Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

That's why universities are now cesspits of ideologues.

 

[multitool]

That's why universities are now cesspits of ideologues.

Yeah.

Was never like that at the 3 universities I attended in the 80s and 90s.

 

[monkers]

That's why universities are now cesspits of ideologues.

Yes close down the universities Andy, we can bring the brightest and best talent for all our needs from abroad. Do you write Conservative party policy documents perchance?

 

[newfhouse]

That's why universities are now cesspits of ideologues.

Spent much time at any?

 

[qigong chimp]

Countryside Alliance, anyone?

 

[AuroraSaab]

As you and I know, Stock presented to the all party parliamentary committee and lied to them but giving a false account of the evidence. The author of the evidence later called her out for it.

That's not what Dhejne, one of 3 authors of the Danish research, said at all. As far as I know Dhejne has never mentioned Kathleen Stock and her own later comments are inconsistent with the stated findings of her own research.

Stock has attempted to use her position to hive off lesbians to her cause with the frankly absurd notion that we do not consider them to be women and are angry if they call themselves lesbians.

You don't speak for lesbians as a community anymore than she does though. Lots of people don't think men can be lesbians. Kathleen Stock is hardly an outlier with that opinion.

Stock tried a call of arms letter to the wider academic community. I actually received it myself, though I chose not to respond, as I'm sure was the case for many others.

Where is this letter? Surely it's in the public domain by now? Seems a bit odd that she was personally writing to individuals to recruit them to her Hiving Off Lesbians master plan.

Stock responded by doubling down and criticised the academic community. We tend to think she's a needy bigot demanding attention.

https://sites.google.com/view/trans-phil-letter/

That link wasn't a response to a letter from Stock or anyone else. It was a response to Stock getting an OBE for general services to Higher Education and a general moan about transphobia. Why do you post untrue stuff that can be checked in Google?

Let's see this letter from Kathleen Stock that you and others personally received. Must be on a website somewhere surely.

And now you're speaking for the academic community as well as the lesbian community. It's a good job this is a 10 poster forum at the arse end of the web not Twitter where you can't get away with making up stuff about prominent people or accusing them of lying.

 

[qigong chimp]

If we're talking ideological slurry ponds, that is.

 

[monkers]

Countryside Alliance, anyone?

I think they just organise dogging events since one of their organisers got sent to jail. These possibly might happen in farmer Andy's field, but I feel it would be impolite to ask him.

 

[monkers]

That's not what Dhejne, one of 3 authors of the Danish research, said at all. As far as I know Dhejne has never mentioned Kathleen Stock and her own later comments are inconsistent with the stated findings of her own research.

Yes you said all this before. I copied the article of rejection here, but wasn't it you who claimed it was Stock who really understood the data and not the researcher themself?

 

[AuroraSaab]

This is what Djhene et al concluded in their research. Transwomen had the same rate of offending as other males, including in violent crime.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

What she has later taken umbrage at is a wider interpretation of the study beyond the straightforward findings shown above. eg the link with sex crime when the criminality they assessed is is not broken down into types of crime. The info Stock and Freedman presented wasn't limited to the Swedish (I called it Danish in error earlier) study either.

I've never seen Djhene even mention Kathleen Stock so let's see a link to where she does.

Still waiting for Stock's personal letter to you.

 

[monkers]

This is what Djhene et al concluded in their research. Transwomen had the same rate of offending as other males, including in violent crime.

View attachment 5219


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

What she has later taken umbrage at is a wider interpretation of the study beyond the straightforward findings shown above. eg the criminality is not broken down into types of crime. I've never seen her mention Kathleen Stock so let's see a link to where she does.

Still waiting for Stock's personal letter to you.

Who said I received a personal letter from Stock? It isn't true. Neither have I sent her a letter personal or otherwise.

Why do you feel the need to keep making this stuff up? It's a really very odd trait.

 

[Ian H]

Just a snippet from an article I'm currently reading [SGB = Sports Governing Body]
Whilst SGBs will typically have qualified legal duties not to discriminate on grounds such as gender or birth traits, and, possibly, to protect the rights of athletes to a fair competition in the context of anti-doping regulations, they do not appear to be under a duty to ensure fairness with regards to natural genetic pre-dispositions. As such, it appears less easy to accept the protection of fair competition as an overriding ethical (or legal duty) of all SGBs.

 

[monkers]

This is what Djhene et al concluded in their research. Transwomen had the same rate of offending as other males, including in violent crime.

View attachment 5219


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

What she has later taken umbrage at is a wider interpretation of the study beyond the straightforward findings shown above. eg the link with sex crime when the criminality they assessed is is not broken down into types of crime. The info Stock and Freedman presented wasn't limited to the Swedish (I called it Danish in error earlier) study either.

I've never seen Djhene even mention Kathleen Stock so let's see a link to where she does.

Still waiting for Stock's personal letter to you.

Giving oral evidence, Professors Rosa Freedman and Kathleen Stock referred to the original interpretation, as noted above, and followed this up with further written evidence. Their interpretation was then disputed in a written submission by Professor Alex Sharpe, which cited Dhjene’s later interview comments, and a written submission by Professor Ruth Pearce which stated, ‘This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.’ In Scotland, correspondence accessed by Freedom of Information also shows that Scottish Government officials dismissed the relevance of the results to gender recognition reform, on the basis of the Transadvocate comments, and an article published by in Medium,[2] which also referred to the interview.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Who said I received a personal letter from Stock? It isn't true. Neither have I sent her a letter personal or otherwise.
Why do you feel the need to keep making this stuff up? It's a really very odd trait.

You did at Post #10,125. 4.56pm today.

How weird nobody else in academia has mentioned this letter. I can't find a single mention of it. You'd think someone would have put it on Twitter, if only to denigrate Kathleen Stock in the way you are trying to do with it.

You say stuff, then when asked you can't back it up, so you say you haven't said it and hope nobody has noticed.

 

[monkers]

You did at Post #10,125. 4.56pm today.

View attachment 5220
How weird nobody else in academia has mentioned this letter. I can't find a single mention of it. You'd think someone would have put it on Twitter, if only to denigrate Kathleen Stock in the way you are trying to do with it.

You say stuff, then when asked you can't back it up, so you say you haven't said it and hope nobody has noticed.

What are you even thinking? Where do say I got a personal letter from Stock? I think you've completely lost the plot.