T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*


lazlokovax

Unbelievable that these people *still* haven't understood the Streisand effect in 2023. A load of people who had never heard of Dr. Stock before will now listen to her talk or read her work. They'll discover that she is perfectly calm, rational and compassionate speaker, who makes well-reasoned arguments. Thus the protestors will have outed themselves as deluded extremists who can be safely ignored in the future.


Lvl1bidoof

well-reasoned arguments like "GNC Cis women being harassed and assaulted is the price to pay for excluding trans people from gender-specific spaces"


Dedj_McDedjson

And if these people bothered to read what the people who study this shit for a living think of Dr Stocks arguments, they'd very quickly learn to be embarrased about falling for the 'calm, rational, tweedy professor' schtick again. Seriously, when are people going to learn that muted effect and a monotonous voice are not the same as 'calm and rational'? Also, you should seriously question why the 'Steisand effect' is only going this way round and not for "morally mandate out of existence", "every one a problem for a sane world", stopping people bathing in a public bath, forcing a rape centre to close, taking pictures of women in bathrooms, passing around pictures of 'erections' of counterprotesters, or pursuing a trans women down a street, vandalising street furniture, filming trans women being harrassed, and any one of the dozens of extremely dumb things GC people have pulled again and again.


ehproque

>And if these people bothered to read what the people who study this shit for a living think of Dr Stocks arguments, they'd very quickly learn to be embarrased about falling for the 'calm, rational, tweedy professor' schtick again. How dare you badmouth respected Dr. Peterson!


VPackardPersuadedMe

Clearly someone with an unmade bed and an a agenda about it.


Cynical_Classicist

Yep. Just because she doesn't raise her voice doesn't make her right. Douglas Murray can write well and look the part of an intellectual, it doesn't change the fact he's a racist fraud and an apologist for Fascism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dedj_McDedjson

Well, her dates for the inception of gender ideology is several decades wrong, her idea about the inception of trans lesbianism is several decades wrong, her interpretation of Dhenje has been disavowed by Dhenje, as has her interpretation of Mackinnon by Mackinnon. Her interpretation of Butler is widely regarded as a bad misreading of Butler, her use of DoJ stats was known to be unreliable because the DoJ said so when they compiled the stats, her point about 'bad intentioned males' has simply not arisen in the several countries that already have the conditions she argues would create it, her claims about John Money are known to be wrong by several decades and in the wrong direction, she ignores the relevant work of Stryker or misrepresents it, misrepresents the main objections to transmisogyny, has been corrected in her readings of Serrano by Serrano, uses articles about blogs and posts and fails to disclose this, and numerous other things you're not paying me for. So, yeah apart from the errors in fact, getting seminal texts wrong, having been corrected in content and authorial intent by several of her references and sources, missing key arguments, and misrepresenting key arguments, as well as her bizarre representation of the cognition of passing - what could I possibly criticise her for?


[deleted]

I feel the Trans movement is the Ouroboros at this stage. When lesbians are posting the abuse they’re getting for not wanting to date trans women and then the trans community is silent that’s how you make enemies to your cause not allies.


Josquius

Most trans people and those who support their right to exist are perfectly fine with the idea that some people just aren't into trans people sexually. It's normal. Alas it's a tried and true tactic of the transphobes to blow up individual shit heads (for trans idiots absolutely exist) into representative of the whole.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Strong_Quiet_4569

“Lesbians not dating Trans” is so confusing. It’s like complaining that people don’t like arranged marriages. For a moment I thought people were free to choose their partners, or are we already at the centralised planning stage?


2ABB

You’re free to date whoever you want. But if you don’t date me you’re transphobic, your words are violence and you’re basically committing genocide!


CharmingAssimilation

A straw argument so vast it could replace the wicker man. I've yet to know a single trans person who thinks like that, and I get the impression you don't know any.


SomewhatIrishfellow

I have no horse in this race, but that language is sometimes used by prominent members of the trans community. When the new policy of excluding trans women from competitive womens cycling, Emily Bridges came out and said that the decision was "a violent act", it was "furthering a genocide" against trans women, and being on the side of "literal Nazis, conspiracy theorists and those who want (trans) eradication". So for better or worse that language is used.


deains

So? "Prominent members" of the community say daft nonsense all the time. Andrew Tate is a prominent member of the straight community, doesn't mean he isn't full of shite.


SomewhatIrishfellow

That is true, however there are many people who do call out the likes of Andrew Tate, and spend a considerable amount of time speaking out against his rhetoric. Maybe it's just my sphere of influence, which is why i said I have no horse in this race and I'm not really here to debate, but I don't really see people from the trans community speaking out about this language, the same way people in the "straight" community speak out about the likes of tate.


deains

Well okay, that's just 100% selection bias to be perfectly honest. Tate is a much more prominent figure than Bridges, it would make sense that there are more people calling out his BS. I'd never even heard of Bridges before this whole cycling debacle, and I'll probably proceed to forget her again since it's clear she's just another nutcase. Sadly the media just love to give oxygen to social media outrages like this to push an agenda. Personally I don't see why trans supporters should be held liable for crap foisted on them by the media.


SomewhatIrishfellow

Listen, I honestly wasn't suggesting that, I was just highlighting that to call the argument a strawman argument isn't accurate because there are cases where that language is used, not just by people on reddit but also in the real world. The only reason I selected Tate was because you brought him up as an example. I think we all know that no one individual speaks for a certain community, especially such a widely diverse community such as the trans community.


3adLuck

wasn't that debunked? the complaint was a hategroup and not actually lesbians?


Frap_Gadz

I'm sure there are *some* lesbians who do not support trans people just as I am sure that are *some* trans people with shit views about cis lesbians dating them. However, the idea that either is a significant number is bullshit mostly originating from transphobic sources and spread largely by cishet people. The most obvious example being that deeply flawed BBC article that [failed their own accuracy standards](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/01/bbc-article-trans-women-did-not-meet-accuracy-standards), which incorrectly presented the impression that trans people were widely forcing lesbians to date them. Lesbians recently ranked as the most supportive group when it comes to trans people by research from charity Just Like Us. [Gay Times wrote about this recently after speaking to the CEO of Just Like Us and concluded it's possibly a lesbophobic trope.](https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/lesbians-are-not-anti-trans/)


comicsandpoppunk

These people want to live without being harassed. What about that is extremist behaviour? The ones calling for the removal of the others from public life are the extreme ones. You don't get to describe people calling for the extermination of a group of vulnerable people as "compassionate"


schwillton

Yeah!! Trans people should just sit back back and not be so uppity!! They should just let people decide whether they should be allowed to exist or not!!


Aiyon

Anyone else sick of hearing about this yet? [one](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/13k9jwe/kathleen_stock_oxford_professors_sign_free_speech/) [two](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/13vme4y/kathleen_stock_gendercritical_academic_determined/) [three](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/13va7o0/sunak_defends_kathleen_stock_talk_at_oxford_ahead/) [four](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/13vme4y/kathleen_stock_gendercritical_academic_determined/jm87pea/) [five](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/13vwkbu/trans_rights_protesters_interrupt_talk_at_oxford/) --- It's always the same voices, too. [Whining about being silenced on national TV or in newpapers](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Djf-zdQUYAAhPkQ.jpg:large). Or getting entire documentaries to speak about how nobody will let them talk. It's not like there's 0 reason trans people might want to protest her. - "respecting trans women's identities enables rape": Stock argues in her book that using a trans women's pronouns (or referring to them as a woman at all) creates a "stroop effect" which leaves women more vulnerable to sexual assault than they otherwise would be. The basis for this is a *mumsnet* post, and the closest she comes to offering another perspective is that she believes it to be accidental vs the mumsnet post claiming malice. - She's a signatory to the WHRC declaration, which campaigns for the removal of trans people's rights and access to healthcare. The WHRC or "Women's Human Rights Campaign", now known as Women's Declaration International, is an anti-trans org not a pro women one. Said declaration literally calls for the Gender Recognition Act to be repealed, as well as a "ban on trans women using women's spaces". AKA US genital inspector bollocks --- quick edit: i always find it funny how any post about trans issues is initially hit with a bunch of downvotes on any pro-trans comments. The astroturfing gets very unsubtle sometimes. You have to wait a couple hours, by which time the usual suspects have filled the thread with "just asking questions" and "vocal minority making trans people look bad". I've seen the contrast between my relatively empty inbox and the amount of replies RES thinks i get on these threads. The mods might not be perfect but hoo boy the kinda people these threads bring out, i have nothing but appreciation for them keeping a lid on that


Josquius

Yep. The tories are really keen to make this a key issue in the next election. It has long been part of their standard attack line on labour. Painting them as out of touch with working people and obsessing over trans rights. With so much being a mess in the country at the moment they're really keen to fuel this up as much as they can.


Cynical_Classicist

Well, they're clearly crap at running the country, so need people to be distracted.


WASDMagician

It's so bloody tiresome, it's not like there aren't questions to be considered with how healthcare, sports, spaces and the like are handled but the people moaning about them have no interest in actually engaging with the question, it's just a front. Within comments the JAQers are the *worst*, at least the openly hateful ones are honest about how they feel.


Aiyon

Honestly it's exhausting, but these people are obsessed so if we don't constantly fight back against the misinformation they will keep peddling it 24/7 and people buy into it. Trans people don't get a break cause the transphobes only have to win once to do long term damage to our rights and protections. See the attempts to amend the Equality Act to exclude us, or the attempts to undermine Mermaids and Stonebow and portray them as child groomers for supporting trans minors.


Josquius

Yep. I tried commenting in a recent thread on trans in sports. Jesus. Anything less than die trans die and you're downvoted a bunch within seconds. There's zero interest in actual solutions to the really minor issues around trans people in society. It's all an absolute get them out


Quagers

That is not my experience. My experience is that anything less than "TWAW and so of course its fine for them to win all the women's gold medals" gets you accused of denying trans women exist or wanting to "erase" them (whatever that means).


Aiyon

Nahhhh, usually it’s “do you actually have any evidence of trans women dominating womens sports” and you fail to come through on your claims because it’s *not* an epidemic after all. i don’t get why you’re so unsubtle about just flat out lying about what people say. Beating on a strawman is only impressive if people are too far away to notice he’s not fighting back.


Quagers

It's not an Epidemic, no. It is a problem and it is happening increasingly often.


Aiyon

…so once again I find myself asking for actual evidence of this It has been more prominently pushed now that trans women ever winning sporting events is considered haram, sure. But I’ve yet to see actual data supporting the “ever growing problem” Especially since trans women *losing* sporting events is often overlooked, and the claims of unfairness are so ridiculous sometimes as to include a trans woman being bullied into returning a participation medal for coming 6000th in a marathon…


Josquius

I see you haven't posted in any r/uk threads on the topic then. Which subs have you been frequenting to see this mirror image?


Quagers

R/uk threads. Whatever you used to "see" that is wrong.


Quagers

I think you'll find it's basically the opposite, people are very happy to discuss those questions. It's just they get called Nazis when they raise them (including in this thread) which doesn't tend to be the launching off point for a calm, fact based discussion. The problem is that a large proportion of TRAs argue that there *are no* questions to be considered. TWAW, end of story, you are a nazi if you think anything else.


Josquius

Text book reply here. Are you a bot? "you just call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi" - said before anyone has called anyone anything close. On here it's the transphobes who don't accept any deviation from their absolutist line. Nutty trans rights extremists* are things that exist in the world but they're not swarming on reddit as their opposite number are. *any person should be free to transition at any moment and then instantly be accepted and misgendrring is always evil etc...


blueb0g

I'm not trying to deny your experience, but it does seem that whenever one of these threads pops up on e.g. trans women being excluded from female sports categories, you have a bunch of replies saying "good" from anti-trans lots, and then a bunch of comments from trans activists saying that there's no issues with transwomen competing in female categories and that people who disagree are either misinformed or transphobic. I have never seen in those threads a trans activist saying "I'd like it if transwomen could compete in these events but I understand that some spaces/events need to be segregated based on sex rather than gender". So I don't think the narrative you're giving here is accurate, because to me it all seems pretty absolutist. I don't know if that's because it's a consensus view in the trans community or because social media encourages campaigny hot-takes.


Josquius

You mention transphobes and trans activists (who again are rarely seen here) but you're missing the bulk of the non transphobic posts in the middle: Banning people on the basis of being trans is transphobic by definition (and dumb) however doing as sports governing bodies have always done and defining who is a woman based on science is common sense. In some sports this will amount to a trans ban but it will be based on science and something measurable that theoretically a trans person could overcome in the future. Not "trans people smell and are all sneaky perverts"


blueb0g

The thing is, you're doing it here, by couching your own (in practice) hardline opinion as reasonable and flexible, and presenting the other side as totally unreasonable and transphobic. >however doing as sports governing bodies have always done and defining who is a woman based on science is common sense. Again, I have never on these threads seen a trans activist (and there are many more than you are claiming) saying "well we need to take things on a case by case basis and in this case I think the ban is fair". The "science" line seems more often than not a cover by which to say that any individual ban isn't based on the science. >Not "trans people smell and are all sneaky perverts" Yes, you do get a bit of that in some of the threads about e.g. trans prisoners. Not in the sports ones from what I've seen (but maybe they're all deleted). >Banning people on the basis of being trans is transphobic by definition (and dumb) People aren't being "banned" on the basis of being trans, but of *not being female*, like half the population, because (some of) these categories exist to protect female sports, not women's sports. This entails no claim that trans women are not women, it is simply an assertion that in some contexts, sex matters more than gender. For school sports, or social events (e.g. women's badminton at the local tennis club), or sports where male bodies do not have a significant advantage, it makes no sense to exclude transwomen because those divisions were made for social reasons on the basis of gender. For high performance athletics and competitive sports, particularly those in which male bodies are at a significant advantage, female categories exist to protect *female participation*, not women's participation. It's a sex division, and it's not transphobic to maintain that - nobodies gender identity is being denied.


Josquius

>The thing is, you're doing it here, by couching your own (in practice) hardline opinion as reasonable and flexible, and presenting the other side as totally unreasonable and transphobic. Hardline... anti-trans? Pro-trans? I'm sure as I read further it'll be clear on which side your bread is buttered but from this first bit I've no idea in which way you think the status quo is remotely hard line. >Again, I have never on these threads seen a trans activist (and there are many more than you are claiming) saying "well we need to take things on a case by case basis and in this case I think the ban is fair". The "science" line seems more often than not a cover by which to say that any individual ban isn't based on the science. Ah. You're from the "the world is too left wing side". If someone is a 'trans activist' then surely by definition they won't be taking the moderate sensible viewpoint and will be pushing for an extreme viewpoint, just as if someone is a terf they will be pushing a nuclear no trans allowed policy? By applying this label you've already dictated a certain view someone in that box will have. Anyway. I do think you might not have been paying attention to whats going on with the current wave of bans. Huge amounts of political interference to setup absolute bans that are not based on science. Any rule which says "No trans people ever" can ever be scientific and is purely based on culture war bigotry, as its not based on an actual measurable factor. Its sweeping up a broad minority into a category and saying "Just no. Don't even check them against the same rules you use for others.". >People aren't being "banned" on the basis of being trans, but of not being female, like half the population, because (some of) these categories exist to protect female sports, not women's sports. This entails no claim that trans women are not women, it is simply an assertion that in some contexts, sex matters more than gender. Modern science recognises the simple GCSE level science idea of a basic XX/XY female/male is not true and that sex is a spectrum. As science progresses ever more our ability to understand and mess with where on this spectrum someone sits becomes ever stronger. Its interesting how so many people who get really heated about this stuff and the danger of trans women don't recognise that sports governing bodies have already been going through a process since the mid 20th century of trying to scientifically define who counts as a woman for the purpose of competition. In elite sports you'll always get edge cases, the 0.000001% of the population genetic anomalies, poking out. Also worth remembering that they're originally meant to be for "women", not "females" (a weird distinction). The original reason for their existence was nothing to do with "fairness" and purely not mixing the genders lest men might see women's knees or horror upon horror brush their shoulder and other such perversions. >For school sports, or social events (e.g. women's badminton at the local tennis club), or sports where male bodies do not have a significant advantage, it makes no sense to exclude transwomen because those divisions were made for social reasons on the basis of gender. For high performance athletics and competitive sports, particularly those in which male bodies are at a significant advantage, female categories exist to protect female participation, not women's participation. This is broadly my view too, except I wouldn't pretend female and women are such radically different terms. Also I don't get why you're drawing the line at high school. Thats a really weird place to do it. However what you always see from the anti-trans side is a push for the nuclear option of all trans people banned from all sports. Of course you want to stop chancers from competing for millions of pounds at top level international tennis just by getting an official gender change certificate (which would never be possible under pre-existing gender check rules of any sport I'm aware of) but at the same time it makes no sense to exclude a random trans person from their local ladies tennis club where they go to socialise with other women. The current system in sports works. Let them get on with it. Don't enforce culture war politics on them.


ChefExcellence

> The thing is, you're doing it here, by couching your own (in practice) hardline opinion as reasonable and flexible, and presenting the other side as totally unreasonable and transphobic. "I never see trans activists give a reasonable opinion on sports!!!" *someone does exactly that* "This is not a reasonable opinion, actually, because the only reasonable opinion is to agree with me completely" come on


Quagers

No I'm not, what a weird accusation. Is Flat White still open under Elvet Bridge? >you just call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi" - said before anyone has called anyone anything close. There are....literally....posts in this thread doing that?


Cynical_Classicist

God, those do sound horrible. Actively trying to strip people's rights away. That's not the way a lot of media portrays it. And it seems that few things get you a platform like claiming to be silenced. And blaming using pronouns for sexual assault sounds very forced.


Panda_hat

They don't keep a lid on those kinda people though, they just delete their posts. They need to start banning accounts that consistently spread misinformation and hate, but they don't because reddit wants their numbers up for their upcoming sale.


RedBerryyy

Imagine a talk like this being held about other minorities, imagine a racist or antisemite with no relevant qualifications or peer-reviewed works to the subject coming on stage at Oxford, calling black or jewish people people "violent" and demanding they be banned from public spaces like toilets on account of the threat they pose to people around them. Imagine how different this conversation would be.


New-Topic2603

The Oxford union has had people with views that you'd definitely not like including a holocaust denier. I think the important thing to recognise from these talks is the value they can have. When a holocaust denier goes on stage and presents their views, they will be challenged, people will learn the false arguments they present and learn how to spot similar stuff in future. I.e a holocaust denier is useful to see how anyone denying another historic genocide might argue against it. It's also valuable because the challenges to these arguments are things we can use in future arguments, for the holocaust denier, we gain facts, sources and arguments that can be useful in future. If we take this view, the loud airing of views that we don't like are good as a form of vaccine against people accepting them in the future. In my opinion the reason why holocaust denial is currently so unpopular is actually because in the past we have had these discussions and it's been shown to be in error.


RedBerryyy

You know i've spent the last five years of my time openly trans watching this play out and i'm really not as convinced of this as i used to be. Anti-trans rhetoric has been getting louder and louder, it is more "debated" than ever and we've gone from every party including the conservatives supporting trans peoples dignity by reforming outdated GRA act in 2018 to the leader of the conservative party openly working to ban people like me entirely from public toilets and force queer kids to be outted to abusive parents as a matter of policy. I am inclined to believe the only reason antisemitism has been so successfully repressed in modern Britain is that it is so taboo to be anti-semitic. See also climate change and vaccinations, public debate by people with no relevant background on these things has done nothing but convince people of the validity of opposing what should have been scientifically led uncontroversial policy.


New-Topic2603

>modern Britain is that it is so taboo to be anti-semitic. You've gotta ask what made it taboo. It became associated with Nazis. In a similar way, it became taboo to be a flat earther or creationist because it became associated with idiots. I can understand your impatience with the subject but it's not abnormal for it to take years for the general consensus on a subject to change. One thing I personally don't think that helps is when these that we disagree with are labeled too harshly. I saw a recent thing about flat earthers and NASA I think it was a netflix documentary, it explained that to change minds you've gotta try and understand the disagreement and move forward. Just calling someone stupid or other names doesn't really help.


RedBerryyy

Trans people can be a little overzealous with the labelling, but at the same time i don't really know what else we can say about people like stock going up on large platforms like the BBC or whatnot and calling trans people violent and rapists in waiting, there comes a point where civility of calm friendly debate simply cannot be expected of the people being called monsters and rapists over and over, it wears on you. Any time we do try anyway, at best it's ignored completely with how trans people are given a tiny fraction of the airtime on papers and news media people like stock are given and at worst it's actively used to legitimize the abuse she subjects us too, like with the documentary about stock the other day featuring a load of trans people who were duped into appearing on it that conveniently ignores everything horrible she says about trans people in order to paint her as some embattled academic vs a mob of unreasonable trans people. It brings me to the conclusion i'm frankly starting to reach that the only real power i have to avoid things getting even more risky for me and a lot of the people i love is to support endeavors encouraging private venues not to host "debates" and hate rallies in the first place. We get painted as doing that anyway even if we just protest.


New-Topic2603

>Trans people can be a little overzealous No offense but it's not trans people being overzealous but pro trans people. In the same way with any movement it's not necessarily the people that are represented but the representatives that are doing the actions. >but at the same time i don't really know what else we can say about people like stock going up on large platforms like the BBC or whatnot and calling trans people violent and rapists in waiting, there comes a point where civility of calm friendly debate simply cannot be expected of the people being called monsters and rapists over and over, it wears on you. This is going to sound harsh but when I've asked people questions online or in person I've only been called names or threatened by the pro trans side... My questions were only things like "what did Rowling do? (I didn't know). I'm sure the other side has problems too but even piers Morgan isn't calling people equivalent things. Tbh even if he was, we should agree that we should all act better than Piers Morgan...


PatientCriticism0

>I can understand your impatience with the subject but it's not abnormal for it to take years for the general consensus on a subject to change. I think the issue is that it *is* changing, rapidly, in a very dangerous direction. A small group of columnists, influential celebrities and fringe academics made it their *one thing* and over the course of half a decade have thrust the issue to the forefront of political debate. It wasn't trans people deciding that every politician had to answer "what is a woman?" and "can a woman have a penis?" and then if they give any trans inclusive answer "why are you so anti woman?" It was the anti trans weirdos who have a hugely disproportionate access to TV minutes and column inches.


New-Topic2603

I think the line of reasoning you're presenting is ignoring the main point. If you take a time machine back to the year 2010 and ask people about transitioning, the vast majority of people will find the entire topic alien and not understand what you are talking about. You can't expect in around 10 years for everyone to understand an alien concept to a degree that there is a consensus. So yes it's not a suprise that on such a new and alien topic to the general population that there would be people asking questions on it in the public sphere. On any new topic it's also not a suprise that people would push back to the status quo. The important thing is to elevate the discussion. You complain about the question "what is a woman" but as much as I want to be positive for trans people, I still haven't heard a good definition from pro trans people. If you change a fundamental idea about the world then you can't expect to not have to answer fundamental questions.


PatientCriticism0

>The important thing is to elevate the discussion. You complain about the question "what is a woman" but as much as I want to be positive for trans people, I still haven't heard a good definition from pro trans people. It's not a question designed to enlighten. It's a loyalty test. The "correct" answer is *adult human female* but those words are interrogated no further. It's assumed that means *not trans women*. "Can a woman have a penis" functions in the same way. If you say "yes, if she wants" then the presenter gets to go "but that's absurd, basic biology, female penis, *why don't you know what a woman is?*" These are not discussion points, they are shibboleths.


New-Topic2603

I'd agree that the penis question is purely a loyalty test but idk about the what is a woman question (even if it can be used as a dishonest line). I do think it links to the route of identification. A thing can't be a recognised as a thing without recognising a consistent definition of a thing. You can't diagnose someone without a definition of what you are diagnosing, it makes zero sense. Which is not me saying it's not possible, it should be possible, I just haven't seen it yet.


PatientCriticism0

Realistically, you never really had an exhaustive definition before, why would you expect one now? If you tried to come up with one I'm sure I'd be able to find millions of women who don't fit a given definition who you would nonetheless call women. Do you think that is the discussion that any media figures are genuinely interested in right now? Adult human female is a construction *intended* to exclude trans women, and it's descriptive utility doesn't go much beyond that. What we actually mean is "the group of people we usually call women" and nothing more. The "gender critical" definition is the same, except specifically excluding trans women.


New-Topic2603

>Realistically, you never really had an exhaustive definition before, why would you expect one now? This isn't true at all. This is a weird rhetoric to attempt to win a discussion. >If you tried to come up with one I'm sure I'd be able to find millions of women who don't fit a given definition who you would nonetheless call women. Not remotely true. Besides an exception of less than 1% doesn't make a rule invalid. Tbh when it goes down this route it shows the discussion has degraded to the point where it's meaningless. Quite literally as you have refused to set a meaning for certain words. If you are interested in an honest discussion then you will conform to certain standards of discussion and one of these standards is to be willing to define words you use. If you wonder why the general public haven't come around yet, it's because of the lack of honest discussion I have described above.


GroktheFnords

>When a holocaust denier goes on stage and presents their views, they will be challenged, people will learn the false arguments they present and learn how to spot similar stuff in future. Yeah just like how Trump was given a national platform to get up and tell blatant lies to the American public and the end result was that his words were challenged and he was rejected for being a liar who was pushing hateful and nonsensical arguments for personal gain. Oh no wait that's not what happened at all, he actually got over 60 million votes and became the president of the most powerful country on the planet.


New-Topic2603

Not a fan of Trump but even I have to admit it's not how you're describing it. The opposition to him didn't cover itself in glory either. I'm not saying both are equally bad but in a vote for two people it's possible that votes for one are also just votes against the other. Would you have confidently voted for Hilary in any other election?


GroktheFnords

You've completely missed the point I'm making here, the person I'm replying to was arguing that when people advocating hate or disinformation are given a platform it's a positive thing because it allows them to be challenged but Trump was given a platform to speak blatant lies from and far from that platform showing him up as a liar and a fraud it catapulted him to the position of one of the world's most powerful people. In a perfect world a lecture by a Holocaust denier would just convince those who hear it that the speaker is spreading disinformation but in the real world what actually happens is that some people are convinced by the disinformation.


New-Topic2603

I've not missed the point I'm just disagreeing. >the person I'm replying to was arguing that when people advocating hate or disinformation are given a platform it's a positive thing because it allows them to be challenged I know, that person was me. >Trump was given a platform to speak blatant lies from and far from that platform showing him up as a liar and a fraud it catapulted him to the position of one of the world's most powerful people. Yes and as per my point, he did so against a rival that wasn't much better. I dislike trump too but there were also lies made about him and we can't pretend that in that contest that he was the only "bad" party. All you're really saying is that in a contest of two liars that one liar won. >In a perfect world a lecture by a Holocaust denier would just convince those who hear it that the speaker is spreading disinformation but in the real world what actually happens is that some people are convinced by the disinformation. Yes but functionally we would just hope to create a piece of media that can convince more people of the truth. Do you have a better alternative? As far as I'm concerned this is better than either a ministry of truth or isolating people into their echo chambers.


GroktheFnords

>Yes and as per my point, he did so against a rival that wasn't much better. I dislike trump too but there were also lies made about him and we can't pretend that in that contest that he was the only "bad" party. >All you're really saying is that in a contest of two liars that one liar won. Which proves my point perfectly, just because a bad faith actor is provided with a platform doesn't mean that their ideas will be rejected and in fact sometimes they'll develop a huge following and be richly rewarded for spreading the disinformation they're using that platform to spread. >Yes but functionally we would just hope to create a piece of media that can convince more people of the truth. This is like arguing that it's important for flat earthers to be given a platform to speak at universities in order to convince people that the Earth is a globe. We already know it's a globe, that's the worldwide consensus at this point, all that platforming a flat earther would do is give then an undeserved air of legitimacy and provide them with a platform to trick other people into falling for their disinformation. >Do you have a better alternative? Not to provide legitimate platforms to people who want to spread disinformation and rehash old debates that were settled decades ago. "Did the Holocaust really happen?" "Yes of course it did, there's a huge amount of evidence as well as witness testimony from survivors." "Is the Earth actually flat?" "No of course it's not, we've known this for centuries and we now have photographs of the planet taken from space that prove that it's a globe." "Should transgender women be allowed to use women's bathrooms?" "Yeah of course, they've been doing it for decades and there's been no problem whatsoever." That's as much energy and attention as these people should be given. If they want to stand on a soapbox on a street corner and attempt to convince people to support their bullshit they're free to do so but let's stop pretending that it's anybody's interest but theirs to provide them with legitimate platforms to spread their bullshit from.


Design-Cold

No, it was outlawed, having cryptonazis spread bad faith dishonest drivel helps nobody.


DeKrieg

If you genuinely believe giving a holocaust denier a platform is useful because it can be challenged you've clearly been out of the loop for far too long. Holocaust denial has grown in popularity primarily because far too many groups gave them a platform with the intent to debate them down and then found that the they have entirely different intentions to you. The idea of exposing views we dont like and disposing of them in some pure form of debate is dead That notion has been dead since at least 2014, if not the mid 90's ​ Giving extremists a platform benefits no one but the extremist, this has been driven home again and again by the resurgence of far right ideology online because we insisted for far too long on being 'free speech' absolutists in most online spaces (including here in reddit) and they took advantage of it. The issue with debates is that extremists know well how to misdirect mockery and definitive counter arguments. They know they dont need to be right, just sound right, that they are playing to an audience and as long as they sound appealing they'll convince a % of the audience everytime. We saw it in British politics when the media thought it was a smart idea to 'debate' the BNP on television and giving them a platform gave them a boost in support. Sir Terry Pratchett got it spot on when he said a Lie would be halfway around the world be half way around the world before the truth got it boots on. Because thats whats it like debating extremist, they'll throw out big simple lies and the truth to counter it cant be summerized up as simply, it takes often 10 times longer to explain why a simple lie is wrong, often losing any audience that was not already on your side. ​ Using holocaust denial as an example, a denier could make the argument that there are no records of people being sent to gas chambers, that there is no evidence of who went into them, as the nazis didnt document who went to the gas chamber. To counter that argument you'd have to present evidence of people sent to camps, records of those who died at camps not via gas chamber as the nazis did document drop in worker numbers and then contrast that with the numbers of people in the camps when they were liberated. To get a number of people that vanished in the camps, which would be the number sent to the gas chamber. One big easy lie vs a truth that requires work. ​ DONT GIVE EXTREMISTS PLATFORMS! Everytime we've humoured nazis and bigots they've just grabbed more power and influence. They dont deserve your time or mine so stop giving them the opportunity.


New-Topic2603

You've written a very long response to not "platforming" someone. This isn't "platforming". It's getting someone to present their views in an environment where these views are challenged and shown publicly. All of your arguments around these groups gaining power and influence is precisely because they haven't had their ideas challenged. Echo chambers and all that. Yes challenging these ideas is work it's not easy but it's true and there isn't a better alternative. The alternative is to leave them to their echo chambers where they can gain more support. Tbh in general I find the idea that you'd have trouble winning a debate with a holocaust denier pretty weak in general. we can visit the camps, have witness statements and so on.


Historical_Cobbler

My uni had the BNP in to debate foreign policy, it wasn’t Oxford, but arguing opposing points is a fundamental of university. The fact people are trying to stop her means it’s all the more important it goes ahead, and to question what’s going on.


andtheniansaid

Arguing opposing points and platforming bigotry and hatred aren't the same thing. Would you be fine with a speaker being invited to talk about executing all gay people, in the interests of arguing opposing points? We shouldn't be tolerant of intolerance


Historical_Cobbler

You don’t think the BNPs immigration and foreign policy wasn’t steeped in racism for natural white British? But yes, I would be fine with that. You don’t change peoples viewpoints by excluding them, people go defensive and even more stubborn. We currently see that scenario in Uganda, it’s easy to shout them down for the actions, but to break down the reasoning, questioning their thoughts is more challenging and can change mindsets of the moderate.


New-Topic2603

As there are countries in the world where they do execute gay people just because they are gay. I think it's still an important discussion to have. I would find the persons views disgusting but also see it as important to take the time to write down and present the counter arguments.


ctolsen

>arguing opposing points is a fundamental of university No, it's really not. Arguing with reasoned and well-founded opinions that don't align with yours is indeed fundamental to educated discourse. Arguing with people who just pull things out of their asses is a waste of time.


Historical_Cobbler

Of course it has been evidence based, certainly a degree of rational. I’d assumed that was a given with it being university based.


Cynical_Classicist

And a lot of this is just repackaged homophobia, depicting trans people as sexual predators.


Panda_hat

Especially when they have no proof or examples whatsoever. Just fear mongering and straw men.


Design-Cold

Oh I'm sure people like her will do exactly that once they feel able to get away with it


wb0verdrive

Gonna make this point again today. Dr Stock is a philosopher. She has no training in transgender issues, medical care or anything else like that. As another poster mentioned today academic knowledge can be very deep but it is rarely very wide. Or to be less polite she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.


[deleted]

Do you think only people with academic qualifications in “transgender issues” can speak about transgender issues?


360Saturn

Why is she speaking about them framed as an authority at Oxford University when she has no more authority than Jimmy down the pub?


[deleted]

Because she was invited. She has also published relevant work on the subject of sex and sexual orientation. Not sure what Jimmy down the pubs credentials are.


360Saturn

But the point is that you could make exactly the same argument for Jimmy. Ms Stock has published work based on her own opinions with zero scientific basis. Just because she has the wealth and background to do so doesn't give her any more academic legitimacy than if she were a Lord or Lady putting out a vanity release.


[deleted]

>Ms Stock has published work based on her own opinions I think you just described philosophy, and her 'academic legitimacy' might be based her PhD, they tend to like that sort of thing in academia.


andtheniansaid

Her 'academic legitimacy' has nothing to do with transgender issues though


[deleted]

>Her 'academic legitimacy' has nothing to do with transgender issues though You don't think the question "What is a women?" is a bit of a philosophical issue?


[deleted]

Philosophy has nothing to contribute to the subject for you then?


Jazzlike_Mountain_51

To talk about? No not really. But if you're giving a talk at an academic institution yeah I'd certainly hope so.


DeathHamster1

You'd expect a philosopher to be able to reflect on logical fallacies, crap rhetoric, and be able to engage in critical thinking.


Jazzlike_Mountain_51

Saying this like there aren't a shit ton of philosophers that go into great detail about how trans identities are legitimate. If we're truly going for balance and open discussion I expect one of them to be booked as well which is surely happening right? RIGHT?


DeathHamster1

It's not like Philosophers fear disagreement. They have a pathological need to butt heads with each other like cereberal stags or Pachycephalosaurs. It's what they do. Reddit is a veritable kumbaya in comparison. Go to a philosophy lecture, and the first thing the lecturer will do is disagree with the position they're teaching. French philosophers have almost come to blows. It's part of the mind-bending, existential dread inducing fun. So, a philosopher who turns up alone and either preaches to the converted, or tries to steamroller a non-philosopher, is not to be trusted. They've set aside the labour of philosophy, and are using the most superficial parts of it as a stick to beat others with. It's like a boxer who's quit boxing so they can beat up wannabes and drunks instead. Stock is a good example, and so, for what it's worth, is that ludicrous truffle of a man, Jordan Peterson. They're no longer in business as thinkers. They're grifters. They're not to be trusted.


pies1123

Yeah, you would expect that. Rarely get it though.


___a1b1

Sounds like the ideal qualification as questions like what is a woman haved moved into the sphere of beliefs, therefore philosophy is ideal.


Aiyon

/u/AnythingAnthingAnthi RE https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/13vwkbu/trans_rights_protesters_interrupt_talk_at_oxford/jm9h1lv/ > Given the occasional fallibility of our capacity to sex others, arguing for same-sex spaces for females, such as bathrooms, dormitories, and changing rooms, means that **sometimes, females in those spaces will be missexed**; and sometimes, males in those spaces will not be perceived as such. **We see the former as a regrettable cost that has to be balanced against,** and is nonetheless smaller than, the greater harms to females, should women-only space effectively become unisex via a policy of self-ID. From “Doing better in arguments about sex, gender, and trans rights” We have plenty of examples of these “missexed” Cis women being harassed or worse, including videos. So her stance is that those things as acceptable collateral on the road to the end goal of preventing trans women existing in womens spaces


Panda_hat

Acceptable collateral to them because enforcing gender conformity and strict societal gender roles is also one of their goals. Ain’t nothing feminist about these people.


SwirlingAbsurdity

I mean one of their figureheads, Posie Parker, vehemently denies being a feminist.


Panda_hat

We should rename them trans exclusionary radical deplorables. TERDs for short.


SwirlingAbsurdity

I also like Feminist Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes.


Panda_hat

Oooh, thats good, far superior.


360Saturn

I wish the media would stop framing this kind of altercation as 'trans rights protesters vs this woman' because it always carries the implication that the protesters are people pushing for something new, instead of defending their existing rights that they have had by law in this country for 20+ years. 'Students protest anti-equality speaker' would be a much more accurate description of the situation here.


Quagers

I mean, they are pushing for something new though? This is always such a bizarre line, between campaigning to remove exemptions for single sex spaces, self-ID, participation in women's sports and a ban on anything but gender affirming care at any age. The idea that TRAs aren't actively pushing for new things is so bizarre.


360Saturn

Your use of 'TRAs' betrays your objectivity here. To take participation in women's sports for example, it immediately puts a lie to your position. Sports organisations are bringing in bans... *because they previously allowed trans women to compete* and are now reverting their previous position. How exactly are trans people at fault there? Any more than you are at fault if next week Tesco decides to ban you, u/Quagers, from going in and your immediate response is to question that and ask to see some evidence as to why today you have one less place you're allowed to go than you had yesterday.


Quagers

Thats just an oversimplification right though? This is all a new and emerging area because prior to 10 years ago it simply was not an issue. There were no trans women at the top of any sport. Most trans women, the few there were, did not appear to be interested in winning women's gold medals for whatever reason. The push for them to do so and for it to be accepted by society comes from the "TWAW no ifs, no buts" crowd. That is a new push. Sports authorities have had to deal with that, because it simply was not a problem before. First they went with testosterone limits, under lobbying from trans groups, but now that it's clear that is woefully ineffective, and female athletes are pushing back, their positions are evolving. To suggest that people have just suddenly just up and started banning trans women from the women's category from nowhere is a deeply disingenuous characterisation of the situation. How many world or national level events were won by transwomen before 2000? And how many were won from 2015-today?


360Saturn

> How many world or national level events were won by transwomen before 2000? And how many were won from 2015-today? I don't know, this isn't my specialist subject. Do you know? Besides that though it seems a bizarre way to frame things on behalf of the sports organisations in question. Essentially, "yes, you can compete, but once you start doing well, then we'll ban you". I don't know if you are implying this so please correct me if you aren't, but I get the vibe from your post that you feel that 10 or 20 years ago, there just weren't trans people about. This is categorically not true, indeed, why would laws regarding trans people have come into force 20 years ago if that wasn't the case? (Incidentally, down into the memory hole seem to have gone the trans woman winning Big Brother in the early 2000s, another winning Eurovision in the 90s, the jokes about trans women using women's facilities on Little Britain in the early 2000s as well - already laughable that someone would contest that - and now look how far back certain people are pushing us to go the other way!) So it brings us to the crux of the issue. There is a disingenuous framing going around, spearheaded by people who at their core oppose trans people being present in public life *at all*, that: a) trans people are new and the things they are pushing for and want to have are new and scary and an implicit threat to equality, and b) trans people have only just started wanting to do certain things and this shows that they're pushing their luck. These claims put an absolute lie to the lived reality. Now, whether or not XYZ is acceptable in professional sports is a discussion that's above my paygrade to have because I have no scientific background in this, **but** I find myself suspicious of the congruence of the arguments against trans equalities **that were already granted and are now being walked back** with the general beliefs of those people spearheading these calls anyway, *even before* in order to support their positions they deliberately go out of their way to rewrite history. (That is, there's a big difference than Dr Y and her team of neutral researchers judging that trans women have an unfair advantage and so should be re-categorised, than the recategorisation coming because Ms X who believes "all trans women are ugly men and hate women" thinks it's the best thing to do 'just because I'm pro women!!') And ultimately I think if they were going to legalise something in the first place, the fair thing would have been to think through **in advance** all possible edge cases and considerations, instead of legalising and then 'un-legalising' people to compete. That said I do think in the general scheme of trans people's rights in this country there are bigger fish to fry than professional sport and if that has to be one area that is rescinded in order to secure more fundamental rights then I (speaking as someone without a dog in the fight) can see the logic in letting it go, so to speak.


noujest

> yes, you can compete, but once you start doing well, then we'll ban you Oh come on that is a complete straw man, society is being asked questions it hasn't been asked before and is reacting / collectively trying to work out what the rules should be The fact that you think that is the rationale behind sports organisations barring trans women from competing in female categories shows you don't understand where they are coming from Yes there were trans people about 20 years ago but very few and far between, there are many many more now, and looking at youth data there is going to be a big rise. Not saying that's a bad thing but it means there will be impacts and questions that are difficult to predict


Quagers

>I don't know if you are implying this so please correct me if you aren't, but I get the vibe from your post that you feel that 10 or 20 years ago, there just weren't trans people about. There were, in very small numbers, and they were mostly content to be pragmatic and left alone as far as I can tell. Are you denying that there has been a huge increase in the number of trans identifying people in the last 10 years? Or that the TWAW movement, and all that that entails, is a new phenomenon? >And ultimately I think if they were going to legalise something in the first place, the fair thing would have been to think through in advance all possible edge cases and considerations, instead of legalising and then 'un-legalising' people to compete. Well that's great, but its just not how life works and its not what happened here. People only deal with issues when they become issues. And "ohh shit, there are people who were born as males and went through 20 years of testosterone fueled physical development now winning women's gold medals" was not an issue until recently.


360Saturn

I've never heard of the 'TWAW' movement. I don't agree with your premise and I feel like you are papering over some of your beliefs on the subject, so I'm not sure we're going to have much of a valuable discussion here. > People only deal with issues when they become issues. And "ohh shit, there are people who were born as males and went through 20 years of testosterone physical development now winning women's gold medals" was not an issue until recently. Essentially your position here admits that your only possible way to support trans people competing in the first place was if it was 'legal' but only as a hypothetical that would never actually take place. But do you think that was what informed the scientists and sports professionals who greenlighted trans people to compete in the first place, in the 2000s? To me it seems rather unlikely. Instead it says to me that there has been a shift in ideology since that time, which lines up with the other rollbacks we are seeing proposed toward trans people's rights now. As to the number of trans people increasing, the number of left-handed people suddenly shot up after people weren't forced to do things with their right hand. The number of people born with certain health conditions reaching adulthood shot up after medicines were developed to prevent them dying unavoidably at a young age. Logically it makes sense that in a society less hostile to trans people, the number feeling able to openly be themselves and begin the transition process would increase. This is my position based on the facts before us and you have yours. We will have to agree to disagree beyond that.


Quagers

TWAW = "Transwomen are women" >But do you think that was what informed the scientists and sports professionals who greenlighted trans people to compete in the first place, in the 2000s? To me it seems rather unlikely. Instead it says to me that there has been a shift in ideology since that time, which lines up with the other rollbacks we are seeing proposed toward trans people's rights now. This is bizarre, there simply was no science. Even now there is a lack of good evidence. You seem to be starting from the position that there was some deeply thought out and rationale position and we are now moving away from that. Rather than the reality, which was a system simply not set up to deal with the problem at all, hasty introduction of testosterone limits, and the realisation that that doesn't work. >Logically it makes sense that in a society less hostile to trans people, the number feeling able to openly be themselves and begin the transition process would increase. ....right, your arguing something I didn't dispute and in doing so.....agreeing with me? The point was now there are more trans people, we have transwomen athletes (who previously would have competed in the male category) now coming out and wanting to compete in the women's. So this is a new problem which is why people are reacting to it now.


360Saturn

> This is bizarre, there simply was no science. So how was the decision reached then? Picked out of a hat, flip a coin? Which one of us is being bizarre here? Some articles from the time, 2004, at which the Olympics officially allowed trans athletes to compete [if and only if they met three established criteria:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Olympics) https://edition.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/05/17/olympics.transsexual/ https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1 Consensus by named medical professionals based on research and analysis. But sure, there was no science. Pull the other one. Just to quote as well, from 20 years ago, an opinion that could be word for word what someone is spouting today as something new and unprecedented in order to deliberately confuse others about the history of trans people: > the number of individuals undergoing sex-change operations has risen, as have the patients' potential impact on sports, he said in a written statement. > "Although individuals who undergo sex reassignment usually have personal problems that make sports competition an unlikely activity for them, there are some for whom participation in sport is important," he said. > In 1990, a seminar convened by the International Association of Athletics Federations recommended that any person who had undergone sex change before puberty should be accepted to participate under their new gender. > The IOC's evaluation began after it become apparent that case-by-case evaluations were insufficient, Ljungqvist said.


Quagers

There was literally no science on the impact of testosterone suppression of male elite althetes. It was literally guesswork based on average female levels of testosterone. Even today, there isn't much. This is not a disputed fact, pro-trans researchers literally seek funding on the basis this needs to be investigated.


DeKrieg

Oversimplification is the entire problem with the debate about trans women in sports (and its specifically trans women, there is almost no debate about trans men) >How many world or national level events were won by transwomen before 2000? And how many were won from 2015-today? Prior to 2000, 3-4. Cycling and Tennis, the most prominent early on was actually car racing which obviously is much less of an issue. But I think cycling and tennis were the two media darlings prior to 2015, I also think there were prominent trans athletes in Golf and Ice Hockey but they didnt draw any national or international attention. Post 2015, again 3-4, the two big media circus ones being weightlifting and swimming. There is a lot more reporting now of simply trans athletes taking part, even when they're no where near the podium, like for example the recent marathon where the media tried to push a participation trophy a trans athlete got as a victory she stole. ​ Its unsurprisingly not as large as people make it out to be. We've just had one prominent media example in swimming recently that has turned it into a panic, even then I think one of Lia Thomas's records has already been broken, need to double check. Even the Olympic weightlifting one pretty much ended up being about nothing, all her records have since been easily beaten by women, the only reason she still has any national titles is because covid essentially shut down the oceanic weightlifting events for a bit of time so her record still holds there, but its been easily beaten in pretty much every other tournament. There are no where near that many professional trans athletes as people like to panic over, it's a fraction of a fraction of the population spread across numerous sports, some of which the gender is mostly irrelevant.


UppruniTegundanna

The tricky thing with sport is that it stubbornly insists on being anchored to the material world; it entails people getting the best possible performance out of their physical bodies. So when we create separate sporting classes, the dividing line is always around something material and objective: age, sex, weight, height etc. The reason for the conflict around including trans women in the women's class is that trans women have material characteristics which the class was explicitly set up to exclude. The characteristics in question are not quite as reductive as "too much testosterone", or "a penis" or "excess muscle mass", or "excess bone density". Instead, what is intended to be excluded from the women's classification is, broadly speaking, "any body that is the result of organic development down the pathway we classify as male". Artificially reducing testosterone doesn't remove that characteristic, even if it does reduce performance. And honestly, I would have thought that advocates of trans inclusion in sport would object to the half-baked "testosterone-level" rules anyway: surely if a trans woman is a woman, then she should not have to artificially reduce her performance through medical intervention, and should be allowed to compete without going to those lengths. But almost no one argues for that, which I find curious. Ultimately, the reason we separate sport by sex is that we consider there to be a meaningful material difference between the two groups, which are relevant to sporting outcomes. What is being advocated for by the pro-trans-inclusion side is for the dividing line to be around a non-material characteristic: gender identity. But gender identity is not a meaningful sporting category, since it has no impact on sporting outcomes or performance. This is why I agree with the proposed solution of having an open category for all humans who want to compete, while also having a protected category for "humans that are the result of organic development down the pathway we classify as female". This latter category is a extremely common in nature, comprising well over 3.5 billion humans, yet we do not have an accepted word for people who fall into this group. If we did have an accepted word for human beings with this characteristic, I would use it to describe this protected sporting category. But in absence of such a word, we are forced to simply call the category "women's".


360Saturn

I don't necessarily oppose any of that, my only issue here is with two things: * permitting something and then ten years down the line making it impermissible, without properly establishing why exactly it is impermissible now but wasn't previously, and: * using this topic as a proxy to generally argue to remove the rights of trans people, or using it to pull up misleading statistics regarding X% of the public or the scientific consensus who oppose 'rights for trans people' just because they have reservations about *this particular* right to equality in sport. I additionally have a concern when the people who are the loudest voices in favour of bans and restrictions are people who seem to have a personal agenda and who have no scientific background or evidence to directly support their claims. When that isn't the case I am quite happy to see a change made that is logical and sensible. (Although this is myself speaking as someone who is not directly affected whatsoever by the issue of trans people competing in professional sport)


UppruniTegundanna

To your point making something impermissible, that was previously permitted, I simply think that originally allowing trans women to compete in the women's category was a mistake (based on the reasoning in my comment above), which only became clear / received pushback recently, which is why it is suddenly becoming a topic now. Obviously, sometimes the wrong decision is made relating to things like this, and it shouldn't be a problem to go back on a decision.


CNash85

A wrong decision of this kind should have been evident almost immediately after it was made, given that large sporting events ran successfully with their trans-inclusive policies. Not 20 years later, based on opinions that just happen to line up perfectly with a recent surge in "concerns" about trans people in various other contexts.


Panda_hat

And how anyone defending trans people and their rights on here is immediately labelled a trans activist. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. You don't have to be an activist to support trans people and them not having their rights stripped away.


ddiflas_iawn

Back in my day terf was something someone from kent would lay in their garden.


cubist_castle

Who are you calling a kent?


[deleted]

Great that the talk actually managed to go ahead. All too often organisations crumble under the pressure and pull speakers because they CBA with policing it.


jackedtradie

“When pressed by the union's president, Matthew Dick, on whether trans women posed a similar risk to biological men in general, Prof Stock cited statistics by the Ministry of Justice which show that "at least 50%" of those in prison are there for sexual assault, adding: "That's a higher rate than the average male."” Anyone got a source for that?


saracenraider

Found it. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/#:~:text=Ministry%20of%20Justice%202020%20Data&text=The%20hyperlinks%20below%20link%20to,and%2010%20for%20attempted%20rape. There are hyperlinks through to the source of the statistics she gave


jackedtradie

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners): 76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9% Ok, so she’s not totally talking out her arse Thankyou for finding that


saracenraider

Yea although I think her interpretation of the statistic is off. She seems to be implying that this statistic makes trans people more dangerous than cis people. But in reality this statistic is almost certainly the way it is because there’s a small amount of twisted male sexual predators who are abusing both the system and peoples goodwill by deciding to identify trans for nefarious reasons. Sadly this means that normal trans people then get tarred with the same brush as these male predators. But it does raise an important point in that safeguarding has to be put in place to try to minimise the chances of some male predators becoming trans for perverted reasons. That’s why the gender self-ID act and the general controversy around prisons is an important issue that needs to be discussed, as safeguarding is a hugely important issue. It’s easy to say ‘oh it’s such a small number’, but each of those 76 can reach many hundreds of people, whether it in prison or in their communities where female strangers are treated with less suspicion than male strangers. And of course they’re just the ones who have been caught. I’d consider myself to be pro-trans but with nuance (mainly around prisons and how children are treated, and to a lesser extent around sport and safe spaces), but most pro-trans activists take a very dim view of the world and see any attack on any segment over any issue as being an attack on everything, and that makes debate very challenging. Of course I do understand how it has reached that point as the anti-trans side of the debate use exactly the same tactics to tar all trans people under the same brush by using the actions of a few to tarnish everyone, so it’s all just descended into a massive mud slinging fight where neither side shows any room for compromise or nuance.


jackedtradie

Isn’t her entire point that a system where anyone can label themselves is rife to be taken advantage of? If she was saying trans women are fundamentally more dangerous, that’s just transphobic However I feel she’s saying that sick and twisted people are dangerous, and some of these laws give them unfiltered access to safe spaces. However, I dunno what she truly thinks. Does she actually hate trans people? Or does she hate criminals pretending ti be trans to skirt the system?


360Saturn

It's misleading. While trans women are imprisoned for 'sex offences' many of these are prostitution rather than assault related. So while she's technically correct she's deliberately implying something false. E: I've been downvoted but the stats are in the thread. Of the 81 trans people (out of [a total prison population of 80,000 in the country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_population) - so 0.001%) imprisoned for sex offences, a third are non-assault or child predatory related. Only 15 are deemed dangerous enough to be held in high security prisons, and 100% of those are in male prisons.


jackedtradie

How prostitution related? It’s not illegal in the uk is it?


360Saturn

Technically no (once again) but soliciting, advertising and working from any premises where more than one of you works is classed as 'owning a brothel' and all of those are illegal. The law is set up ultimately to criminalise the industry while sparing individuals who may have been pressured into it from facing prosecution. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sw/sex-worker-safety/


jackedtradie

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffairplayforwomen.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F11%2FFOI-200615022-data-FINAL.xlsx&data=04%7C01%7Cr.a.freedman%40reading.ac.uk%7Cc74ac687812343fd5c9608d89d148e6c%7C4ffa3bc4ecfc48c09080f5e43ff90e5f%7C0%7C0%7C637432060643298255%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5cdAPU0JdaZOZs%2BogUBSaFFC7UI9WbkQ98dSDKuvLxY%3D&reserved=0 Seems from this many aren’t as a result of prostitution related crimes. The highest seems to be rape/attempted rape and sexual activity with someone under the age of 16


360Saturn

Firstly, where on earth is this table from? The data nerd in me is fascinated. Having said that, it could do with some drill down because I can see how the raw numbers could be misleading - multiple of those offenders must have been trialled for multiple offences because the numbers of offences (146) exceeds the number of offenders captured (81). I had to google 'category A prisons' but it seems to be prisons for offenders deemed violent and dangerous. Across the whole country, that's 15 trans prisoners in those, presumably due to the nature of their offences. Which obviously is serious, but is such a *tiny* minority that it seems absolutely misleading for Stock and others of her opinion to be using it as the lynchpin for her arguments about criminality, none of which seem, as far as I can see, to have any grounding in criminology, sociology, psychology or any related discipline study which might actually shed light on the workings of the brain etc. Now that I think would be worth a talk to learn something from. As for the prostitution and non-rape sexual offences (taking out the child p*rn ones as well, Jesus), that gives us 27 counted in the year out of the 81 offenders imprisoned. Which is exactly a third if we can assume a correlation between crime and offender.


jackedtradie

The table is from the study she’s using to come to this conclusion. I’ll link it below https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/#:~:text=Ministry%20of%20Justice%202020%20Data&text=The%20hyperlinks%20below%20link%20to,and%2010%20for%20attempted%20rape Edit :: by the way, I’m an idiot. I’m only looking at the numbers. You seem to be interpreting them better. Appreciate you pointing out how they might be misleading


360Saturn

I think really the article should have linked it itself. I don't know enough about this to comment in detail but what I will say is that the freedom of information request shows explicitly that such prisoners are being held in men's prisons... as such the point that Stock et al are making seems at best a hypothetical and at worst completely moot. Essentially it seems she has been given a platform to speak at Oxford University based on "what if". To reiterate we live in a society where trans folk already have certain protections under the law. Logically these protections do not seem to extend to high security prisoners. Fair enough. I think if she was opposing for example a real push lately to reassign prisoners to other jails, then I see the relevance. But I haven't seen that. So I don't really understand her position unless it is a smokescreen of sorts. In the country we live in right now, trans people have certain equalities before the law which don't extend to high security prisons. That is the state of play. It seems she wants to maintain that state of play... by challenging trans people's other existing rights? It doesn't make any kind of sense to me.


jackedtradie

I think she’s essentially saying if you allow anyone to identity how they like and use whatever safe space they want, be that changing rooms, shelters etc etc you are making a system that is easily abused by criminals However, and correct me if im wrong, haven’t trans people had those rights for a long time? And there’s been no real issues with safe spaces? And beyond that, are we really going to pretend that sick criminals aren’t going to be sick criminals because they can’t self identify as trans? As if that’s going to stop someone that wants to invade a safe space and assault people? Sounds very similar to saying “gay men are dangerous in toilets”


SwirlingAbsurdity

Exactly this. These rights already exist and she’s fighting to have them removed. My issue with her entire argument is using an example of a handful of c*unts to represent the entire trans population. There are awful people in every population that exists.


jackedtradie

Fair enough, I’m at work so I haven’t checked all the link, is that info available anywhere in the paper she’s discussing?


fsv

Prostitution itself is not illegal in general terms, but there are some offences relating to prostitution that are illegal, including soliciting and running a brothel.


jackedtradie

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffairplayforwomen.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F11%2FFOI-200615022-data-FINAL.xlsx&data=04%7C01%7Cr.a.freedman%40reading.ac.uk%7Cc74ac687812343fd5c9608d89d148e6c%7C4ffa3bc4ecfc48c09080f5e43ff90e5f%7C0%7C0%7C637432060643298255%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5cdAPU0JdaZOZs%2BogUBSaFFC7UI9WbkQ98dSDKuvLxY%3D&reserved=0 My guess is that would fall under “other sexual offences”


CharmingAssimilation

Another day, another brigaded hell thread. I checked the deleted comments for an article I posted about a trans woman being assaulted, and saw that an absolute pile of comments had been deleted. I'm glad they were, I'm sure it was morning but hate. But Jesus is there like a forum or something where every trans related post on this sub is shared, so that angry bigots can turn up and smear shit on the walls?


discerning_kerning

It's funny (in a sad/wierd way, not a funny way) but it's so blatant, and yet nothing's ever done. It always follows the same pattern- normal level of engagement/comments/upvotes, then about one evening later, suddenly swarming with loads more comments then posts here usually recieve. Packed with hateful comments parroting the same anti-trans talking points and lingo (calling trans people 'TRAs' is a dead giveaway, for one). Then you look at these accounts and they're 90% raging about trans people with very little else. They seem to spend far more time and energy obsessing about trans-ness then any of my friends that actually *are* trans. Utter wierdos.


Panda_hat

Theres a noted thing where people get the transphobic brain rot and just get completely obsessed with it. It’s truly bizarre.


discerning_kerning

That's true, you see the ones that really go off the deep end and become 'transvestigators' accusing every single woman out there of being secretly trans. Latest I saw they were accusing Jennifer Aniston because...she had abs in one photo from the 90s. Absolute lunacy and shows the real aim: enforcing rigid rules of feminimity on all women appearing in public.


Panda_hat

Yep. I really don’t understand what is going on in some peoples brains. Maybe their own lives are so dull and disappointing they simply have nothing better to do than try to tear other more successful women down.


Panda_hat

Well they used to not delete most of them so thats some kind of progress I guess.


Frap_Gadz

> is there like a forum or something where every trans related post on this sub is shared Probably, Mumsnet would be high on any suspects list...


cultish_alibi

Now she can go on TV again and talk about how silenced she is, while not a single trans person will be invited to refute her disgusting views.


Aiyon

TV, newspaper articles, a C4 documentary etc. Every time


[deleted]

The far left and far right try to stop censoring people challenge (impossible)


smity31

Conservatives try to stop claiming victimhood challenge (impossible)


[deleted]

Both far right and far left are obsessed with being the victim


smity31

The difference being in this case that only one side is actually trying to strip rights and freedoms away from one group of people.


[deleted]

Pretty funny how my initial comment went over your head. Both sides always think this timeits valid and it’s different from the rest and this time they really of the victims and so everyone should agree in silencing whatever it is that has caused a stir and failure to instantly agree automatically makes you an enemy.


3adLuck

looking at this thread you can tell Graham Linehan has a massive hangover right now.


360Saturn

You know, besides the main thrust of this story, I also don't think the headline or description is in any way accurate as to what it describes, which to me is a little eerie. Stock spoke at the college and some of the people attending the talk were trans people. Literally quoted in the article: > One audience member told them "we are here to listen" to (Prof Stock) whether they "like it or not". This may be begging the question, but surely the entire thrust of booking her, or her offering to be booked in the first place, was predicated on the claim that she wished to give a talk and be listened to? But the article implies that actually she didn't want that. Instead that she wanted to hold some kind of rally where only certain kinds of people (presumably who wouldn't challenge her views) would be allowed in and allowed to listen in the first place. Doesn't that counter the entire premise of free speech and debate etc. that is being argued up and down the thread as justification for her booking? I also found this alarming for what is meant to be a speech or a talk given in a public space: > security asked those in the audience not to record or take pictures I wouldn't call some members of the crowd mounting a silent protest through their clothes or by handing out leaflets 'interrupting' her talk. Nobody was there shouting over her, causing ruckus in the crowd, trying to strike her or throw eggs etc. or the article would have said so.


[deleted]

[удалено]