Really enjoy hearing Kathleen Stock's thoughts on this topic. Her take on all this is sensible, well considered, well researched, compassionate and very well presented.
Yes! Me too, I’ve been describing myself as politically homeless for so long. I’m an old early feminist from the 60s (and still hold those views) but in recent years have found myself on the same side as right wing neoliberals whose politics of capitalism and individual freedom over community and society repel me. Kathleen Stock represents sanity, at last. But I’m afraid it still leaves me politically, if not culturally, homeless, I can never vote Conservative and I don’t recognise the Labour Party as fundamentally different any more under the current leader. Where does this leave radical feminists? Well, as I said, I am old so I’m happy to be a spectator now. Except I want a better world for my granddaughters than one in which their womanhood is denied them.
Capitalism got us to where we are now, yes it's gone off the rails but that's because we're slipping into oligarchy markets, not free markets. Big business buys up small competition, unless the owner/creator has the will to say no which few do. Despite this the UK still has a large successful pool of small businesses that employ plenty of people in the grand scheme of things, and pay a substantial portion of the tax pie. The Tories as they stand atm aren't much of conservatives, but those who are actually conservative, low tax, small government, free market capitalists, are also conservative when I comes to community and culture. The latter they're way ahead of labour, who are happy to claim a trans woman is a woman, while also taking the knee for an issue that happened over the Atlantic. While also harbouring many who support open borders, and want Israel to put down their arms and ceasefire, despite the fact Hamas have said they will not put down theirs. These same people want people from Gaza to be given refugee status here despite the risk to the public due to A the ideology within Gaza, it's a very strict islamic nation, ruled by a terrorist group. The schools indoctrinate children as does state TV, so we can't trust the children either unfortunately, especially those between the age of 10-18. Nonetheless the same side that apparently supports community are happy to have them here, despite the clear and present danger to us. At this point we all have to stop the left v right standard idea and drawn lines. Left and right mean nothing anymore when the far left are all but in control, and the far right is starting to rise and gain traction in response. We need to set aside how we run our country, if your centre left or centre right or simply smack bang in the middle, we likely all want the same thing. We differ on how we get there. When it comes to the far left and the eventual far right that will start to be really known soon (you can't have one without the other was the same during ww2) we have to stand together, we have to defend the end point we want, ignoring that we differ on how to get there. Claiming Tories don't care about community doesn't help, just as it would be helpful to say all labour voters support open borders, it simply isn't true, a faction supports it, not the entire left. There are other options to vote for, yes it's harder to get smaller parties in but it's not impossible if people take the chance on someone new. There's the social democratic party, they're like old style labour, and reform who are like old style Tories. Both of which ideologies did more for this country than the nonsense we have now, where the difference between the Tories and Labour is only different when it comes to the issue of trans and immigration. On everything else they're basically the same, net zero there's no difference at all. When it came to COVID there was no difference at all. Taxes no difference at all. Crime no difference at all.
Great stuff as usual from Kathleen. The student who congratulated her on her humility was spot on. Some of her opponents could learn a useful lesson there. So glad she has found a home in Texas. As a former philosophy student at Sussex i feel ashamed and saddened that it couldn’t find a place for her there.
I'm a huge Doc Stock fan and the way she was treated by Sussex Uni was disgusting, especially as she held very moderate views and spoke in a very respectful way on this issue, she's probably the most moderate of all the gender critical feminists.
The University of Sussex must be kicking itself at letting the trans bullies drive out Kathleen Stock now that she's become an internationally renowned star academic. Success is the best revenge indeed!
I'm also a non-man who is attracted to non-men, aka a lesbian, and it makes me very proud and relieved to hear intelligent, sane voices like Kathleen Stock still fighting for actual women's rights. Transphobia is discriminating against trans people solely because they are trans. Acknowledging reality and protecting women's rights is not transphobic, regardless of how much the trans activists like to lie and censor people who understand that material reality does not care about anyone's feelings. Women's rights are for females, not trans-identified males. Western society has set back women's rights and feminism decades under the guise of "empathy and kindness" for gender dysphoric men (and the AGP men who use the label as trans to infiltrate women's spaces) but no such empathy is given to actual women. Women and girls aren't assaulted with a "gender identity". Trans-identified males aren't smashing women's athletic records with "gender identity". Ignoring material reality in favor of gender self-identity politics has real world consequences. We must bring back sanity.
At the start of all this madness I assumed that transgender women would automatically become feminists and automatically understand our point of view and act accordingly. How naive of me, they behave like men. If they understood us they wouldn’t demand to use toilets whilst teenage girls in particular are vulnerable. They would behave like us and want to be naturally protective. They are incapable of seeing our perspective and therefore undermine their own arguments of being women.
I hate that "gender identity" is considered more important than the physical and psychological safety of women. I don't know about you, but I don't know a single woman who hasn't been a victim of sexual harassment. We have all experienced it, some of us have had it only mildly, many of us have felt genuinely threatened by a man, and I know too many women who have been a victim of a sexual assault and/or domestic violence. And yet all of that is less important than the feelings of a few men who want to use our bathrooms because they "feel" like a woman.
@@loftyradish6972 Exactly. I agree with everything you have said. Even in nearly every article where a trans-identified male has assaulted a woman, there is no mention of the perp being male. The article just disingenuously reads "woman assaults woman". It's ludicrous.
@markjones1337 More than half the women have well paying jobs.. Furthermore, she might have a low paying job today, but maybe not tomorrow. Things change, with education might become well paid
Dr Stock is a great thinker and speaker on this issue and is also a brilliant writer and scholar! The audience at UATX were fortunate to hear her speak.
Interesting contribution from Konstantin Kisin (elsewhere) who suggests that because she is within the LBGQT 'community' she is regarded as an apostate (especially dangerous to the faith) by the pious fundamentalists of Trans Activism and so receives the most vicious villification and the most ridiculous straw manning
Also because she’s a woman. Gender critical women & (actual) feminists are the most vilified in this fight. And probably the bravest ones considering they are threatened of rape, torture & crime on a daily basis (along with H. Joyce, Kelly-Jay Keen etc.)
I'm a straight man, and I don't, but she is so rational and measured on this that it is no wonder that she is a top voice to listen to about all this nonsense.
Considering the absolute s*** she has taken from odious trans "activists", in her book she comes across surprisingly compassionate towards trans people in general, while still holding firm to her own position.
Thank you for this talk, Kathleen. I found your discussion about the relationship between Feminism in its various versions and Gender Ideology most interesting. Your insight about using the preferred pronouns of trans people, framing it as participating in a fiction and not as fomenting a lie (as Helen Joyce suggests), was quite an eye-opener to me. As such, it has a legitimate and useful place in our lives, as long as we take it for what it is - fiction, not reality. This framing seems to me much more accurate and fruitful.
Great talk, doc. Thanks for the nod to radfemmery. Eyes would like to move back to SA and R, also prostitution and fighting the upcoming commercial surrogacy policies in the Uk (women for rent for all. Sick) They impact poor women the most
That was kind of the point of the speech in the first place. It is being made into a course. The first crop of students at U of Austin is matriculating as we speak.
I've never sought to claim to be a feminist as a male. I have however always supported feminism for a range of reasons, part cultural but also some specific familial ones. As a male I see myself as being for women and all that means. At some point I have to have a line where I argue for limiting individual choice. I choose Kathleen's line. I suspect my late mother, 2nd wave femanist would also.
When will you post about trans widows, the ex-wives of suddenly cross-dressing men? In my data on 53 of us, the only data set in the world, 20% of us have been sexually assaulted by lingerie-wearing husband. 15 of us were physically assaulted, and only 4 of the strangulations reported to police. None charged. More @YTchannel: Trans Widow Ute Heggen
@@SuperKripke There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have. Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realising that their discomfort simply stems from not realising that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define. This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives). Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognised as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into. This "woman is a social construct" thing IS the part that validates and perpetuates sexist stereotypes - woman isn't a social construct in that sense, it is a word society has chosen yes, but to describe a PHYSICAL state of being, not anyone's emotional states or where they fall on some spectrum of masculinity or femininity. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the definition of man and woman means. The notion that people need to live up to sexist stereotypes of what "real men" or "real women" are, is complete fantasy. The fact that many people act as if sexist stereotypes were valid ways of measuring "real men" or real women" is a problem with the individual and their sexist bias, not with the terms themselves, as the terms themselves have none of the expectational baggage that people who internalise sexist stereotypes associate with them. A woman, is an adult human female, it is not an "identity" or a feeling, dress, attitude etc., that whole line of thinking is regressive in the extreme. Claiming there is some "essence" to "womanhood" that also males can access, but the reality is that women do not have to look or act any certain way, or act out some ludicrously sexist idea of the “social role of a woman”, all females who reach adulthood are women regardless of how they feel or look, and the one thing they ALL have in common, the one experience they ALL share, is that they are FEMALE, they do not have to "identify" as anything, they physically ARE women because they are female.
Yeah, I’ve come full circle on the issue and definitely think men and women should have their own spaces whether that be gym sessions, scouts, schools etc.. We’re different, there are issues we’re not going to be able to comprehend about the other and that’s ok! 👍🏻 A man can never comprehend what it is to be a woman and vice versa.
Excellent lecture and thanks to Prof. Kathleen Stock for her rich analysis about our modern societies. For the French readers, I would like to recommend this recent book by Bernard Lahire: "Les structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines" that, after reviewing and developing the epistemology of the human sciences, proposes a more robust understanding the human being by identifying some generic laws that applies to our human species (and often others too). I see it as an important contribution to this debate.
Kathleen’s explanation of the elements of liberalism that created the scaffold for this have persuaded me. In defence of liberalism, though, and what Kathleen likely meant when she spoke about the corruption of liberalism, the idea of “your rights are fine until they conflict with my rights” comes from liberalism. And liberalism also contains the ideas to help us deal with this conflict to resolve it - and here I agree with Jonathan Rauch when describes liberalism as a conflict resolution system - the ideas of free speech (which includes the freedom to listen) would have thwarted the “no debate” demand; the idea of freedom of belief (religious & philosophical) would have thwarted the demands to compel people to accept a fiction; and the idea of freedom of association would have thwarted the demand people be included into groups/spaces if the group/space description of itself didn’t include those demanding entry. I’m sad the liberals present, left or right, didn’t bring up in the Q&A how liberalism also has defences against gender identity ideology. The abandonment of these ideas in what are claimed to be liberal democracies is what got us into this mess too.
Maybe gender ideology isn’t an aberation within liberalism so much as the inevitable end-game of all theories nestling under the ‘individualism’ umbrella. Perhaps all such theories must eventually founder against the rocks of our fundamental nature as social beings?
54:50- The question of how big money lobbying has put trans ideology on warp speed is key. Kathleen Stock does a fantastic job addressing it. Jennifer Bilek’s writing for the 11th Hour Blog does a deep dive on the influence of money in creating and amplifying trans ideology into the mainstream. Simply put, money is the engine behind all of it and long term it financially benefits Big Pharma, Big Tech and the medical industrial complex to have a generation of young people believing they can change sex.
Thomas Sowell's book, "A Conflict of Visions", has been of great help to me in understanding many of our current problems and confusions, such as those discussed here.
that was interesting and informative, thanks👍🙂. the questions from students were thought provoking and disturbing, for illuminating the complexity of the moral maze in society now. thankfully, curious capable youth are engaging fully and exploring pathways forward respectfully and intelligently 🙏🕉🌱🌼.
Well radical feminists definitely share a lot of critiques of the sexual revolution being bad for women with "right wing feminists" but the difference is we criticize both left wing misogyny and right wing misogyny (which is more institutionalized as well)
What’s the age range of students signing up for the “forbidden courses” program? These young people are impressive in their thinking & articulation of questions… & exactly why I’m watching UATX for my son’s college education.
Once people stop getting all the benifits from changing gender. Such as equal status in sport,changing rooms. Etc they will start thinking twice is this worth it . Many of those who have changed did very little apart from growing their hair. Yet they have got a whole lot out of It. Especially in the sports field.
In one of her talks Kathleen Stock summed it up brilliantly about how I and people like me (middle-class and working in an unrelated field) approach this thing. It's a mixture of smugness and pity with some hidden distaste mixed in. See, I'm not comfortable talking about genitals so identity talk is much more comfortable. Also, I do not believe a trans woman is a woman, but there's nothing to gain and everything to lose so I don't ever say that. I move on swiftly from this topic careful not to lose any social points. But as a lesbian I'm ashamed and as a mother of girls I'm quite worried.
When she brought up the point about the fact that it’s liberalism not leftism driving this ideology. That’s when I truly became her fan. Because that’s exactly what I am saying. I’ve recently left that ideology and I can absolutely see extreme liberalism at work. It’s the “you can be whatever you want” in spite of logic and evidence. It’s exactly what is driving the fat “liberation” ideology. I’m on the hard left and I will remain so until my end. Because worker’s rights, anti capitalism, women’s rights and LGB rights are more important than the fictitious agenda of the T+.
To the populace outside the insanity of academia, ‘gender’ was a simple synonym for ‘sex’ as a category. On forms we either saw ‘sex’ or ‘gender’, never both. Thus, gender is redundant. We don’t need it. We have ‘persona’. Within persona is one’s projection of the feminine / masculine mix. THAT is what is on a spectrum, so-called non-binary. One’s persona has no bearing on whether one is male or female. Whether one is male or female is solely dependent upon one’s prospective role in the exercise of procreation. Ditch gender and we can start to recover from this Trans insanity.
One of the most lucid arguments on the chaotic contemporary discourses between gender ideology and feminism, where women's rights and violence against women are not the central concern anymore; thank you Dr. Kathleen Stock for bringing some light towards these topics.
There is one more major factor that makes it even more chaotic imo, it's intersectionality of race in feminism or rather it's corrupt application. In trying to be more inclusive we have sidelined ourselves. Ironically feminism has turned into too many cooks in the kitchen.
I'd push pack a little on the assertion that todays Tory party is "conservative". The difference between the UK parties is negligible when it comes to this sort of stuff - it's all a shapeless mess in the centre ground with both the main parties straying to the left for social issues and both now straying to the left for financial issues as well.
Love Kathleen Stock she is such a clear communicator. As a guy I've never applied the label feminist because well I'm a guy and it seems presumptuous and I certainly haven't read much feminist theory. However I've tried to pick up the broad gist of it over the years and I always found it strange that any woman would say they're not a feminist. This might be a horrendous over simplification but considering women were made to wait longer for the right to vote and have the right to their own bank accounts without a male signature until not all that long ago it always seemed obvious to me that society was pretty male dominated and feminism was basically the fight to give women the same rights and opportunities as men. Sure there are absolutely biological differences but it's arguably only in a small amount of areas that matters when it comes to employment so why wouldn't you endorse the broad concept of feminism unless you think women should be treated as second class or property?
- "I currently haven't read much feminist theory." - "I always found it strange that any woman would say they're not a feminist." Well there's your issue. Basically most feminist ideology in practice leads to the belief that males are in some way inherently detrimental, limiting, and a threat to women. Feminism rejects the idea that women are "simply" equal in ultimate value, in the Biblical sense as the main example, and instead claims equal value in all aspects of life with males. The feminist attempt to try and equalize women overall with men overall in all categories has led to women being overprioritized and even over-represented in white coller and academic spaces, while they still obsess over non-existent institutional oppression. This due to overall average payments being different in many areas. These differentiations across society are, in fact, mostly caused by women choosing different career paths and chooses than men across life. This inturn breeds further resentment of men in general, conspiracies, and calls and desires for explicitly women dominated societies as ultimate justice and insurance against men who are seen as inherent threats to women by their "toxic" nature. Therfore toxic femininity can't and doesn't exist. Limits to women are actually only male society's doing, and males and male masculinity can only be viewed as inherently dangerous and something to be essentially castrated. Even in this speech in the video, she hints at the fact that the push for the complete ignoring of the differences, strengths, weaknesses, rolls, etc between men and women leads to an androgeny that comes background to destroy both men and women. Even just in the conceptualization of distinctions and recognition of what is a man or a woman or even to be human in living reality. Very brief summary, I didn't and won't get to everything here. Just because Feminists have retrospectively attempted to claim all of what it means to be a woman and how to view the world doesn't mean their justified or correct. Despite their suffocating dominance in society culture and institutions. More and more men AND women are attempting to Differentiate differentiate feminism from preferred femininity. Despite all its promises, Feminism results in the attempt to make women worse men. While femininity embraces the actual traits of what makes women unique from men and therefore vital to human flourishing and more true fulfillment.
I want to know if there are historical equivalencies to this sort of thing? (besides religious cults). Thats really what it reminds me of --a strange mix of authoritarianism (no debate, you have to affirm) and cultish religions (believing in a gendered soul)
PREDICTION: UATX is going to be one of the most popular institutions over the next twenty years. Respected academics from all over the world will go there, raising standards exponentially. Other similar institutions will start up as result. The embracing of this gender lunacy by hitherto leading institutions will have far-reaching impacts on their success going forwards. We will see a significant shift in the Higher Education market.
As a bloke who was a 'feminist' back in the day I turned away from it when Jessica Valenti and her ilk arrived on the scene. For then they gave no intelligent arguments or debate, rather it just felt like scolding and nagging. Thank God for Paglia, Sommers and this new wave of feminists like Perry, Harrington and the gender critical ladies.
Great to see some actual philosophy on this topic. If only activists hadn't have hounded Stock out of Sussex Uni this would have been in the public sphere a lot sooner and - perhaps - we would have been further on in terms of sorting out the conflict.
Incredibly thought-provoking talk. The point about gender ideology’s seamless partnership with corporate systems is very telling. My main critique: calling an ideology “crazy” or any other non-description, negative label only serves to alienate the people who subscribe to that ideology, many of whom could otherwise be convinced to unsubscribe. Using blanket criticism is so tempting, but extremely unproductive, as evidenced by the term TERF.
20:34 "Conservative" in name only. Consideration has to be given to the shift in the Overton Window that has taken place over the last half century. The Tory party of my youth would not recognise the party as it is today - little more than Blair-lite at this stage - so not so much "Tory scum" as we used to say in the Labour Party, as Globalist scum. Otherwise, I am really enjoying this lecture so far, Kathleen is a nice speaker to listen to. So far I am tempted to agree that feminism and trans ideology are two cheeks of the same arse, but I suspect that I about to be won around by some well reasoned arguments. Yup - I was. Thank you for uploading this brilliant content. I think it is a mistake to automatically put corporations in the camp of "the right" because they are seen as profit driven since they, like the conservatives, have also seen a shift in ideology going from a focus on the shareholder to that of the stakeholder. Otherwise, yes I like the reframing to include "liberalism on crack" - I'm going to steal that, very amusing. Between Kathleen Stock, the wonderful Helen Joyce and Mary Harrington, I think a clear picture of the problems created by trans ideology is crystallising - the first step in finding a solution is to really see what the problem is composed of - rather than just the vitriolic mud slinging of commentators like Matt Walsh - which while entertaining is not really helping.
Do you think the overton window has shifted to the left or the right? I get the feeling you think it has went to the left, I generally believe it has shifted right. I think it may be more nuanced, when it comes to social issues like gay rights for example I believe you could say there has been a shift to the left. I'd include the misguided support of trans ideology in this. However when it comes to economic issues I think we've clearly moved considerably to the right given the way Labour or New Labour basically abandoned socialism and the vitriol poured on Labour under Corbyn when he wrestled brief control of the party from the right of it. The obsession with identity politics by the mainstream left has largely been I believe a waving of the white flag to more class conscious politics that actively tries to reduce inequality in the face of austerity politics and increasing inequality of wealth between the 1% and the rest. The rise in CEO pay ratio between them and the broader workforce.
@@Malky5279 Interesting observation regarding economic issues, and so I will offer something to consider. The Overton window has moved so far to the left economically that the centrist position of a mixed economy is seen as the "right". In the UK, the not inconsiderable taxes and inflation funded government borrowing supports a vast state apparatus of health and education along with pensions and welfare. A great deal of the infrastructure is also provided for from public funds. Then look at the burden put on private property, inheritance tax, fuel tax, road tax, capital gains tax and so on and then observe that anyone with any significant amount of money buggers off to another country to take advantage of their economic positioning, I think there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to point to the fact that we are deep into left wing economic thinking. The fact that both the main parties, ostensibly left and right, apply broadly Keynesian economic approaches would be another point. As to abandoning socialism and class-conscious politics, I don't think that was a moral choice so much as a pragmatic one, with the bloating of the elite class (just look at how many people goto university these days), there just are not enough of us working class people left to achieve that kind of change. Full disclosure, I left the Labour Party when they got rid of Jeremy. And while I've never voted Tory (I witnessed what Thatcher did to the miners), I won't be voting for Labour now and probably never, since the party has been taken over by a bunch of university "educated" (brainwashed) globalists. So I'm one of those people who are ideologically split, socially conservative but economically centrist. I believe in the NHS, while at the same time, don't believe the NHS should be in the business of mutilating children. Crazy talk right? I call the university education "brainwashing", because, when you engage people who have gone through this system - they can tell you have everything should be, while at the same time possessing very little understanding of how anything works. That is the "danger" the working class present to the elites, we are the people who know how the sausage is made - while the elite class are probably more concerned if it is vegan or not... or what its carbon footprint is? Or any such other fictional neoliberal nonsense used to distract people from the real struggle.
Everything exists, then words are constructed to describe those things. We understand the world around us at a very limited level and language expands our knowledge. If you warp the language used to describe and inform our understanding, then there is a problem because imagined reality like gender, has a language built around it but its not real, therefore the language is not real.
And conveniently stops data relating to sex being collected - criminal , legal, service providing, on a grand and totally non-inclusive way. Funny, - we said they would come for our titles, jobs, sports, trophies, and really scarily, our kids. Why? We all know why - abuse, exploitation and the rest. They've had our bodies and minds for ever - now we are non-men.😢
@@helenffrench6934 So, only women get screwed over in this world. What a joke. Everyone gets done over, everyone. Though, my mother had it better than my father, my Nana had it better than my Pop, my daughter has it better than my son, My sister has it better than her husband, and so on. Yet, no one has it better than me, I quit relationships years ago, and live life how I want, at least as much as you can in a world run by so few. It's the few that cause all the major issues, not men, nor women. I am male for whatever that's worth. My life is good though, not because I am male, but because I opted out as much as possible from the repetitious futility of life. Anyway, have a good day.
Really enjoy hearing Kathleen Stock's thoughts on this topic. Her take on all this is sensible, well considered, well researched, compassionate and very well presented.
One of the best brains on this subject along with Helen Joyce
VERY TRUE👍
The brains on the other side are a bit addled.
Yes!
Both are f king feminists and best minds??? Are you kidding me
What a relief to have this laid out. This is EXACTLY what I’ve been waiting to learn. Thank you Kathleen. (Politically homeless female 😊)
Yes! Me too, I’ve been describing myself as politically homeless for so long. I’m an old early feminist from the 60s (and still hold those views) but in recent years have found myself on the same side as right wing neoliberals whose politics of capitalism and individual freedom over community and society repel me. Kathleen Stock represents sanity, at last. But I’m afraid it still leaves me politically, if not culturally, homeless, I can never vote Conservative and I don’t recognise the Labour Party as fundamentally different any more under the current leader. Where does this leave radical feminists? Well, as I said, I am old so I’m happy to be a spectator now. Except I want a better world for my granddaughters than one in which their womanhood is denied them.
Capitalism got us to where we are now, yes it's gone off the rails but that's because we're slipping into oligarchy markets, not free markets. Big business buys up small competition, unless the owner/creator has the will to say no which few do. Despite this the UK still has a large successful pool of small businesses that employ plenty of people in the grand scheme of things, and pay a substantial portion of the tax pie.
The Tories as they stand atm aren't much of conservatives, but those who are actually conservative, low tax, small government, free market capitalists, are also conservative when I comes to community and culture. The latter they're way ahead of labour, who are happy to claim a trans woman is a woman, while also taking the knee for an issue that happened over the Atlantic. While also harbouring many who support open borders, and want Israel to put down their arms and ceasefire, despite the fact Hamas have said they will not put down theirs. These same people want people from Gaza to be given refugee status here despite the risk to the public due to A the ideology within Gaza, it's a very strict islamic nation, ruled by a terrorist group. The schools indoctrinate children as does state TV, so we can't trust the children either unfortunately, especially those between the age of 10-18. Nonetheless the same side that apparently supports community are happy to have them here, despite the clear and present danger to us.
At this point we all have to stop the left v right standard idea and drawn lines. Left and right mean nothing anymore when the far left are all but in control, and the far right is starting to rise and gain traction in response. We need to set aside how we run our country, if your centre left or centre right or simply smack bang in the middle, we likely all want the same thing. We differ on how we get there.
When it comes to the far left and the eventual far right that will start to be really known soon (you can't have one without the other was the same during ww2) we have to stand together, we have to defend the end point we want, ignoring that we differ on how to get there.
Claiming Tories don't care about community doesn't help, just as it would be helpful to say all labour voters support open borders, it simply isn't true, a faction supports it, not the entire left.
There are other options to vote for, yes it's harder to get smaller parties in but it's not impossible if people take the chance on someone new. There's the social democratic party, they're like old style labour, and reform who are like old style Tories. Both of which ideologies did more for this country than the nonsense we have now, where the difference between the Tories and Labour is only different when it comes to the issue of trans and immigration. On everything else they're basically the same, net zero there's no difference at all. When it came to COVID there was no difference at all. Taxes no difference at all. Crime no difference at all.
Doc Stock is a star. 💚
Great stuff as usual from Kathleen. The student who congratulated her on her humility was spot on. Some of her opponents could learn a useful lesson there. So glad she has found a home in Texas. As a former philosophy student at Sussex i feel ashamed and saddened that it couldn’t find a place for her there.
I'm a huge Doc Stock fan and the way she was treated by Sussex Uni was disgusting, especially as she held very moderate views and spoke in a very respectful way on this issue, she's probably the most moderate of all the gender critical feminists.
She is possibly the brightest and most educated on these topics, while being coherently articulate about them I have heard. Outstanding!
It’s impossible not to like her. Brilliant, thoughtful and humble
shes lesbian. shes the beginning of the lgbt+ nightmare acronym. I didn't listen to this leftist terrorism.
What a wonderful, clear headed teasing apart of a complex issue!
She is so wonderful. What a brave and inspiring thinker.
The University of Sussex must be kicking itself at letting the trans bullies drive out Kathleen Stock now that she's become an internationally renowned star academic. Success is the best revenge indeed!
I identify as a Stock fan.
Amazing talk, what a balanced, amazing woman! Thanks for all you do.
I'm also a non-man who is attracted to non-men, aka a lesbian, and it makes me very proud and relieved to hear intelligent, sane voices like Kathleen Stock still fighting for actual women's rights. Transphobia is discriminating against trans people solely because they are trans. Acknowledging reality and protecting women's rights is not transphobic, regardless of how much the trans activists like to lie and censor people who understand that material reality does not care about anyone's feelings. Women's rights are for females, not trans-identified males. Western society has set back women's rights and feminism decades under the guise of "empathy and kindness" for gender dysphoric men (and the AGP men who use the label as trans to infiltrate women's spaces) but no such empathy is given to actual women. Women and girls aren't assaulted with a "gender identity". Trans-identified males aren't smashing women's athletic records with "gender identity". Ignoring material reality in favor of gender self-identity politics has real world consequences. We must bring back sanity.
At the start of all this madness I assumed that transgender women would automatically become feminists and automatically understand our point of view and act accordingly. How naive of me, they behave like men. If they understood us they wouldn’t demand to use toilets whilst teenage girls in particular are vulnerable. They would behave like us and want to be naturally protective. They are incapable of seeing our perspective and therefore undermine their own arguments of being women.
I hate that "gender identity" is considered more important than the physical and psychological safety of women. I don't know about you, but I don't know a single woman who hasn't been a victim of sexual harassment. We have all experienced it, some of us have had it only mildly, many of us have felt genuinely threatened by a man, and I know too many women who have been a victim of a sexual assault and/or domestic violence. And yet all of that is less important than the feelings of a few men who want to use our bathrooms because they "feel" like a woman.
@@loftyradish6972 Exactly. I agree with everything you have said. Even in nearly every article where a trans-identified male has assaulted a woman, there is no mention of the perp being male. The article just disingenuously reads "woman assaults woman". It's ludicrous.
Interesting and on point, hopefully more to follow. Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce are both very much needed in our public dialogue.
Brilliant. Yep. I can admit to being a feminist like Kathleen Stock. The common sense kind.
I would observe there is nothing 'common' about her sense. It is as rare as it is clear
She is a very cever woman indeed.
Yeah, let's convince more than half the women to work low paid jobs instead of staying home and caring for her children and husband.
Genius.
@markjones1337
More than half the women have well paying jobs..
Furthermore, she might have a low paying job today, but maybe not tomorrow. Things change, with education might become well paid
@wyleecoyotee4252 no they don't you clown. Its 8%, the rest are all fairly low paid jobs like nurses, teachers, shop workers
Dr Stock is a great thinker and speaker on this issue and is also a brilliant writer and scholar! The audience at UATX were fortunate to hear her speak.
Interesting contribution from Konstantin Kisin (elsewhere) who suggests that because she is within the LBGQT 'community' she is regarded as an apostate (especially dangerous to the faith) by the pious fundamentalists of Trans Activism and so receives the most vicious villification and the most ridiculous straw manning
They seem to feel that way about detransitioners, too
Also because she’s a woman. Gender critical women & (actual) feminists are the most vilified in this fight. And probably the bravest ones considering they are threatened of rape, torture & crime on a daily basis (along with H. Joyce, Kelly-Jay Keen etc.)
Trans activists hate gay/lesbian people and trans ideology is the most homophobic thing we’ve had to deal with in decades.
@@Souxie123 and jk rowling.
I am heterosexual, but I have a crush on Kathleen ... it's the brilliant mind and the unapologetic bravery.
For me it’s the shirts….
@@SueGittins😂
I'm a lesbian and I have a crush on Kathleen😅
I'm a straight man, and I don't, but she is so rational and measured on this that it is no wonder that she is a top voice to listen to about all this nonsense.
she is VERY attractive.
I have so much respect for Kathleen Stock. I have just bought her book :) looking forward to diving into the topic.
Considering the absolute s*** she has taken from odious trans "activists", in her book she comes across surprisingly compassionate towards trans people in general, while still holding firm to her own position.
Brilliant, clear and to the point. Dr. Stock is an amazing woman.
She’s just brilliant - calm, measured, rational, reasonable…. I will never understand how anybody could describe this woman as hateful
Thank you for this talk, Kathleen. I found your discussion about the relationship between Feminism in its various versions and Gender Ideology most interesting. Your insight about using the preferred pronouns of trans people, framing it as participating in a fiction and not as fomenting a lie (as Helen Joyce suggests), was quite an eye-opener to me. As such, it has a legitimate and useful place in our lives, as long as we take it for what it is - fiction, not reality. This framing seems to me much more accurate and fruitful.
It is a lie, and a fiction.
Well said.
Thank you for this lecture - we need more of these to tackle complex issues :)
Yes! Politically homeless, right here! Present! Thank you, Kathleen, for all the work, thinking, and speaking you have done in this direction.
What a brave and beautiful lady. So clear, so thoughtful, so solid. Excellent talk.
Thanks for the sanity and intelligence of Kathleen Stock. We need her voice.
Oh how she is doing my small wee island in the north Atlantic proud 🇬🇧
Thank you so much Kathleen Stock for your work!
Great talk, doc. Thanks for the nod to radfemmery. Eyes would like to move back to SA and R, also prostitution and fighting the upcoming commercial surrogacy policies in the Uk (women for rent for all. Sick) They impact poor women the most
Chant - ‘Kathleen Stock’s not lost the plot’!
"NO DEBATE" Says it all.
I could listen to her for hours and hours!
Kathleen always talks so much sense
I feel like this speech needs to be made into a semester long course.
Right on!!! 👍
Nah
"To understand Gender Studies, we must become Gender Studies!"
That was kind of the point of the speech in the first place. It is being made into a course. The first crop of students at U of Austin is matriculating as we speak.
These feminists have already destroyed everything will you stop this already BS
Fantastic summary, thank you Dr.Stock
Gender identity as a chest-bursting xenomorph? Love the (implied) analogy!
I've never sought to claim to be a feminist as a male. I have however always supported feminism for a range of reasons, part cultural but also some specific familial ones. As a male I see myself as being for women and all that means. At some point I have to have a line where I argue for limiting individual choice. I choose Kathleen's line. I suspect my late mother, 2nd wave femanist would also.
I agree with Dr Stock's take on this, men can be a feminist ally but not a feminist, we need men to support girls and women and help change things.
"2nd wave Feminism" is what led to this idiotic nonsense.
Kathleen ❤ thank you for standing up for women 👊🏼
When will you post about trans widows, the ex-wives of suddenly cross-dressing men? In my data on 53 of us, the only data set in the world, 20% of us have been sexually assaulted by lingerie-wearing husband. 15 of us were physically assaulted, and only 4 of the strangulations reported to police. None charged. More @YTchannel: Trans Widow Ute Heggen
This is really Sand 😓
I mentioned trans-widows in my transgenderism video on my yt.
What do you expect? When Tranz people claim so much Minority Privilege, why expect them to ABUSE It
What a wonderful woman Kathleen Stock is.
Quite excellent thanks everyone who made it possible.
Fascinating analysis. I would have liked to be her student.
what a gorgeous woman! I admire her courage and intelligence
She's on the wrong side of history. When respecting trans people goes mainstream she'll be remembered as being the right's useful idiot.
@@SuperKripke There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have.
Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realising that their discomfort simply stems from not realising that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define.
This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives).
Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognised as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into.
This "woman is a social construct" thing IS the part that validates and perpetuates sexist stereotypes - woman isn't a social construct in that sense, it is a word society has chosen yes, but to describe a PHYSICAL state of being, not anyone's emotional states or where they fall on some spectrum of masculinity or femininity. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the definition of man and woman means. The notion that people need to live up to sexist stereotypes of what "real men" or "real women" are, is complete fantasy. The fact that many people act as if sexist stereotypes were valid ways of measuring "real men" or real women" is a problem with the individual and their sexist bias, not with the terms themselves, as the terms themselves have none of the expectational baggage that people who internalise sexist stereotypes associate with them.
A woman, is an adult human female, it is not an "identity" or a feeling, dress, attitude etc., that whole line of thinking is regressive in the extreme. Claiming there is some "essence" to "womanhood" that also males can access, but the reality is that women do not have to look or act any certain way, or act out some ludicrously sexist idea of the “social role of a woman”, all females who reach adulthood are women regardless of how they feel or look, and the one thing they ALL have in common, the one experience they ALL share, is that they are FEMALE, they do not have to "identify" as anything, they physically ARE women because they are female.
Great presentation. Thank you, Kathleen Stock.
what a fantastic, articulate and intelligent woman. great to see interesting questions from young people too
Yeah, I’ve come full circle on the issue and definitely think men and women should have their own spaces whether that be gym sessions, scouts, schools etc.. We’re different, there are issues we’re not going to be able to comprehend about the other and that’s ok! 👍🏻 A man can never comprehend what it is to be a woman and vice versa.
Unwavering honesty and impartiality, from start to finish. Great presentation.
She is so intelligent and respectful.
Excellent lecture and thanks to Prof. Kathleen Stock for her rich analysis about our modern societies. For the French readers, I would like to recommend this recent book by Bernard Lahire: "Les structures fondamentales des sociétés humaines" that, after reviewing and developing the epistemology of the human sciences, proposes a more robust understanding the human being by identifying some generic laws that applies to our human species (and often others too). I see it as an important contribution to this debate.
Kathleen’s explanation of the elements of liberalism that created the scaffold for this have persuaded me. In defence of liberalism, though, and what Kathleen likely meant when she spoke about the corruption of liberalism, the idea of “your rights are fine until they conflict with my rights” comes from liberalism. And liberalism also contains the ideas to help us deal with this conflict to resolve it - and here I agree with Jonathan Rauch when describes liberalism as a conflict resolution system - the ideas of free speech (which includes the freedom to listen) would have thwarted the “no debate” demand; the idea of freedom of belief (religious & philosophical) would have thwarted the demands to compel people to accept a fiction; and the idea of freedom of association would have thwarted the demand people be included into groups/spaces if the group/space description of itself didn’t include those demanding entry. I’m sad the liberals present, left or right, didn’t bring up in the Q&A how liberalism also has defences against gender identity ideology. The abandonment of these ideas in what are claimed to be liberal democracies is what got us into this mess too.
Maybe gender ideology isn’t an aberation within liberalism so much as the inevitable end-game of all theories nestling under the ‘individualism’ umbrella. Perhaps all such theories must eventually founder against the rocks of our fundamental nature as social beings?
54:50- The question of how big money lobbying has put trans ideology on warp speed is key. Kathleen Stock does a fantastic job addressing it. Jennifer Bilek’s writing for the 11th Hour Blog does a deep dive on the influence of money in creating and amplifying trans ideology into the mainstream. Simply put, money is the engine behind all of it and long term it financially benefits Big Pharma, Big Tech and the medical industrial complex to have a generation of young people believing they can change sex.
Thomas Sowell's book, "A Conflict of Visions", has been of great help to me in understanding many of our current problems and confusions, such as those discussed here.
I really love Kathleen Stock! Always so measured and erudite.
that was interesting and informative, thanks👍🙂.
the questions from students were thought provoking and disturbing, for illuminating the complexity of the moral maze in society now.
thankfully, curious capable youth are engaging fully and exploring pathways forward respectfully and intelligently 🙏🕉🌱🌼.
Kathleen Stock & Judith Butler NEED to have a debate.
Butler wouldn't be able to hold her own against Stock, she's a social theorist and not based in reality at all
Well radical feminists definitely share a lot of critiques of the sexual revolution being bad for women with "right wing feminists" but the difference is we criticize both left wing misogyny and right wing misogyny (which is more institutionalized as well)
Super inspiring. I'm fully on board with this kind of feminism.
What’s the age range of students signing up for the “forbidden courses” program? These young people are impressive in their thinking & articulation of questions… & exactly why I’m watching UATX for my son’s college education.
Once people stop getting all the benifits from changing gender. Such as equal status in sport,changing rooms. Etc they will start thinking twice is this worth it . Many of those who have changed did very little apart from growing their hair. Yet they have got a whole lot out of It. Especially in the sports field.
Awesome. I didn't even get distracted.
@datrenarakiel8202
🤣😑
Best talk I’ve heard in weeks!!! 💕💕💕
This woman is light
In one of her talks Kathleen Stock summed it up brilliantly about how I and people like me (middle-class and working in an unrelated field) approach this thing. It's a mixture of smugness and pity with some hidden distaste mixed in. See, I'm not comfortable talking about genitals so identity talk is much more comfortable. Also, I do not believe a trans woman is a woman, but there's nothing to gain and everything to lose so I don't ever say that. I move on swiftly from this topic careful not to lose any social points. But as a lesbian I'm ashamed and as a mother of girls I'm quite worried.
God, I love nuance!
This needs to be shown to men and women everywhere. Great breackdown!
Probably the best speech of 2023
When she brought up the point about the fact that it’s liberalism not leftism driving this ideology. That’s when I truly became her fan. Because that’s exactly what I am saying. I’ve recently left that ideology and I can absolutely see extreme liberalism at work. It’s the “you can be whatever you want” in spite of logic and evidence. It’s exactly what is driving the fat “liberation” ideology. I’m on the hard left and I will remain so until my end. Because worker’s rights, anti capitalism, women’s rights and LGB rights are more important than the fictitious agenda of the T+.
She seems like such a nice person!
Good stuff - very interesting how it all came about in UK
To the populace outside the insanity of academia, ‘gender’ was a simple synonym for ‘sex’ as a category. On forms we either saw ‘sex’ or ‘gender’, never both. Thus, gender is redundant. We don’t need it.
We have ‘persona’. Within persona is one’s projection of the feminine / masculine mix. THAT is what is on a spectrum, so-called non-binary.
One’s persona has no bearing on whether one is male or female. Whether one is male or female is solely dependent upon one’s prospective role in the exercise of procreation.
Ditch gender and we can start to recover from this Trans insanity.
She’s saying things the way I feel them but as English isn’t my first language, I couldn’t put together.
Good talk.
Well done
One of the most lucid arguments on the chaotic contemporary discourses between gender ideology and feminism, where women's rights and violence against women are not the central concern anymore; thank you Dr. Kathleen Stock for bringing some light towards these topics.
There is one more major factor that makes it even more chaotic imo, it's intersectionality of race in feminism or rather it's corrupt application. In trying to be more inclusive we have sidelined ourselves. Ironically feminism has turned into too many cooks in the kitchen.
Great presentation/conversation. I was quite taken by the architecture of the building too! Anyone know what building that was?
I'd push pack a little on the assertion that todays Tory party is "conservative". The difference between the UK parties is negligible when it comes to this sort of stuff - it's all a shapeless mess in the centre ground with both the main parties straying to the left for social issues and both now straying to the left for financial issues as well.
Love Kathleen Stock she is such a clear communicator.
As a guy I've never applied the label feminist because well I'm a guy and it seems presumptuous and I certainly haven't read much feminist theory.
However I've tried to pick up the broad gist of it over the years and I always found it strange that any woman would say they're not a feminist.
This might be a horrendous over simplification but considering women were made to wait longer for the right to vote and have the right to their own bank accounts without a male signature until not all that long ago it always seemed obvious to me that society was pretty male dominated and feminism was basically the fight to give women the same rights and opportunities as men.
Sure there are absolutely biological differences but it's arguably only in a small amount of areas that matters when it comes to employment so why wouldn't you endorse the broad concept of feminism unless you think women should be treated as second class or property?
- "I currently haven't read much feminist theory."
- "I always found it strange that any woman would say they're not a feminist."
Well there's your issue.
Basically most feminist ideology in practice leads to the belief that males are in some way inherently detrimental, limiting, and a threat to women. Feminism rejects the idea that women are "simply" equal in ultimate value, in the Biblical sense as the main example, and instead claims equal value in all aspects of life with males. The feminist attempt to try and equalize women overall with men overall in all categories has led to women being overprioritized and even over-represented in white coller and academic spaces, while they still obsess over non-existent institutional oppression. This due to overall average payments being different in many areas. These differentiations across society are, in fact, mostly caused by women choosing different career paths and chooses than men across life. This inturn breeds further resentment of men in general, conspiracies, and calls and desires for explicitly women dominated societies as ultimate justice and insurance against men who are seen as inherent threats to women by their "toxic" nature. Therfore toxic femininity can't and doesn't exist. Limits to women are actually only male society's doing, and males and male masculinity can only be viewed as inherently dangerous and something to be essentially castrated.
Even in this speech in the video, she hints at the fact that the push for the complete ignoring of the differences, strengths, weaknesses, rolls, etc between men and women leads to an androgeny that comes background to destroy both men and women. Even just in the conceptualization of distinctions and recognition of what is a man or a woman or even to be human in living reality.
Very brief summary, I didn't and won't get to everything here.
Just because Feminists have retrospectively attempted to claim all of what it means to be a woman and how to view the world doesn't mean their justified or correct. Despite their suffocating dominance in society culture and institutions.
More and more men AND women are attempting to Differentiate differentiate feminism from preferred femininity.
Despite all its promises, Feminism results in the attempt to make women worse men.
While femininity embraces the actual traits of what makes women unique from men and therefore vital to human flourishing and more true fulfillment.
She's great
Kathleen Stock is coming to my fantasy dinner party 😂😂😂
Brilliant ❤
Excellent speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great to hear this
At some point we need to give up on analysing things according to left vs right.. It is an antiquated system of categorisation.
I love Kathleen Stock ❤
James Lindsay shoukd speak with Kathleen Stock.
Academics created this issue.
And Pharmaceutical corporations
I want to know if there are historical equivalencies to this sort of thing? (besides religious cults). Thats really what it reminds me of --a strange mix of authoritarianism (no debate, you have to affirm) and cultish religions (believing in a gendered soul)
She’s wonderful.
PREDICTION: UATX is going to be one of the most popular institutions over the next twenty years. Respected academics from all over the world will go there, raising standards exponentially. Other similar institutions will start up as result. The embracing of this gender lunacy by hitherto leading institutions will have far-reaching impacts on their success going forwards. We will see a significant shift in the Higher Education market.
As a bloke who was a 'feminist' back in the day I turned away from it when Jessica Valenti and her ilk arrived on the scene. For then they gave no intelligent arguments or debate, rather it just felt like scolding and nagging.
Thank God for Paglia, Sommers and this new wave of feminists like Perry, Harrington and the gender critical ladies.
Awesome Woman!!! 🙂
Great to see some actual philosophy on this topic. If only activists hadn't have hounded Stock out of Sussex Uni this would have been in the public sphere a lot sooner and - perhaps - we would have been further on in terms of sorting out the conflict.
Very interesting
Incredibly thought-provoking talk. The point about gender ideology’s seamless partnership with corporate systems is very telling.
My main critique: calling an ideology “crazy” or any other non-description, negative label only serves to alienate the people who subscribe to that ideology, many of whom could otherwise be convinced to unsubscribe. Using blanket criticism is so tempting, but extremely unproductive, as evidenced by the term TERF.
20:34 "Conservative" in name only. Consideration has to be given to the shift in the Overton Window that has taken place over the last half century. The Tory party of my youth would not recognise the party as it is today - little more than Blair-lite at this stage - so not so much "Tory scum" as we used to say in the Labour Party, as Globalist scum. Otherwise, I am really enjoying this lecture so far, Kathleen is a nice speaker to listen to. So far I am tempted to agree that feminism and trans ideology are two cheeks of the same arse, but I suspect that I about to be won around by some well reasoned arguments. Yup - I was. Thank you for uploading this brilliant content. I think it is a mistake to automatically put corporations in the camp of "the right" because they are seen as profit driven since they, like the conservatives, have also seen a shift in ideology going from a focus on the shareholder to that of the stakeholder. Otherwise, yes I like the reframing to include "liberalism on crack" - I'm going to steal that, very amusing. Between Kathleen Stock, the wonderful Helen Joyce and Mary Harrington, I think a clear picture of the problems created by trans ideology is crystallising - the first step in finding a solution is to really see what the problem is composed of - rather than just the vitriolic mud slinging of commentators like Matt Walsh - which while entertaining is not really helping.
Do you think the overton window has shifted to the left or the right? I get the feeling you think it has went to the left, I generally believe it has shifted right.
I think it may be more nuanced, when it comes to social issues like gay rights for example I believe you could say there has been a shift to the left. I'd include the misguided support of trans ideology in this. However when it comes to economic issues I think we've clearly moved considerably to the right given the way Labour or New Labour basically abandoned socialism and the vitriol poured on Labour under Corbyn when he wrestled brief control of the party from the right of it.
The obsession with identity politics by the mainstream left has largely been I believe a waving of the white flag to more class conscious politics that actively tries to reduce inequality in the face of austerity politics and increasing inequality of wealth between the 1% and the rest. The rise in CEO pay ratio between them and the broader workforce.
@@Malky5279 Interesting observation regarding economic issues, and so I will offer something to consider. The Overton window has moved so far to the left economically that the centrist position of a mixed economy is seen as the "right". In the UK, the not inconsiderable taxes and inflation funded government borrowing supports a vast state apparatus of health and education along with pensions and welfare. A great deal of the infrastructure is also provided for from public funds. Then look at the burden put on private property, inheritance tax, fuel tax, road tax, capital gains tax and so on and then observe that anyone with any significant amount of money buggers off to another country to take advantage of their economic positioning, I think there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to point to the fact that we are deep into left wing economic thinking. The fact that both the main parties, ostensibly left and right, apply broadly Keynesian economic approaches would be another point. As to abandoning socialism and class-conscious politics, I don't think that was a moral choice so much as a pragmatic one, with the bloating of the elite class (just look at how many people goto university these days), there just are not enough of us working class people left to achieve that kind of change.
Full disclosure, I left the Labour Party when they got rid of Jeremy. And while I've never voted Tory (I witnessed what Thatcher did to the miners), I won't be voting for Labour now and probably never, since the party has been taken over by a bunch of university "educated" (brainwashed) globalists. So I'm one of those people who are ideologically split, socially conservative but economically centrist. I believe in the NHS, while at the same time, don't believe the NHS should be in the business of mutilating children. Crazy talk right? I call the university education "brainwashing", because, when you engage people who have gone through this system - they can tell you have everything should be, while at the same time possessing very little understanding of how anything works. That is the "danger" the working class present to the elites, we are the people who know how the sausage is made - while the elite class are probably more concerned if it is vegan or not... or what its carbon footprint is? Or any such other fictional neoliberal nonsense used to distract people from the real struggle.
Everything exists, then words are constructed to describe those things. We understand the world around us at a very limited level and language expands our knowledge. If you warp the language used to describe and inform our understanding, then there is a problem because imagined reality like gender, has a language built around it but its not real, therefore the language is not real.
It's almost as if words have meaning.
I see this gender ideology issue as a very convenient way of avoiding helping women in developing countries.
Sad but true!
And conveniently stops data relating to sex being collected - criminal , legal, service providing, on a grand and totally non-inclusive way. Funny, - we said they would come for our titles, jobs, sports, trophies, and really scarily, our kids. Why? We all know why - abuse, exploitation and the rest. They've had our bodies and minds for ever - now we are non-men.😢
@@helenffrench6934 So, only women get screwed over in this world. What a joke. Everyone gets done over, everyone. Though, my mother had it better than my father, my Nana had it better than my Pop, my daughter has it better than my son, My sister has it better than her husband, and so on. Yet, no one has it better than me, I quit relationships years ago, and live life how I want, at least as much as you can in a world run by so few. It's the few that cause all the major issues, not men, nor women.
I am male for whatever that's worth. My life is good though, not because I am male, but because I opted out as much as possible from the repetitious futility of life. Anyway, have a good day.
52:50 about legal protections of "sex" based rights in other countries.
Camille Paglia deserves some goddamn recognition by ALL of these “reasonable feminists”…. you are all incredibly late the party.
I've been into Paglia since the 80s, before you existed if your photo is anything to go by.
Camilla,is not a feminist
@@wyleecoyotee4252 Yeah? Who the hell is then? The concept is so ambiguous as not to mean anything at all.
@@wyleecoyotee4252please clarify why you say that?
isnt camille pro-pedophilia
Finally, a feminist admits the faults in modern-day feminism and what they are based on.