yes, cancellation doesn't happen on British university campuses!

Thanks, listening now.

How can she be cancelled when she's been giving talks and been in the tabloids, radio and TV every day for the past year?

Same with Bindel and Rowling. Despite what they say, these people are definitely not "cancelled".

But at what cost to her? Are you thick, or just deliberately disingenuous?

Yes you are always this stupid. Do you think being cancelled means killed?
She has had her job cancelled, her tenure cancelled, her status, her integrity. The fact she still speaks and has gained new work doesn't mean her uni, the bbc and other institutions cancelling didn't happen.
I am starting to think you just say these things to upset people. Nasty.

Yes, it was a very superficial discussion. They faffed around trying to define the phrase "cancel culture" rather than deal with current realities - the numerous examples mentioned above. A couple of the panel members seem stuck in the 1980's when the non-platforming of racists was seen as progressive and virtuous. Not one of them delved into the content of Dr Stock's views - which are held by the majority of the global population and were hardly controversial on even the most woke campuses a short decade ago. They didnt seem very curious to know what changed. They didnt discuss the nature of 'vivid' counter protests. How far do should these go? Is making enough noise to disrupt meetings and throwng soup on the participants fair? Why don't these very clever students actually attend meetings to challenge Dr Stock's bad ideas? There was too ready an acceptance of the students' fragility. Phillips, Professor Goldman and the third female member of the panel tried to hold the fort against the wooliness of what I see as a typically middleclass British way of discussing 'controversial' subjects but they were outnumbered, as usual with the BBC.

TRAs keep saying this. How can you be cancelled? You're still talking.

It's so stupid it's almost painful to have to address it.

If you have been invited, or arranged, to speak somewhere, and the venue or organisers cancel it due to pressure or threats from transactivists, you've been cancelled.

That's it.

You might subsequently be able to speak somewhere else, but again, you might get cancelled from there too. It doesn't mean they've actually ripped your tongue out and put you in a cell.

Honestly, these people. It's so painful

I think they must be stupid as well as violent. I feel sorry for people who actually have identity issues, this lot would jump on any bandwagon that allowed them to be violent to women.

I had forgotten just how much I despise this programme.

All too often it is academics discussing issues without any notion of the real life impact of an issue can be.

The pathetically childish aren't I being clever with words about well she's invited to speak so she isn't cancelled just illustrates that either they have no notion what is going on in the real world, or think word play is the height of sophistication.

And having to rely on Melanie Philips to point out how innane they are is just infurriating.

That Mathew Taylor has for reasons I cant understand is always being asked to give his views, as though he has insight. Really his comments were more in line with the Billy Bragg type of arguement. So sure that his view of the world is the right one and trying to imply that the trans issue is just the further journey of L&G rights. Again is he just ignorant of those who contest this, or is he so secure in his rightness that imagines by saying something it becomes right. And the arrogant disregard for women's rights. Unfortunately under Blair patronage he has sailed through any number of influential jobs, and (heaven help us) is now CE of the NHS Federation.

I thought the male academic was really good at cutting through the whataboutery and the academic worried about students being upset just before exams was pitiful.

But mainly not only am I angry at myself for wasting my time listening, but also angry that the BBC has spent an hour allowing people to gush totally irrelevant opinions based on how to interpret the phrase cancel culture. Abstract self indulgence.

I also think day time tv is full of loud mouths who know nothing, but seems evenings on Radio 4 are the same, but of course everone spoke very nicely!

On the other thread someone has share the link to an article about being with Kathleen Stock during the day. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5d0fec18-ffd6-11ed-a364-04e704863f75?shareToken=6ed61f87cb9b430f34b4c8de49eb8133

And apart from all the drama the most signifgant thing was this, and its a great shames the academics on the Moral Maze weren't discussing this reality.

The most thoughtful is from a young woman I’m later told is a lesbian who, having written a student newspaper article defending Stock’s right to speak, has been banned from Oxford LGBTQ+ meetings.

Its a great shame that those newspapers and journalists who are willing to write about gender critical views dont do more to protect the unknown women who are being cancelled and intimidated.

Without disrespecting Kathleen Stock who has experienced that, now she is more of a public figure she is less likely to be ignored.

This young woman will probably never be able to enjoy her time at Oxford after this.

Just shocking, and when the TRAs try to say that GC views are like Section 28 and yet they are the ones who are silencing and intimidating gay men and lesbians.

If you listened to the programme that this thread is about, you would know that that was one of the topics that was discussed.

Could @MerlinsLostMarbles give an example of someone who in their view has been cancelled?

Think of all the times the media/radio/TV reports on the trans/gender-critical discussion. How often do Gender Criticals get platformed, and how often do actual transpeople get platformed?

Everything you read from the media is all from the perspective of Gender Criticals innit?

do you actually believe the rubbish you write or do you say these things for a laugh/bet? (delete as appropriate)

I’d love to hear your answer to my question actually.

@Boomboom22 I’d be surprised if a decapitated terf counted. For an example, @MerlinsLostMarbles would you say sir Thomas More was cancelled? He had been raised to the exalted position of lord chancellor, but then he refused to sign a letter to the pope or the oath to Henry viii although did not dare to speak out in public against them. Long story short, Nonetheless various accusations were raised against him until one succeeded, and a jury with a number of members of Anne Boleyns family found him guilty in 15 minutes, to be executed via decapitation. His papers as chancellor I believe were not archived in the usual manner due to his disgrace and I also think his book utopia banned at one point. But, everyone knows his name today and many libraries have his books which are widely available so a mere beheading presumably does not a cancellation make? Interested in your take 😊

Everything you read from the media is all from the perspective of Gender Criticals innit?

Only because, despite you writing it, no-body reads it.

Stock was a hero on this - brilliant forensic answers. I only got through half.

Who ever was speaking for the tra side didn't half go round in circles and then when pushed conceded it was reasonable for Stock to talk at the union. Wouldn't say WHAT it was they disagreed with, as it is the "man can't be woman" and the optics of that of the radio don't work. That was a hoot

Yes there could have been more but to the uninitiated it was a good intro to the lunacy.

Merlin clearly didn't listen as those points were covered so Merlin's contributions to this thread are BS. It's also a weak argument.

If that's your definition, then I'd say that trans people are cancelling themselves. There have been endless examples of trans activists refusing to speak or go on a platform, or pulling out of a documentary or programme.
Think of the outcry on Gender Wars, or on the JKK witch podcast. I remember the producer of the Stella o'Malley documentary on trans children saying he'd never encountered such resistance and pushback in getting people to talk to him and he'd done documentaries on the Israel/Palestine conflicts.
I'm very, very keen to platform trans activists on main stream media. Let's hear Grace Lavery define woman on ITV or Ch4 as the person who gets fucked or Andrea Long Chu explain how being female is about having an expectant asshole and blank eyes.
Even better let's hear from Susie Green and have her to tell everyone how putting children on hormones is a good idea if they're gender nonconforming.
Trans activists avoid the limelight because they know that if the general public heard what what they're saying, support for them would drop overnight. That's not being cancelled. It's them avoiding incriminating themselves.

One comment that I found interesting was towards end. A woman said (paraphrasing) that as long as some academics/significant people could express these views then there wasn't anything to worry about.

I found that pretty shocking, as so many women who are academics or teachers or nhs staff feel their job will be at risk if they express these views. It's kind of like saying you don't need to mention you are gay at work because there are a few gay pop stars.

I can't believe people are so willing to give up freedom of speech.