Rebecca, go camping in a remote area with an entire group of men who say they're women & tell me you felt no fear that entire time. That fear women feel is the result of evolutionary biology based on a million years of men being stronger, faster, larger, & having other physical advantages over us. It's there to keep us safe. You're telling women to ignore that fear, ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ignore their intuition that something isn't right, ignore the experiences of women around the world & throughout history in deference to men. That's infuriating!
@@DemstarAus It sounds like you've led an impoverished life. There are women's adventure travel programs where you'd be camping with strangers. I've gone to Co-Ed weekend courses with the Sierra Club where I didn't know anyone. I've gone on wilderness survival education weekends with a co-ed group of strangers, although I had met the instructors at short programs here in the city. I'm not afraid of men, in general. I used to be on the mailing list for a woman-owned company that led adventure trips for women. If I showed up to discover that all those other "women" were men saying they are women, my sense of danger would increase dramatically! Predators are not above pretending to be "trans" to get into women's & girls' spaces. In fact, the reason we HAVE sex-segregated spaces is to protect us from the very type of entitled men who want to ignore women's boundaries & make women uncomfortable, who insist on their "right" to be in women's spaces, using women's services, etc. There are plenty of good men who care about & protect women. We have women-only spaces to protect us from the ones who seek to harm us. All I'm saying is that we have instincts that are there for a reason that we should trust & it's bad advice to tell girls & women to ignore their intuition about a situation in order not to hurt some man's feels. THAT'S ridiculous!! [Edited to correct some typos & for clarity.]
@@DemstarAus I think the analogy implies that they're strangers and they're the only ones there. Not in your tent, duh, but on your camp. ALL of the people on the camp apart from you are men who say they're women.
"What is it about the maleness that makes males a greater risk?" Is Tuvel serious? What matters is that, for whatever reason, they ARE a greater risk, as a group, as clearly shown by sexual assault & other violent crime statistics, which we ignore at our peril. Specifically, the peril of vulnerable women & girls when forced to share close quarters with them. This is what we need to be focusing and acting on, to preserve single sex spaces. The academic questions about the "why?" of male violence are very secondary & we don't need to find an answer before we protect women & girls from male predators enabled by gender self-ID.
Tuvel speaks like a white privileged academic. How she figures men who think they are women don't pose a threat to actual women is beyond me. She's naive at best, ignorant at worst.
It's as though she has just arrived on the planet and knows nothing about the species living on it. Men are bigger, stronger, and anatomically and hormonally different, which makes them more likely to engage in sexual predation. How a grown woman could be unaware of this is beyond me.
Kathleen has the patience of a saint! She is our international lesbian heroine! Along with Julie Bindel, Kathleen has inspired lesbians like me all over the world to stand up to the violation of women’s, children’s, and gay people’s rights!
By saying the same things us straight men have been saying for years but would called slurs for. How the times have changed. People have joked about things like men being raped in gaol for years now it’s different if men are in women’s prisons?! I don’t think they should be allowed in women’s prisons. Just a double standard.
I totally agree about Bindel and Stock - both are wonderful women. That said, for me it was Kelly Jay Keen (KJK) who gave me the courage to finally speak the truth and aloud. KJK has given ordinary women many of whom are Lesbians like me the courage and platform to speak. Everyone I know was alerted to the consequences of gender madness by KJK. Nobody can cut through the gender insanity BS like KJK can and I admire her for this not to mention her ability to consistently hold the line when it comes to defending not just women's rights which includes Lesbians but also children's rights and welfare and the truth itself. Also, the brilliant Helen Joyce. All these women are marvelous IMO and I'm grateful to them all.
Julie Bindel believed men could be women and that a man could be a lesbian until, at least 2012 because she said as much in an interview in 2012. kathleen Stock has recently said that she thinks she has a male gender. Why is that any different from a male saying he has a female gender?
@@trevorcook3129the point is that it's men comiting that crime. There's a big difference in physical strength between men and women. They have different bodily functions. Like, was stated, women are in prison for different reasons to men. Whilst it's awful that men are victimised with that attack, they are men with other men. It's totally unacceptable and unfair to subject women to male violence by enprisoning them together. It's also an added violence to force women to share space with men because of their different bodies and bodily functions. It's absolutely not the same thing at all to make men share space as it is to force women to share space with a man - or multiple men. There are protections for women under the Geneva convention because of male violence towards women.
And elsewhere! Like the women who have been injured competing in sports against men! I hate that she is basically willing to experiment with real women's safety & bodies while she gets to perform her thought experiments from a comfortable & safe place. THAT'S ACTUAL privilege!
I think it’s extraordinary that women describing themselves as feminists would be so ideologically blinkered that they discount the reality of male violence and it’s effect on women. This feels like such a fundamental betrayal, I can’t quite believe it’s happening.
As a second-wave feminist, I don’t recognise those who centre men as feminists. They’ve usurped the name woman to include men, so it’s a short step to say supporting these men is feminism.
Its because those women dismissing usually come from upper class backgrounds (the 1%) and will likely never experience male violence because they can isolate themselves in where they live, work and go to school etc. But their lives aren't a reflection of the reality of the majority of women.
Actual feminists don't centre men in their fight. They can be very aware of men, their needs, and the danger everyone (men and women) faces from toxic masculinity but this new faux feminism is very confused.
Rebecca Tuvel has to retain her job in academia. She’s not well known enough to be able to destroy her academic career by speaking the truth, like Kathleen Stock was able to.
Describes 'self as a L...n after referring to 'male persons'. Let's get a reality check here. Kathleen suffers from a persecution complex, convinced the authorities are intent on shutting her down, because of her academic research. Perhaps it's more a case of poor performance from her, in targeting men for abuse, especially those who wish to explore their feminine side, which she admittedly lacks herself and the associated envy..
Hello Rebecca. You were very civil during discussion. Thank you for that. When you said that gender ideology hasn't hurt anyone, I was wondering if you were just taking an opposing stance for discussion. . Parents have had their children taken away for not affirming pronouns, detransitioners are being silenced, and people are fired from their jobs for maintaining that there are only two sexes. It's not complicated. Male and female are fact regardless and independent of human social constructs.
That question from the stammering and probably very young audience member, “Why did you self-ID a lesbian?”-and Rebecca’s nonsensical follow-up-was so irritatingly sophomoric. Sex is reality; there is no question about one’s maleness or femaleness. Sexual orientation is also something that isn’t just a vague “feeling”-it’s a biological response to erotic stimuli, it really can’t be faked, at its most basic level. No male person is ever a “lesbian”. It’s a ridiculous proposition. Kathleen’s response is spot-on, as was her point about the use of the word ‘valid’.
This is very well put. I've had slightly adjacent issues with fellow... basically gay men (as in males who date males and no one else) in regards to them adopting "queer" as an identity. I argue (only when pressed haha) that it's really just a political statement to call oneself queer as opposed to a sexuality. I guess, historically, people didn't tend to necessarily label sexualities as innate traits so much - it was more about sexual behaviour, but I think the point stands.
I was confused as to why Stock didn’t argue the point more vociferously. There is a biological reality in both cases. If we were so inclined, we could hook up the genitals of all the queer folk to blood flow meters. Instead, we simply take people at their word because there are no medical or political implications.
I sort of understand Rebecca's point, if she'd said about transwomen who have had surgery instead of testosterone levels it would have made more sense to me. But Kathleen Stock is right, we can't rearrange society around these things, the obvious division has to be between the sexes.
I can certainly see a lot of parallels in cultural elements of nature vs nuture (i.e. born as a particular race and how your experience with culture impacts on your identity) and discussions around gender of being born a particular sex and how you experience that sex throughout life. So why is transgenderism okay but transracialism is absurd?
So hard to understand why language and definitions have been so easily and valiantly given away. They were never prizes that would, will benefit females, any female, person, no matter position. This is 2024.
She participated in an event with someone whom she disagrees with, respectfully pushed back when she thought it was appropriate to, and emphasized at many points the common ground she shares with her co-panelist... Did we watch the same video?
This purity spiral idea that everyone has to completely agree on every single point is why our entire world is so toxic right now. I, for one, appreciated that they both respectfully spoke to eachother, agreed on some things, disagreed on other things, and neither called for the other to be not allowed to speak. I wish people in the comment sections of social media could behave the same.
From studies, male violence does not decrease upon CSH, not at all. Female violence and offending patterns do increase to close level, for females on testosterone.
@marysalluce9685 cross-sex hormones. It's the correct term rather than the queer preferred hormone replacement therapy ( HRT) all trans people aren't replacing any hormones they produce, they block the hormones they produce and take synthetic hormones of the opposite sex.
Rachel suffers from toxic compassion on the trans issue and safeguarding women’s spaces. Which makes her view on being cancelled somewhat hypocritical.
You can identify as different sex, and probably soon a different species, but never race or ethnicity. Who gets to decide these thing? TikTok? I don't get the logic.
I canNOT even beLIEVE my ears: “What is it about maleness that leads to violence?” Are you KIDDING ME? How is THIS women’s problem? How is it that THIS is the question being asked when we say “no” to men in women’s spaces? How is this even a THING???? I thought philosophy was about using LOGIC. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god.
The conversation took a turn toward the hypothetical for clarity on Stock’s argument. Tuvel was trying to understand if Stock was arguing from a position of pure harm reduction, ie would Stock maintain her stance if we could identify what makes males more aggressive and fix it. So, would she be okay with trans ‘women’ in women’s prisons if you could guarantee no sexual predation, violence, etc.? If not, why not? Stock was arguing, I think, that the mere sight of non-passing trans women would be enough to disturb female inmates. Tuvel counters with the example of male prison guards. Finally, Stock exits the philosophical part of her argument by stating: The question is about today, not some hypothetical future where men’s aggression is successfully controlled.
@@joge2468 RU-vid Yeah. I heard what was said. The premise of asking this question in the context of MEN IN WOMEN’S PRISONS is the issue. If MEN want to spend their own time figuring out what makes men violent and what to do about it, great! It is not a relevant part I’d the discussion on putting men or allowing men in women’s spaces. THAT’S the point.
@@unowen-nh9ovwell said 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾, but archaeologists are now being trained to say they make an estimate of the sex of the pelvis. They’re not allowed to express certainty, regarding the sex of the pelvis of the skeleton.
I was used as a breeding sow + punching bag for my transwoman partner for 10 years. It was BAD and I literally would not tolerate anyone telling me it was domestic abuse because I was being such a loyal cis ally. He wouldn't let me refuse intercrse bc it made him "dysphoric" I'm out and safe now, but I will be living with all the consequences of that male violence for LIFE. Gender identity ideology makes it impossible to analyze male violence When Rebecca says gender ideology has "never hurt anyone", I wish to invite her over to see my scars and home full of traumatized children
Rebecca's attempted analogy to black male prisoners is so off the wall. It's not greater criminality, but racialized prosecution, conviction and sentencing, most easily demonstrated by the handling of drug cases. She should know this.
Exactly. I suppose she doesn’t have to consider the impact of structural, systemic and institutionalised racism, because she is a beneficiary of w supremacy. She annoys me with her constant comparisons to race. They’re two completely different things.
@@9395gbI find it extremely insulting and offensive. Is she suggesting that being black is pathological, hence her perpetual desire to make such comparisons.
Ms Tuvel decided to claim that since Black inmates are overrepresented in prisons, a Black inmate is more dangerous than an inmate of any other race convicted of the same crime, and thus (get this causality!) sex 'inclusion' in women's prisons isn't as dangerous. As if one male murderer is more dangerous than another male murderer just by virtue of their skin color. They are both murderers jailed for murder! I can't believe someone employed as a college professor would take such an obviously nonsensical position.
You misunderstood Tuvel's example. The example is meant to challenge the principle Stock is (or seems to be) relying on, which is something like "If members of two groups A and B are housed in the same prison, and members of group A are on average more violent than members of group B, then members of A and B ought to be segregated in that prison (or have completely different prisons)." Stock employs this principle to derive the conclusion that trans women and natal women ought to be segregated in prisons (or have entirely different prisons). Tuvel points out (correctly) that, if Stock is indeed relying on that principle, it would equally justify segregating black and white men in prison (or having separate prisons) since violent crime rates among black men (in the U.S.) are significantly higher than violent crime rates among white men (in the U.S.). But it's silly to suggest that black and white men ought to be segregated in prisons. So, the principle Stock is (or seems to be) relying on is silly. Now, Stock can either argue that she's not relying on that principle or argue that she is but there's a relevant difference between the two cases so the principle doesn't really have the absurd consequences Tuvel suggests. In any case, the philosophical move Tuvel is making is totally standard, and you completely missed it. No doubt this explanation, too, will fly completely over your head, but I'm giving it for the benefit of sharper people scrolling through the comments, not you.
@@esizzle2005 I suspect the black v white male offending difference is considerably less than offending differences between trans identified men v women. As Kathleen Stock pointed out in her 2019 submission to UK Parliament, 60% of UK ‘Trans women’ prisoners are sex offenders Including in 36 x rape; 10 x attempted rape. Since then we’ve learned 50% of US Federal ‘Trans women’ prisoners are sex offenders, and 50% of Canadian ‘Trans women’ prisoners are sex offenders. For male Prisoners generally the percentage is about 18% and women 3% . The risk for women from trans identifying men is greater than the risk for white men from black.
@@esizzle2005 Let's see how far your snide patronizing gets you. If the race analogy held any water and Stock is wrong, Tuvel should be in favor of the reverse of her example - if we don't lock up people by race we shouldn't lock them up by sex or gender either - and gender ID proponents should not want segregated prisons either. But neither Tuvel nor the gender lDs do so which is a huge tell. It's fundamentally silly to suggest race-based segregation in prisons, especially for the 'reason' Tuvel offers (the erroneous equating of race and sex vis-a-vis crime, and the misuse of the notion of statistical rates). It's silly because: 1) The rate of criminality does not mean one group is more violent than the other, it means one group may offend more times than the other. 2) The prison population is like a self-selected sample- they are all convicted criminals, no matter the race, while crime rate stats are on the basis of the whole population including non-offenders. 3) Prisoners are locked up for specific offenses, and along with sex segregation there IS severity of crime segregation (e.g. violent offenders; minimum, medium and max security prisons, etc.). It is a causal error to extrapolate from a statistical rate of criminality that a black male inmate locked *in max security* is much more violent and dangerous for his fellow inmates than any of the non-black inmates there. They are in max security for one reason only - they are all violent dangerous criminals! 4) However, there is consistent evidence that male crime patterns and associated crime and incarceration rates are substantially higher and qualitatively different than the respective female rates. They don't change just because you start playing language gender games. 5) The 'gender self-ID' (sometimes miraculously emerging right at trial!) of a male criminal, especially if convicted of violent crimes, and especially if convicted of violent crimes against women, should have no consequence for the sex segregation rule in prisons. Interestingly, we hear no demands from transmen to be put in male prisons due to their self-ID, wonder why that is - oh wait, who's more likely to be subject of a crime in prison: a male 'woman' in women's prison or a female 'man' in men's prison? Where prisons and I would add sports are concerned, gender self-ID seems to work in mysteriously lopsided ways to the exclusive benefit of transwomen aka males.
@@esizzle2005 "Stock employs this principle to derive the conclusion that trans women and natal women ought to be segregated in prisons" No she does not. She says that men, so called "transwomen" are men, and women ought to be segregated in prisons...something that was not controversial until queer theorists made you believe that subjective self-identifications are more importand than the very reason why women were put in seperate prisons in the first place.
If Tuvel has the ability to be rational and think critically, she certainly doesn't display it here. She's trying desperately to make stupid ideas sound intelligent, and she fails, miserably. She is clearly not a smart person.
So refreshing, people with different opinions on something having a respectful discussion to try to find the crux of their disagreements. If only all discussion about gender ideology were so respectful and productive.
I admire Kathleen Stock but just could not bear to listen to the other young woman speaking as the vocal fry was absolutely unbearable. As well as the unecessary question mark at the end of each sentence.
Just watched a great video this week analysing the development of female vocal fry in the media, then swiffly all proffessional arenas, that particularly affects American women. Truly a horrible affliction
@@helendancelotI had to Google it, as I wasn’t aware of that term. It’s the awful creaky voice that some American women have. I say some, but it seems proliferate over there.
God love you, Rebecca, because I know you mean well, but you remind me of the guy in our golf foursome who always gives pointers or tips on what the other 3 are “doing wrong” in their golf swing, or has marginal impulse control and has to blurt out after every strike of the ball “Good shot!” Also, what’s funny in this p-cast is watching Stock’s droll and mildly exasperated expression with many of the comments from Rebecca. Rebecca, academic teaching is meant for people like you. Do not lose that position ever, because you’ll be eaten alive outside the bubble. The name we have for the guy in our foursome that we use when he’s out of earshot is the one I have for you: Good Shot. I know this sounds cruel, but it’s given by me ”humbly and with charity.” (Your words)
This doesn't sound cruel - it *is* cruel. And you mentioned no substantive disagreement you have with Dr. Tuvel in this comment - just ad hominem attacks against a clearly intellectually curious woman. This comment gives us no reason to think poorly of Dr. Tuvel, and gives us every reason to think poorly of you
@@connorkianpour1077 Lighten up a little, Connor! I have to confess to a HUGE degree of admiration for K Stock, and generally agree with her ideas on this subj. and am likely a bit biased, but I tried to be objective... I found it fascinating to watch the discussion a SECOND time - for the SOLE purpose of watching R Tuvel's body language and facial expressions throughout. Her obvious and constant self-conscious behaviors betray her lack of confidence, either in herself or her ideas or BOTH. I don't know that I've EVER seen such a telling display, really. Coy, funny faces, eye rolls and a peeking side-eye, hair twirling...juxtaposed against Stock's easy, self-assured demeanor, the contrast was stunning. I wound up feeling bad for her, she was so profoundly outmatched.
She is an idiot. She's so so afraid of being seen as not nice, that she makes an utter fool of herself, like so many women are doing. The trans narrative is a threat - that's true - so you have to have self-respect and commitment to honesty to not cow to it, but plenty of people are able to do that. I have no respect for those like Tuvel who fail to even recognize the threat and that they are being threatened, and therefore their job is to not cow. That's all it is, is a threat to get us to roll over. Our job is to not roll over.
@@connorkianpour1077Connor, the dude you’re responding to isn’t *debating* Rebecca, so invoking the term ‘ad hominem’ is pointless. He’s just pointing out what is obvious to many of us.
At my school, in my film studies, they introduced queer theory to me and we watched queer films including Soldiers Girl which was interpreted by the professor as violence due to a man dating a trans woman, NOT, as I think it was, a man being killed due to being perceived as gay.
I don't understand the criticism of Tuvel in these comments. She's great, she was vilified as a very young assistant professor, and survived. She's younger and maybe not at tough as Stock, but then who is? Both philosophers are speaking the important truth. We should be grateful to them.
Perhaps Tuvel's article should never have been published just for being too daft, but of course what happened around it was not right regardless. I doubt she learned anything from it though, judging by this conversation.
She seems like an idiot. She doesn't understand the issue at all. Just for starters, anyone talking about "transwomen" - a deeply offensive phrase I really try to avoid - is granting the false premise that there is some type of woman who is male.
I'd really like to hear the whole discussion, but unfortunately, the microphone for Doctor Stock is about 1/3 the level of the other panelists, so she can barely be heard, and the others are inadvertently drowning her out. If you can possibly correct the audio and re-upload it, thanks in advance.
How do you define 'legitimate'? Given how outmatched intellectually Tuvel is, and how determined she is to ignore reality, there is no way that she could win a debate against Stock. Because their ideas are so crazy, there are only 2 ways in which trans ideologues can approach debate: either they deny reality, or they acknowledge reality and say we should ignore it.
OMG. Thank you for naming that awful sound some American women use when talking. It’s dreadful! I often turn the volume down to minimise the assault on my eardrums. In the UK we say they have a creaky, crackly voice. I’ve learned something new today. As always I turned the volume very low when Rebecca spoke.
Thank you for the wonderful discussion and the opportunity to hear educated people discuss a topic that is so fascinating, but that we often don’t get to discuss because it’s so polarizing. I appreciate that both participants were respectful and allowed the other to speak without demanding purity.
Kathleen is much more experienced in life. IMO Tht other little lady is all book knowledge and no common sense. She still needs to grow up and experience life more.
So much of the knowledge of women that we have about our bodies + environments + histories has to be learned over time. It's really tough. Hags by Victoria Smith is a great book that supports your point!!
"Biolphobia": an irrational aversion to biological reality (as a concept), and/or to those for whom biological reality is important. Those for whom biological reality is important, can find biolphobic ideas troubling, distressing, or offensive. Many adherents of the new gender ideology are biolphobic. But by no means are all trans people biolphobic. Gender dysphoria and biolphobia are very different concepts. Gender dysphoria is when you feel very uncomfortable about your own body and if the condition persists you may feel better presenting as the opposite gender, even living that way full time. Society had over the last few decades started to become far more accepting of people like this. But that progress has been hampered more recently by confusion with a new idea far less worthy: Biolphobia. Biolphobes reject the very concept that everyone's body is either male or female, and/or that that is important in some situations.
The irony of Stock’s situation is that the trans ‘debate’ (to the extent there is one among academic philosophers over the age of, say, 45, who have no experience or interest in ‘gender’ issues) is idiotically simple and mundane that it’s basically an after-thought to refute it. It’s not intellectually interesting or difficult enough for academic philosophers to waste time debunking such nonsense. It’s like trying to debunk Creationism in the 21st Century, or astrology. And yet, here we are. And the rest of Anglo-American analytic philosophy learned what happens if you speak common sense to the rainbow mafia. So they just shut up and keep their heads down. The braver ones refuse to indulge in pronouns - lots of lawsuits involving philosophy teachers. Good for them. Stock could not have imagined her life would revolve around such a stupid issue. But she’s the voice of reason we need.
So Rebecca Tuvel is afraid of the future, but doesn't see self identification as a problem. She needs to think a bit harder and make the connections. The fact that men have been allowed to be classed as women is the root of the problem. Everything else follows. When it stops and is reversed is the point we have a chance. Otherwise, it is the end.
Yes it has the effect of being too lazy to talk properly like one might sound half asleep, also why do these American academics talk so Quickly and shout ? It's quite grating.
The irony is that the binary at the root of all this, is simple, observable and immutable. No wonder then that those who seek to upend that apple cart have to resort to clumsy and unreliable strategies that remind one of ancient and bizarre arguments such as the dancing angels & their pin.
Support for sex change by the authorities in Europe is a purely political matter and because the policy of authority is always a matter of hegemony, we must think about how the authority that supports the transformation of boys into females or vice versa serves hegemony at a time when it appears to be support for freedom.. And because it appears to be support for freedom, the left that supports feminism found itself supporting sex change because the division between masculinity and femininity is a (cultural) issue and not a (natural) one, while the right considers that the nature of Islam is (Violence) A Muslim cannot be a transgender and convert to (peace) because Islamic violence is (natural) and not (cultural) and the right accuses the left of being anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but Israel supports homosexuality and transgenderism like the left and not like the right, and the right supports Israelis and so on.
Complete change of topic mid run by the mod. Broke the flow of thought and exchange, tho perhaps needed as RT adds not much content to the conversation.
Rebecca is saying we should be less politically divided,but i bet in her class she discriminates against white males and she encourages DEI pleadges by the way she talks
She seems to think DEI and academic freedom can peacefully coexist if only people didn't "misguidedly" apply DEI (at ~ 53:11). Despite her own 'lived experience' with the article and mounting evidence from numerous academic and other institutions, she doesn't realize DEI at its core is a rejection of academic freedom. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Regarding the American woman theoretical counter argument of controlling testosterone in trans women would be a solution? Testosterone has nothing to do with violent crime as there are many examples of dangerous females that void this reasoning.
Testosterone may well have something to do with violent crime and there would need to be a lot more violent women to prove this isn't so. In fact many think there is a link. The problem is that it isn't the only or even primary factor and that reducing it doesn't have any guarantee of preventing violence or even significantly reducing it.
@@ribbonsofnight Fair point I overreached, yes testosterone is a factor in the level of violence and the level of violence corresponds to more men being in prison, but most men [alpha] who have high testosterone levels do not commit violent crime? Psychotic Disorders, personal trauma and other uncontrolled chemical imbalances appear more evident.
@@ribbonsofnight Not to mention females are not in a body that can do as much damage as a male body can inflict, in terms of violence against women and kids and men. Even if she is dosed up on T. The "trans men" in sports situation shows us that disparity clearly. They do not become as strong as men.
@@TerenceSquires There is marked difference in crime patterns of men and women, with men consistently responsible for most violent crime, and virtually all (96+%) rape. The share evens out more in categories like 'larceny-theft', 'property crime', 'fraud', 'embezzlement'. The only category where women dominate (60%+) as perpetrators is 'prostitution and commercialized vice'. Looking at victims by sex is also educational. Whatever the reasons, sex differences matter greatly in crime, and should matter in incarceration. No wonder the prison system has two types of segregation, by sex and by severity of crime (level of security prisons).
@@SlickSimulacrum yes exactly, free speech is the constitutional right to be paid by universities to launder right wing talking points as intellectual pursuits rather than distractions from class warfare
They asked multiple trans people and trans advocates to participate and they all refused on the grounds that they did not wish to be co-platformed with Kathleen Stock. Rebecca Tuvel was the only one who accepted the invitation and she should be applauded for doing so.
@@SlickSimulacrum Your side had a choice to defend the claim to the uber right to invalidate the rights of other protected classes They hid. It's not our fault they can't muster a normal debate and instead resort only to invectives as you amply demonstrate.
But this is different. Women are not a threat to women the way men are a threat to women. Segregating gay people is like the argument for racial segregation. A black woman has MUCH more in common with a white woman physiologically than she does with a black man (skin color). Men as a class are larger, stronger, faster, and have countless other physical advantages over women & that makes them dangerous! That's why we have sex segregated spaces in the first place! We didn't always have them & women were virtually tied to their homes because they didn't want to use public toilets with men.
Women are not a threat to women the way men are a threat to women. Segregating gay people is like racial segregation. A black woman has MUCH more in common with a white woman physiologically than she does with a black man (skin color). Men as a class are larger, stronger, faster, & have countless other physical advantages over women & that makes them dangerous! Men who care about women know this & are happy to "stay in their lane" & not "colonize" women's spaces. Ironically, the kind of men who would demand access to women's spaces are exactly the kind of men who don't respect women's boundaries & the kind of men that needed to be kept out of women's spaces in the first place! That's why we have sex segregated spaces! We didn't always have them & women were virtually tied to their homes because they didn't want to use public toilets with men. This is entirely different from lesbians & hetero women using the same facilities. Something like 95% of sexual crimes are committed by men & women are the targets of sexual crimes in 90% of cases. That alone tells you that women need protection from biological men, not from biological women (including lesbians). We are dealing in reality, not prejudice against a group of people. All we have to do is look around the world & throughout history to see the pervasiveness of male violence against women. That's why we HAD a "Violence Against Women Act," (although that's been gutted because now men can just say they are women so the world woman is meaningless).
The online environment can be very much like that. I recognise this. However, I don't think Stock is being non-platformed in the least. How is it a witch-hunt? Stock has a huge audience and a lot of support.
Right? I wonder how much more she's paid now relatively to her work as a professor. Nowadays getting canceled just means receiving criticism and then fat paychecks doing press tours about your feelings after receiving criticism.
Thanks for letting us know that you're a typical brainwashed wokie who makes conclusions before actually even listening to what a person has to say. Nothing new here. Your statement is literally the caricature of your ideology.😅
She's not anti-trans. She is for biological reality & the protection of women & girls from men who will use self-ID to get access to women & girls. You will even call actual transexuals anti-trans if they disagree with your dogma in any way. You sound like a True Believer in a cult. You haven't listened, but you know someone is "mega anti trans" w/o hearing a word they say. You've been indoctrinated to not listen to anyone who disagrees with you by the cult, who calls dissenters bigots & transphobes so they can dismiss the points they make without even hearing them. Cults don't like people hearing the insights of people outside the cult.
