Professor stock

[sxturbo]

Don't be silly, they are both committed feminists and transphobes. They are both highly visible public figures and they exploit that public position to espouse their transphobic views, thereby empowering other transphobes.
Imagine a highly visible public figure speaking about a race of people, or a religion, that shouldn't or couldn't exist.
I suspect they'd suffer a fair amount of similar public attention, and maybe some may feel inclined to respond with aggressive comments, like they have endured at the hands of Prof Stocks and JK Rowling.

Your the only one being silly with your logic.

Both jk and Scott have vehemently denied being transphobes, Saying such things as a trans with a cockn and balls cannot be classed as a woman is hardly stirring up hatred.

Not like those trans then calling for jk and Scott to die...

 

[AngleEyes]

Please provide a source showing the words she actually used.

"As one of the UK’s leading gender-critical feminists, who has insisted that an individual cannot change their biological sex, Professor Stock has faced relentless criticism and abuse over the past 18 months – with blogs, petitions and Twitter users regularly demanding her dismissal for her allegedly “transphobic” views.
To question the idea that a trans woman should be treated as a woman in all contexts is an act of “hate speech” that seeks to “erase” her identity."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kathleen-stock-life-front-line-transgender-rights-debate

"Stock has said she believes gender identity is not more important than biological sex, “particularly when it comes to law and policy,” and that people cannot change their biological sex."
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ffectively-ended-by-unions-transphobia-claims

I remind you that over a hundred academics, including some of her own colleagues wrote an open letter opposing her views.

 

[AngleEyes]

Another barmy opinion

By a TRA.

I'm a TRA as well now.
You'll be accusing me of being an aggressive TRA next.

 

[AngleEyes]

Both jk and Scott have vehemently denied being transphobes,

What a surprise.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

 

[sxturbo]

"As one of the UK’s leading gender-critical feminists, who has insisted that an individual cannot change their biological sex, Professor Stock has faced relentless criticism and abuse over the past 18 months – with blogs, petitions and Twitter users regularly demanding her dismissal for her allegedly “transphobic” views.
To question the idea that a trans woman should be treated as a woman in all contexts is an act of “hate speech” that seeks to “erase” her identity."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kathleen-stock-life-front-line-transgender-rights-debate

"Stock has said she believes gender identity is not more important than biological sex, “particularly when it comes to law and policy,” and that people cannot change their biological sex."
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ffectively-ended-by-unions-transphobia-claims

I remind you that over a hundred academics, including some of her own colleagues wrote an open letter opposing her views.

There's a lot of allegedly in that, and your just repurposing what has already been said.

The hundred academics argument is moot as far as Im concerned, they're all worrying about their jobs, imagine if any of them had been called out for not signing the letter... They would all be down the dole queue next week, such is the hate spouted by trans.

 

[AngleEyes]

Saying such things as a trans with a cockn and balls cannot be classed as a woman is hardly stirring up hatred.

They claim that only a woman born as a woman can be classed as a woman.
That is denying the importance of gender, and denying the existence of transgenders.
I'd call that transphobia, wouldn't you?

 

[AngleEyes]

Please provide a source showing the words she actually used.

.. and your just repurposing what has already been said.

It was requested, remember?

 

[AngleEyes]

The issue about Prof Stocks is not limited to her comments. it also covers her membership of other organisations which espouse anti-transgender rights, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance (LGBA), of which she is a trustee, and the Women’s Declaration of Sex-Based Rights (WDSR).
This membership or leadership in these organisations creates an atmosphere of unsafety for trans students on Sussex campus.
Both these memberships are legitimate grounds of disciplinary action by employers. This point is underlined in Sussex’s own “Code of Practice on Academic Titles” (CPAT) which states that “academic title holders must not bring the university into disrepute,” which it further defines as follows:

Those that demonstrate hostility towards, or could reasonably be expected to generate hostility in others towards, individuals or groups of individuals by reason of a protected characteristic (as defined in the Equality Act 2010).

The only limitation is that faculty must not “demonstrate hostility towards” or “generate hostility in others towards” a group of people “by reason of a protected characteristic.” And there is no doubt that the cited Equality Act 2010 protects trans people––or at least, some trans people.
So the question is whether Sussex students are right to claim that Prof. Stock’s leadership of the LGBA and her signature to the WDSR “demonstrate hostility towards, or could reasonably be expected to generate hostility in others towards” those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It would appear that her outspoken membership and signatory of such organisations would indicate a hostility towards transgender people.

 

[JohnD]

Are you telling me that you think people can change biological sex?

 

[JohnD]

Are you telling me that you think a man is a woman?

 

[JohnD]

Are you telling me that you think gender identity is more important than biological sex?

 

[AngleEyes]

Are you telling me that you think people can change biological sex?

Some are born intersex.

 

[JohnD]

Some are born intersex.

That wasn't the question.

 

[AngleEyes]

Are you telling me that you think a man is a woman?

You are asking the wrong question.
I am telling you that a human labelled as a man may think he is a woman, and vice-versa.
Some may even be unsure as to their gender.

 

[AngleEyes]

Are you telling me that you think gender identity is more important than biological sex?

It is to the transgender people. I'm content to accept their choice.
Are you telling me that you think they should not be allowed that choice, even if they were wrongly assigned at birth?