monkers
Legendary Member
They say they don't want ignorant willy-waving morons virtue signalling on their behalf. Apparently there's one group of men trolling around calling women who aren't bigots 'traitors' - this is how bad it has become.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
They say they don't want ignorant willy-waving morons virtue signalling on their behalf. Apparently there's one group of men trolling around calling women who aren't bigots 'traitors' - this is how bad it has become.
CXRAndy
Guru
Go on then post it up.
monkers
Legendary Member
This is not a drill I call upon UK academic philosophers and other academics to publicly demonstrate their disciplinary values. I am a professor of philosophy, employed at a British university in a Philosophy Department. Today, a UK employment tribunal judge ruled that the belief that biological sex is immutable, and that it is impossible to change one’s sex, is “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”. He writes: “I do not accept the Claimant’s contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned.” Please note: all purposes. The judge has therefore apparently ruled that there are no contexts whatsoever in which it may be permissibly denied that a person with a gender recognition certificate is the sex they say they are. He also says, in his ruling, that there is “significant scientific evidence” that one’s biological sex can be changed — erroneously citing intersex people as of relevance to the facts of social transition. This judge has concluded that nothing illegal happened when Maya Forstater lost employment at the Centre for Global Development for stating these beliefs. This judgment is now out there to influence those that follow, and a message sent to UK employees: don’t express the view that people can’t change sex. Your job will not be protected if you do. As I say, I am a professor of philosophy and I share Maya’s belief. I think it is perfectly true. My grounds are summarised in this short article. I have also written about why this belief qualifies as a philosophical belief. Over the past year and a half, I have encountered many academics and public figures who have scornfully dismissed my and others’ claims that women, in particular, are losing their legal capacity to discuss what they see as their distinctive nature and interests, in certain important political contexts. This is happening because of well-funded lobbying groups like Stonewall, and their incredible reach on institutions and employers (including Universities). Stonewall explicitly advise, through their training programmes and propaganda — disseminated via their near-ubiquitous Diversity Champions Scheme and their Top 100 Employers Index — that “transwoman are women” for all purposes, just as the employment tribunal judge has just stated. Stonewall explicitly yet tendentiously interpret the Equality Act as saying that organisations should allow transwomen into every single space where women are present, and into every single resource already specially devoted to women. And Stonewall explicitly advise that the pathway to becoming a transwoman — and so too, according to Stonewall, the pathway to becoming a woman, because “transwomen are women” — should not be gatekept by any medical professionals whatsoever, but should be achieved through self-identification and an adminstrative procedure. Yet, philosophers and other academics continue to lecture me: “no-one is talking about sex — everyone knows sex and gender are distinct!”. Well, this employment tribunal judge apparently doesn’t know it. In fact, despite the brave efforts of people like Maya, there is huge public confusion about the relation between sex and gender in the UK, largely due to Stonewall’s lobbying, training, and propaganda. Women are losing not just their legal and social protections, but we are approaching a situation where women (and men) cannot even legally speak about this loss. I therefore call upon the British Philosophical Association, all learned Philosophical societies in the UK, and all British academic philosophers working in UK departments, to stand up and say out loud — or better, write it down where members of the public can read it: people should be legally permitted to believe that biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed, without fear of losing their jobs. You are philosophers. This is your moment. If not now, then when? |
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Also available in Scots Gaelic:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000rgsj/bing-series-1-83-dealbhan-duilleig
AuroraSaab
Squire
Again, so what? Your argument here is 'They don't care so nobody else should'. We don't determine unfairness in sports - whether it's doping or including males in the female category - based on what % of athletes consent or not. They can't consent for everybody else in the sport.
Here you are again though, telling me I don't speak for women and lesbians then proceeding to do exactly the same yourself.
Yes, cycling changed in the UK because elite female riders made it clear they wouldn't compete against males. Women are getting fed up but not in the way you would have people believe.
She made a documentary about inclusion. She had a transwoman coach herself at one point. It seems more likely that she was on board with inclusion and then changed her mind as it became apparent the science didn't support it and the unfairness became more obvious.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
I'd probably give that a go to be honest. I understand very little Gaelic, but it's a lovely language.
monkers
Legendary Member
Oh they care alright - that's why they signed a letter. They value human lives, communities, inclusion and cohesion, and their right to have a gender identity.
monkers
Legendary Member
You've been presented with the evidence. According to a yougov poll, only about 4% of lesbians are inclined to agree with Stock - the rest of us have very negative views about her (Stock).
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
Elite level sport is one thing, and I well-understand the concerns, but you lot are obsessed to the point that sports days in primary schools have been disrupted by anti-trans activists attempting to gender police kids.
AuroraSaab
Squire
That's simply not true. The survey quoted earlier was a vague question on 'being supportive of' transgender people. It asked nothing about specific issues nevermind how much they agreed or disagreed with Kathleen Stock's various views. Again, you claim to speak for all lesbians ...
This seems to be an article written by Kathleen Stock that appeared on the Medium website in 2019. She has now moved to Substack so the article is no longer available. Not seeing any evidence it was sent out to academics only as an emailed thing.
Sounds like you were a Stock subscriber on Medium and forgot......
monkers
Legendary Member
Incorrect. It's in my inbox, and I can see who sent it. I didn't respond as I am not an academic philosopher. To do so would have felt fraudulent to me.
At the top of the letter the shout out is to academic philosophers and other academics. At the end she is appealing to philosophers.
I contributed to a book which included a couple of chapters by an academic philosopher friend who signed the response letter. I think my name got added to her list due to that, or perhaps because I was SMT member at a largish higher education institute.
Last edited:
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
There's some really good programmes on Alba exploring stuff like the closure of small rural schools and the stories of migrants from the Western Isles to Canada beteen the wars on SS Metagama.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Seems unlikely you would be in Kathleen Stock's email contacts for any reason. No mention on the internet of a single person getting it sent to them but you. Sounds like it was copied from Medium and forwarded.
The words at the top don't appear in the Medium article. Again, sounds like an addition by someone else to an article forwarded to you.
The article was 2019, the letter that you claim academics wrote in response to it was 2021. It wasn't a response to Stock's writing at all.
The point of all this pedantry on my part is simply this: you continually post stuff that isn't true hoping that readers will take it at face value. Stop doing it. When you do do it I am going to continue to ask to see the evidence and the receipts.
Last edited:
