Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
We're on the brink of World War 3, and we're still discussing whether or not women can have penises.
I suspect these two things are more linked than you might think. In terms of Maslow's pyramid of important stuff going on, this one is about as far removed from the basic necessities of life (food, security, a roof over your head) as you can get. The sort of thing you only really debate when absolutely everything else is settled.
However, in focusing on things like the trans issue, we have forgotten to focus on the important things. Food, security, a roof over our heads. All of which may be gone very soon. Truly fiddling while Rome burns.
Wanting to be safe from violence is a pretty basic need. Women wanting to be safe from male violence is a pretty essential need for women. Changing definitions so that women are less safe is pretty bloody important. It comes under "security" in your hierarchy of needs.
Your argument sounds an awful lot like the old "all men are potential rapists" trope. Do we lock up all men because every man is a potential rapist? Of course not. Do we label all trans women as "men" for the same reason? I would hope not, though there are always marginal cases.
But I will leave you to your fiddle, as Rome indeed burns.
bollox argument from you, if even one of them is a deviant it is one too many.
Just shut the fuck up Malcolm. Enlessly you convery a slime trail of poison. I and others have repeatedly tried to pick the good from the bad in your character. There is good, i'll admit. The efforts though have been wildly misplaced. I've had enough. You're an arse of the first rank, you are irresponsible beyond measure, and you're thick as a plank.
Has there ever been a discussion about trans without it descending into accusations of bigotry? I hate to "both sides" it, but both sides have a problem.
But there aren't two sides, are there? I suppose I am what a mindless gammon like @kyf_100 would call anti-trans, but what I am against is opportunistic shits pretending to be trans and screwing things up for women and for the genuinely trans.
Both sides have legitimate and persuasive positions, and I do not intend to endorse or reject either. But it's really not so helpful when discussions immediately descend into accusations of intolerance. It's a particularly bad debate because both sides tend to have a hair trigger for doing it.
More bollox, Ishmael is right , you cannot give carte blanche to deviants just to make a very very very small minority of transdressers feel a bit better.
Thanks, but if I wanted the opinion of a reception-level pinhead I'd have asked.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
We're on the brink of World War 3, and we're still discussing whether or not women can have penises.
I suspect these two things are more linked than you might think. In terms of Maslow's pyramid of important stuff going on, this one is about as far removed from the basic necessities of life (food, security, a roof over your head) as you can get. The sort of thing you only really debate when absolutely everything else is settled.
However, in focusing on things like the trans issue, we have forgotten to focus on the important things. Food, security, a roof over our heads. All of which may be gone very soon. Truly fiddling while Rome burns.
Wanting to be safe from violence is a pretty basic need. Women wanting to be safe from male violence is a pretty essential need for women. Changing definitions so that women are less safe is pretty bloody important. It comes under "security" in your hierarchy of needs.
Your argument sounds an awful lot like the old "all men are potential rapists" trope. Do we lock up all men because every man is a potential rapist? Of course not. Do we label all trans women as "men" for the same reason? I would hope not, though there are always marginal cases.
But I will leave you to your fiddle, as Rome indeed burns.
Don't be an utter twit. Are you seriously saying that the protection of women from sexual assault is a frivolous matter? And what is this "locking all men up" nonsense? Your rhetorical question should be "do we exclude men from womens' toilets and prisons?" except it doesn't really work because the answer is Yes we do.
Again, I find it just extraordinary that with all that's going on in the world right now, people are still obsessed with their hobby horse debates. Extraordinary.
I imagine a great deal more trans people are assaulted by men than trans people perform assaults on women. But hey ho, carry on with your hobby horse and bigotry.
Your fevered imagination bears no resemblence to reality. I have seen some bollox written on teh topic but you take the biscuit. A nutter.
Has there ever been a discussion about trans without it descending into accusations of bigotry? I hate to "both sides" it, but both sides have a problem.
But there aren't two sides, are there? I suppose I am what a mindless gammon like @kyf_100 would call anti-trans, but what I am against is opportunistic shits pretending to be trans and screwing things up for women and for the genuinely trans.
Both sides have legitimate and persuasive positions, and I do not intend to endorse or reject either. But it's really not so helpful when discussions immediately descend into accusations of intolerance. It's a particularly bad debate because both sides tend to have a hair trigger for doing it.
More bollox, Ishmael is right , you cannot give carte blanche to deviants just to make a very very very small minority of transdressers feel a bit better.
Thanks, but if I wanted the opinion of a reception-level pinhead I'd have asked.
@Farooq don't get your panties in a bunch turnip head.
Has there ever been a discussion about trans without it descending into accusations of bigotry? I hate to "both sides" it, but both sides have a problem.
But there aren't two sides, are there? I suppose I am what a mindless gammon like @kyf_100 would call anti-trans, but what I am against is opportunistic shits pretending to be trans and screwing things up for women and for the genuinely trans.
Both sides have legitimate and persuasive positions, and I do not intend to endorse or reject either. But it's really not so helpful when discussions immediately descend into accusations of intolerance. It's a particularly bad debate because both sides tend to have a hair trigger for doing it.
More bollox, Ishmael is right , you cannot give carte blanche to deviants just to make a very very very small minority of transdressers feel a bit better.
Thanks, but if I wanted the opinion of a reception-level pinhead I'd have asked.
@Farooq don't get your panties in a bunch turnip head.
I feel sad for you. I think you've got an actual real life medical problem. You're head's way off normal parameters. I strongly advise seeking help.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
We're on the brink of World War 3, and we're still discussing whether or not women can have penises.
I suspect these two things are more linked than you might think. In terms of Maslow's pyramid of important stuff going on, this one is about as far removed from the basic necessities of life (food, security, a roof over your head) as you can get. The sort of thing you only really debate when absolutely everything else is settled.
However, in focusing on things like the trans issue, we have forgotten to focus on the important things. Food, security, a roof over our heads. All of which may be gone very soon. Truly fiddling while Rome burns.
Wanting to be safe from violence is a pretty basic need. Women wanting to be safe from male violence is a pretty essential need for women. Changing definitions so that women are less safe is pretty bloody important. It comes under "security" in your hierarchy of needs.
Your argument sounds an awful lot like the old "all men are potential rapists" trope. Do we lock up all men because every man is a potential rapist? Of course not. Do we label all trans women as "men" for the same reason? I would hope not, though there are always marginal cases.
But I will leave you to your fiddle, as Rome indeed burns.
bollox argument from you, if even one of them is a deviant it is one too many.
So by the same logic, we should castrate all men if even one of them is a rapist? Ban all cars, in case even one of them is used in a hit and run? Lock up all black people, in case just one of them is a criminal?
There is something about the trans "debate" that sends a certain type of person utterly deranged, much as Brexit does with a certain crowd.
I suspect most of the people who are obsessed with trans bodies have never met a trans person in their entire life. I know at least half a dozen and not one strikes me as a potential rapist. All of them have reported threats, abuse, and even violence against them simply for being themselves, however.
But hey-ho. Let's carry on debating the right of trans people to exist, even while Putin flattens cities, Covid swallows Hong Kong and inflation decimates the economy. Penises! Who's got 'em, how long is Leon's? Those are the important questions.
Stock had a crowd of 100 or more anonymous masked & hooded demonstrators turn up on the University Open Day to intimate her, and call for her sacking.
"Forced out" or "Intimidated out" is quite a reasonable interpretation, I'd suggest.
It's not something that a 50 year old female academic should have to face, just for disagreeing with someone's opinion and expressing that disagreement publicly.
What about 40 year old or 30 year old female academics?
Emma Barnett has conducted a series of interviews with figures in this 'debate' on Woman's Hour, most recently Maya Forstater and Stock a few weeks ago. Barnett is pretty good at picking away at inconvenient truths for all the interviewees, particularly since I suspect her sympathies tend to be more in one direction.
I listened to the Stock interview while driving on the M8 and may have missed some of the nuance because I was duelling with an arsehole in a white van trying to undertake me, but the gist of it seemed to be that gender self identification was a 'fiction' compared to the necessary and immutable truth of sex, and people who had their feelings hurt by this were snowflakes (I paraphrase). Otoh Barnett pointed out to her that she had left her employer by choice and said university had made statements supporting her, Stock said she had 'felt' unsupported and under threat. Apparently some feelings are more important than others.
I'd say that a lot of the players in this (on both sides) have got high on their own supply of unfamiliar attention, and find it difficult to take that much offered piece of advice to step away from the keyboard.
Nah rubbish. Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community. Indeed many of them are people who have stood solidly behind minorities in that past and continue to do so. They are in no way being abusive towards the transgender community, they are simply putting forward a rational argument on a specific detail. They are certainly not trying to deprive them of a living or drive them out of their jobs.
Those attacking Stock for her views are doing all these things up to and including the threat of physical violence. To the extent that the police warned her to stay away from the University campus and advised her to get bodyguards.
Equating the two as you try to do is dishonest in the extreme.
"Those arguing for the biological basis for sex are not threatening the transgender community."
Depends - as so often - on tone and context.
Take the much profiled "Only women have a cervix".
If you're sat around just generally chewing the fat about body parts and biology - as per any normal Saturday - there is nothing wrong whatsoever with this statement. Because it's true. Or rather it's as close to being true as makes no difference. It's fine and dandy and most certainly not transphobic.
But it isn't *completely* true because there are many thousands of people - and that's just in the UK - who were born female but have transitioned to male. They have a certificate to prove this. They are therefore men. Legally they are. This is a fact. As much of a fact as that they were born female.
Now back to our (usually fine and dandy) statement that "Only women have a cervix" - if you come bowling in with this as a certain and perfect 100% fact in the context of the transgender debate what you are saying (deliberately) is that all those people referred to above, despite having gone through the F to M gender transition process and become men are actually NOT men. They are women. Because they have a cervix. Biology is destiny.
So the 'cervix' statement when delivered in this tone and context looks rather different, doesn't it? It's now nullifying the identity of trans people and effectively saying the whole notion of gender transition is a pretendy nonsense. And this IS transphobic. Or at least it very likely is.
We're on the brink of World War 3, and we're still discussing whether or not women can have penises.
I suspect these two things are more linked than you might think. In terms of Maslow's pyramid of important stuff going on, this one is about as far removed from the basic necessities of life (food, security, a roof over your head) as you can get. The sort of thing you only really debate when absolutely everything else is settled.
However, in focusing on things like the trans issue, we have forgotten to focus on the important things. Food, security, a roof over our heads. All of which may be gone very soon. Truly fiddling while Rome burns.
Wanting to be safe from violence is a pretty basic need. Women wanting to be safe from male violence is a pretty essential need for women. Changing definitions so that women are less safe is pretty bloody important. It comes under "security" in your hierarchy of needs.
Your argument sounds an awful lot like the old "all men are potential rapists" trope. Do we lock up all men because every man is a potential rapist? Of course not. Do we label all trans women as "men" for the same reason? I would hope not, though there are always marginal cases.
But I will leave you to your fiddle, as Rome indeed burns.
Don't be an utter twit. Are you seriously saying that the protection of women from sexual assault is a frivolous matter? And what is this "locking all men up" nonsense? Your rhetorical question should be "do we exclude men from womens' toilets and prisons?" except it doesn't really work because the answer is Yes we do.
Again, I find it just extraordinary that with all that's going on in the world right now, people are still obsessed with their hobby horse debates. Extraordinary.
I imagine a great deal more trans people are assaulted by men than trans people perform assaults on women. But hey ho, carry on with your hobby horse and bigotry.
I've not been involved in this debate, and try to stay out of it to be honest.
But you are coming across really badly here to the observer.
The impression you give is that because (in your words) you "imagine" assaults against women by trans people are less common than assaults by men against trans people, being concerned about the former at all constitutes a "hobby horse" that people are "obsessed" with. As well as being incredibly dismissive about actual assaults, your position makes literally no logical sense.
All I see here is bigotry and intolerence of trans people that wouldn't be accepted of any other minority.
via WaPo - Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., recently called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “thug” and said the Ukrainian government is “incredibly evil,” in remarks that are at odds with the broad bipartisan support for Ukraine among American lawmakers and the public amid Russia’s invasion.
“Remember that Zelensky is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt, and it is incredibly evil, and it has been pushing woke ideologies,” Cawthorn told supporters at a recent event in North Carolina, according to video published Thursday by Raleigh-based TV station WRAL.
Rising apparatchik of 45 & Putinist Party USA speaks . . . the pigshit of his heart, mind & soul . . .
Hasn't Madison Cawthorne just be charged with driving with a revoked licence ?
Here's a question for those who know more about automobile design and manufacturing than I do: It seems to me that, eventually, the transition to all-electric cars should make possible cars that are less expensive and more reliable.
Consider, for example, a Toyota Prius (or any other hybrid). It has two systems of propulsion, electric motors and an internal combustion engine. If you are increase the size of the first, and eliminate the second, you reduce the number of parts, which should cut costs and increase reliability. And, I would think, make it possible to automate even more of the production lines.
Making an all-electric car cheaper would, as I understand it, require a reduction in battery prices, but I don't see any reason that can't happen, within the next 5 or 10 years.
Note please, that I said, "make possible". There will always be some people attracted to certain automobiles because they are expensive, but I think there are still many people who are looking for reliable bargain transportation, people who would be attracted to a simple, all-electric car, because it was less expensive.
So, am I missing anything in this very simple analysis?
I recall watching a wendover video on car batteries, as apparently the cost of vehicles is already at or nearly at the point of what would be what people are willing to pay, and the distance they can cover is too. So IIRC it wasnt that they needed batteries to get that much cheaper for it to really take off, it was the ubiquity of charging that remained an issue, and how quickly theyd charge.
But vague recollections can be wrong. No expert here.
The UK figures for new car registrations had battery electric vehicles at a 17.7% market share and sales were up 196.3% on February 2021. Sales of non-hybrid internal combustion cars had a market share of 47.2%, down from a market share of 65.3% in February 2021. So it seems like we are in the midst of a very rapid transition, and you would think that fuel prices heading towards £2 a litre will only encourage that transition to happen more quickly.
People have been asking for the charging network to be expanded so that people won't have the anxiety of being far from a charger, but at this rate it would look like there will need to be a very large growth in the charging network to keep up with the number of battery electric vehicles on the road.
One report form the War, that's interesting to me. Ukraine are calming that yesterday (Friday) that over 500 Russians surrendered to them.
500 is a lot, if you add Killed wounded and missing on to that, Russia could be losing 1,000 a day.
Some how clamed of Prisoner seem more credible to me that clams of how many they have killed. how does any one side know how many of the other they have killed? they don't, really, they can count some body's, and say at least X, but there will be a lot more than that, some die in hospital, some get blown up, lots of other issues, but with prisoners you have a person in front of you.
Are the Ukrainians just mackling this up, possibly, but then presumably they are registering theses with the Red cross, so a risk in just making up a number,
it might be just a one off, but also after 2 weeks, and bad weather, seems to be when moral might crack, so maybe its the start of a trend, maybe. Just like trying to determine if a particular pole is an outlier or the start of a trend!!!
Thoughts?
My understanding is that prisoners of war are supposed to be registered with the red cross, so that each side know who is prisoner of the other, and as a guard against mistreatment. So you'd think there would be some numbers somewhere.
Comments
Let me know if I've left anything out.
There is something about the trans "debate" that sends a certain type of person utterly deranged, much as Brexit does with a certain crowd.
I suspect most of the people who are obsessed with trans bodies have never met a trans person in their entire life. I know at least half a dozen and not one strikes me as a potential rapist. All of them have reported threats, abuse, and even violence against them simply for being themselves, however.
But hey-ho. Let's carry on debating the right of trans people to exist, even while Putin flattens cities, Covid swallows Hong Kong and inflation decimates the economy. Penises! Who's got 'em, how long is Leon's? Those are the important questions.
Frankly it disgusts me.
People have been asking for the charging network to be expanded so that people won't have the anxiety of being far from a charger, but at this rate it would look like there will need to be a very large growth in the charging network to keep up with the number of battery electric vehicles on the road.