Do you agree with Kathleen Stock's framing of the public conversation around trans rights? We would love to hear about it in the comments! To watch Stock lay out her case on the problem with universities, go to iai.tv/video/truth-prejudice-and-the-university3?RUclips&
Yes, I agree with Kathleen, she has the rights to express her views which are based on facts. There is indeed a serious concern of the safety of women, sex matters and by law must be protected.
Kathleen has no academic background in medicine, biology or psychology. Couldn't you have found an actual expert to speak on this topic? What value does an uneducated person (in the relevant fields) bring to the table, exactly?
@@tommylakindasorta3068 most people don't need to be an expert in biology to recognise biological sex in themselves and others, hence why the human race has managed to reproduce for millenia just fine. It's only in the 21st century that we could play make believe that medical technology comes anything like close to reframing this very basic, yet fundamental, fact.
@Astrid Alaniz please stop spreading false information. Sex is binary in humans since a third human gamete has never been discovered. It takes one egg and one sperm to create a human fetus. Two gametes = two sexes, male and female. No third gamete, no third+ sex, which is why you cannot name a third gamete nor a third or more sex in humans.
@Astrid Alaniz facts are that women’s safety has been undermined by allowing anyone to enter to single sex spaces only. She is concerned about the erosion of women’s rights. People can dress however they please and call themselves whatever they like and live the best life in peace and security. But force women like Kathleen out of their job for stating that biological sex is real? It is absolutely disgraceful the way she has been treated. Whatever your argument is, the reality is that a man is born as a male and will die as a male and same is for women.
Arguing that adulthood is arbitrary is very worrying, adulthood is clearly linked to sexual and biological maturation. Biology matters and sexual maturation matters. Women and Men are different and have different needs. I love Dr Kathleen Stock, she is so sensible and measured, how anyone could be offended by her is beyond me.
Adulthood is based on how many times the planet has resolved around the sun since you were born, not sexual maturityor frontal lobe development. That's obviously arbitrary.
@@eatmanyzoos Why is it so hard for you to understand that having a problem with predatory or inappropriate men is not an act of misandry? Males hurt everyone in society more than women do. Just a fact, we all know it. We can't cook the books to change it. However many women predators there are there will always be more men, whatever their gender identity
"Women are not skinsuits" 23:15 - Kath has reduced the discussion and argument to 4 words. Kath is a human totally in control of her intelligence and communication. Wow!
At 2:33 “Well, I wouldn’t care at all if people weren’t trying to ratify it into law and policy”, Yep, that is how many of us feel and the argument, “They just want to be left alone to live their lives as they please” is a flat out lie.
Ratifying equality will happen. But first we have to get beyond the radical essentialism of patriarchal misogyny adopted and internalized by so many females including Trans females . It’s the traditional discrimination of non confirmed in gender binary cultures like ours. And then we have to get beyond the fear mongering binary thinking that has produced over 436 anti lgbtq bills of every kind in 2022 and 2023 alone in the USA. We will get there. Accuracy and justice are coming because love wins. Fear and disinformation are powerful but love wins.
But what is the problem if we all share the same bathroom? What protects "women's spaces" from men entering? The law? Not even sure. But surely, in practise, mainly male police officers (some call it the patriarchy) will come, step in and eject men from women's spaces. But why are women not afraid of policemen? Why are women afraid of men in general? Why is this misandry allowed and accepted? And what makes women sure they are mot being assaulted by women? Facts > feelings.
@@Kritikanbringer You bring only feelings, no facts whatsoever. Why are women not afraid of being assaulted by women? Because 99% of sexual assaults are done by men. "What makes women "sure" they are not assaulted by women?" is a pure straw man argument on your part. No woman has ever claimed that. Just that with men, there is a clear and present danger, and crime statistics prove it. So, just stay out of women's spaces. And cops are supposed to follow law and order. What you're saying boils down to "might makes right", which is a rapist's attitude. You're a creep, and you should probably be locked up.
Yeah. I wonder that because we treated homosexuality so heinously in past decades, and at last, thankfully, rights have been won...are we frightened to say something that might be seen as not supporting that? And I hate that right wing religious wankers tends to take an anti-trans view, then any critique is viewed as right wing. Its not in this case . Can we separate these concepts
Kathleen Stock is an absolute hero and all credit to her for keeping her cool in this conversation. It is unbelievable that what Kathleen is saying is considered in any way controversial. People have been captured into a cult and voices like Kathleen, Helen Joyce and Julie Bindal are vital.
I admire Posie Parker a lot too. I was calling it a cult years ago when this was barely being discussed in public. I had to wait a while, but now more, and more people are learning. I just hope we can restore women's sports, private spaces etc., to being cie women only, like they are supposed to be.
This cult you mention, I wonder what percent of it believed wholeheartedly in the mandates that turned out to be a lot less scientific than we were assured, the benefits of the v that turned out to be a fraction than what it was built up to be, and won't hear one word about side effects 🤔
I'm thrilled to see her getting media attention. The way she was forced out of her job is shameful. We need sane, rational, educated, critical-thinking people like her in the limelight to fight this absurd ideology.
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef She actually was pushed out because she spoke about truth and reality which is unacceptable to the emotionally immature trans activists and gender theorists.
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef Her life was made so difficult she had to leave. Would you want to be in a workplace where you're threatened with rape and death and your bosses don't support you? She was bullied out.
Totally agree with Dr Stock. Why is it - again - women have to accomodate others for whatever reason, usually entitled men, now entitled men who want to be 'women'. Sooo exhausting for women who just want equal recognition in a masculine dominated society.
Can you imagine someone who is pro-gender identity coming on the show and being pushed on the topic the way this woman was. It will never happen! The pro gender identity person would wither and collapse, and then accuse the interviewer of transphobia. The fact that they can’t defend their ideas is further proof of the insanity of this premise
The "anti-gender" movement is purely based on indulging in fictional scenarios that can reinforce your own prejudices. Whether it is fictional transphobia accusations or fictional situations of trans women raping people. Let's talk about things that actually happen
the interview was asking the dumbest questions lol. him insisting adulthood is superficial had me pulling my hair. as if there's no difference between a 9 year old and a 19 year old! She has the patience of a saint. I would've snapped.
Yeah seriously. When I saw they were having Kathleen Stock on, I thought I'd subscribe because I thought that signified that it was an intelligent channel. But after sitting through the unbelievably blockheaded questions by the idiot interviewer, I have changed my mind. Not subscribing if this is the level of this channel.
@@gamer1X12 He said "arbitrary", not "superficial", and that's because he's correct. You're taking an average of the population and trying to apply it to an individual. That's why it gets "fuzzy around the edges", because an individual is not a society. Some mature faster, some mature slower. You're choosing to make assumptions, instead of directly observing the individual, because it's materially-difficult to do so. You're choosing to not investigate the individual, because of a factor that's irrelevant to their level-of-development. That's, definitionally, arbitrary.
@@Capybarrrraaaa A certain amount of arbitrariness is inescapable when deciding on things like the age of consent. In the UK and Ireland it's 16 on the basis that in the mean, most people will have reached a certain level of cognitive and emotional development by that age and are ready to begin learning about how to conduct intimate relationships. In that sense, it's not truly arbitrary at all. When it comes to competence to consent to medical treatments for example, anyone under 16 would have to meet what's known in law as 'Gillick competence', whereby their consent can be established as being reasonably well informed. In the former situation, typical development at a given age is taken as standard. In the latter, the individual is looked at. I wonder, do you think puberty blockers and hormones should be available to children under 16 on demand?
I could listen to Kathleen all day! Always so erudite, clear and reasonable. It’s so shameful the way that she has been treated - the University of Sussex should hang it’s head in shame
The intelligent, thoughtful, clear, patient and consistently kind Dr Stock.....the world has gone completely insane when someone of her calibre has to explain basic biology day after day...
I personally think what we define as a clear biological divide between male and female is outdated. Even biologists will tell you that there is so much more than xx and xy genotype. It is a complicated debate and goes beyond a simple: a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
@@kenzi3168 As a biologist I can assure you it is not outdated, and it will never will be. The developmental pathways are indeed very complicated, but the divide between male and female is pretty simple - two sexes, two gametes.
@@dax2005 It is totaly outdated, hence why so many scietists and biologists in this world fully acknoledge that trans women were born biological females, based on the criteria of gender identity that is fully biological and innate, as a guiding biological principle that deal with self perceptin and neurobiology, it has been officially recognized that way by the scientific community hence why it has been implemented in education and dictionaries. The world is moving on, and this lady is just resisting reality and basic science and the actual advanced biology with regards to what we know about transgender people. People like her are going to have a very hard time on earth, including conservatives.
@@karlscher5170 No. because daring to have an opinion that mildly opposes far left ideologies often results in doxing and death threats. Not sure what her being a lesbian has to do with anything?
@@profplum5 As a butch lesbian she views men primarily as sexual competitors, especially men in a female role intruding 'female spaces'. That is understandable but not noble or idealistic by any means. Trans ideology is not far left but extreme libertarIian.
It's very rare that I find myself in complete agreement with someone on a particular topic, but as a gay man and someone who has had a keen interest in this for some time, I am absolutely aligned with Kathleen Stock. Her perspective as a philosopher of fiction on the controversy around "gender" shines a bright light on an issue which is so often murky and shot through with intellectual garbage and political sleight-of-hand. She's a great ally in this fight -- and for any number of reasons I do see it as a fight -- against an ideology that I see as inherently harmful. Someone below said that Sussex University should hang its head in shame over her treatment. I agree. What a loss to teaching it is that this brilliant woman was thrown to the wolves.
Applaudable post, Lew. Yep, Sussex blew it and lost an exceptional member of academic staff - but I suspect she'll prove to be more influential away from full-time university employment than she would have been had she not been unjustly forced out of her job. All best
But she lied, Lew? She lied about what trans people claim several times and half of her points were just purely contradictory. Trans people claim that gender is innate, but want to "switch sexes" (whatever that means) somehow?
It's almost beyond belief that anyone can equate her claim that: "saying trans women are literally women is a type of fiction" with the idea that she thinks they don't exist. It's such a bizarre interpretation of her words that its difficult to understand how anyone could have put it forward. Of course she's not saying they don't exist as ppl. She's saying the claim that they literally are women is a fiction.
The people who make this claim cannot define what a woman is, ergo erasing the meaning of both women and trans women in one swoop. Then they'll claim that's what you're doing. It's wild.
@@janinemcmahon218 That argument will get you bogged down by the lunatics,who will try to conflate men dressed as women with people with disorders of sexual development. The correct formulation is the potential to produce small,motile gametes or large sessile gametes. Why we have to descend to this level is insane,but that is what we,as a society,have come to.
Good luck Kathleen, stay strong! You've been harassed and bullied for the Orwellian crime of 'wrongthink'. Ideology is very much meeting reality, the edifice of manure is crumbling.
Highly intelligent, erudite and wise woman. Don’t know who was asking these questions but her patience and kindness towards the interviewer spoke volumes about where this debate is at and where we as humanity seem to have become lost.
But no male should be allowed in women's single-sex spaces no matter how well HE passes b/c then how do you legally keep all other men out. Men cannot 'identify' into the female sex-class and belong in the male sex-class and the males need to sort this out in male spaces. Women are not men's shields and need to stay out of women-only spaces.
I think the interviewer missed the obvious question about intersex, however. She seems to think that it’s easy to define biological sex, but it’s actually not. 🙂
@@katharinaangelazafarani7220 Intersex/DSD obviously has nothing specifically to do with trans, but the point still stands that biological sex is not easy to define; that it’s multifactorial and has a bimodal expression.
@@evasilvertant exceptions to the rule shouldn't redefine the rule. Just because intersex people exist doesn't change the definition of man and woman. It's like saying we need to rethink how many fingers a human has because some people are born with 6 instead of 5. Intersex is their own category and should not reduce their humanity in any way.
Commenting from New Zealand and as a indigenous Maori, feminist and lesbian it has been a harrowing time trying to understand the reactionary position of peoples drawing a trans argument coming fast and furious from the west. UK women like Professor Kathleen Stock, the author JK Rowling and academic Maya Forrest to Posie Parker who was attacked here when visiting. Just need to say thanks for all of you good women pushing back. This interview is the best and the professor has done fabulous in not missing an interview whether at Oxford or on entertainment news outlets. The erosion of women’s rights and the need to reaffirm indigenous rights in this instance with the changing laws to cater for transgender activism has colonialism all over it. Kia kaha waahine toa/Stay strong women of the world. Our children need protecting and in my view no child is born in the wrong body. Na Mihirawhiti Searancke
My son was presumed female at birth. He has female external genitalia. We assumed him a girl and pushed back when he said at three that he is a boy. As it turns out he has xy chromosomes. It's more common than being trans - although I have no doubt there's an overlap. He is intersex as are around 2% of the population. Was he born in the "wrong body"? He feels he was. Regardless, we were certainly treating him as the wrong gender.
@@Denidrakes69 Look intersex is still not the same as trans, despite any attempts in making the two overlap. Most trans people don't have any intersex conditions and when they make it a "whataboutism" they seem to be appropriating being intersex. And since I'm genuinely unsure and don't like the implications, what does it actually mean to treat someone as the "wrong" gender without using any gender stereotypes?
@@briancox9357Nonsense. If I pick up a rag I’ll often choose either of these papers. I also align with Kathleen’s views. I also suspect her broader policy’s are left leaning. Please don’t let the populist right wing lure you in based on these types of issues.
"Women are not skin suits". Thank you for saying so Kathleen. Seems there are quite a few in the medical industry with a "buffalo bill" philosophy that think otherwise.
Well that was painful. Thank you Dr Stock for persevering in your insistence on a reality based approach. The twisting and torturing of what we can see with own eyes is cringeworthy.
But she's not taking a reality-based approach; she lied about what trans people claim several times and half of her points were just purely contradictory. Trans people claim that gender is innate, but want to "switch sexes" (whatever that means) somehow?
@@highroller-jq3ix The fact that she's a philosopher is very worrying, considering the stuff she's willing to spout. She's knows how, where and why she's wrong about what she's saying, and still choses to say it. It makes it easy to write-off incompetence in this case; this is intentional.
@@Capybarrrraaaa You may have missed my intended irony. I don't actually hold philosophers as a whole in particularly high esteem. I think you're probably correct however.
omg it's thrilled to just get to know what happened! As a philosophy student I understand what she means by academics have the power to say things that look themselves fancy. It's really just a relief to finally hear someone say yes trans people can do things to aestheicize their body but nobody can change their sex, it's just a simple fact, I think academic has been immerse themselves too long in the philosophical thinking of 'yeah everything is a construction'
@@evasilvertantI mean normally when someone states that the statements become controversial and the person get cancelled. I wouldn't say it's what most people say now. What most people say now is 'we shouldn't be and we dare not to be transphobia (whatever that means)'
Unbelievable that a person can be criticized for stating a plain incontrovertible fact. Most sane people will agree that we should not discriminate against people based on how they choose to identify, but it is highly problematic when we’re being bullied into buying into someone else’s fiction.
You're not being bullied into buying another's fiction. That's bullshit that she just made-up. Her argument breaks-down every single concept from personal-identity, to loving your parents, to your favourite colour as "fiction". It's unhinged. And then she lies about trans people "wanting to be a different sex" when transgenderism is all about wanting to associate with a different set of social-traits. All the while complaining that this is 'middle-class word-games' while she's just, plainly, refusing to address what trans people are saying.
@@CapybarrrraaaaYes you are bullied into anothers fiction, demanding to be adressed and seen the way you want to be seen is something different than how you present yourself or your appearance/behaviour is taken in. You can identify yourself as a sweet girl or boy, but when shouting to another i demand to be adressed and seen a certain way because of how you feel or think, you present yourself not very sweet at all. In american idol auditions some identify themself as great vocal artist mainly by doctrination of the sweet parent. And everybody can hear it is not great , accept the one singing and they get mad when told the truth
@@JohnJohnson-gg2xm You're presuming that you're not imposing because you default to society's default. We're recognising that all gender is arbitrary and calling-out people who impose their ideas on others. If anything, you're bullying into a fiction by imposing this system. Our entire point is about how gender is stupid and that we're trying to compromise with you. Yet again, willingness to compromise bites us... and you wonder why we get frustrated.
Ugh, in a discussion about trans people she never mentions gender dysphoria, which is the basis. It's like talking about WW2 and never mention Germany.
I feel that women’s concerns are, by and large, completely pushed aside, for the feelings of trans people. I feel let down. I feel angry. I feel mocked. Outside of other women who feel like I do, and supportive men, the establishment has washed it’s hands with us.
^This... is the issue going-on here. Not what you said, but why you said it. Women's issues aren't being pushed-aside, that idea is incompatible with the claims of trans people. Your fear and discontent is being weaponised by people like Kathleen. Your upset about the issues are absolutely justified. From what you've been told and led to believe, you are being ignored. I can't say that I see that from trans people, though. If you'd like to step-through a concern you have, I have all the time in the world for you.
Can you please justify that silly-ass claim? So outside of people who agree with your transphobic hysteria, you feel like people who disagree disagree? What a stunning realization.
Your concerns are valid, just make sure you don't go down the rabbit hole. You can be upset, for example, that sometimes transwomen are unfairly competing in sports against ciswomen; just don't hate all trans people for that (not saying you do), as even some trans people obviously are against that as well.
@@commandershepard9920 Name any instance in which a trans woman cheated her way into athletic competition. Genetics is never fair. Why should any trans people be HATED for competing within the rules?
I agree. They claim they really are women, they claim to feel as women do, yet when you say keep out of women's spaces they suddenly revert to feeling like men. Men who are desperate to be in our areas. If transwomen won't change with men because they don't feel like men, and they feel at risk of harm (which we all respect), then respect that women don't want to change around a man and feel at risk of harm
16:35 uh-oh. Stock grimaces and my jaw drops as this dude keeps talking lmao He stumbles straight into post modern q / weer theory talking points. "Is a child really a child? 'Child' is a social construct, it is invented... therefore they can consent?" Ughhhh Interviewer, if you have a 10 y/o girl, I think you know damn well it's not merely a "social convention" that is telling you why you can't sleep with her.
how about a 16 yo? in Spain? in the USA? in Louisiana? in 1782? 2043? i think Stock is great. i don't get why ppl need to pile on to the interviewer. interviews are not supposed to be purely comfortable, its the interviewer's job to present different viewpoints, especially major ones, whether he believes it or not. ironic that people want to "defend" Stock with safe spaces, same as her opposers.. ))
Hi. I think it's sometimes useful for an interviewer to raise an opposing position, even if he or she doesn't subscribe to it. The point is to establish what the subject thinks. All best
@@zaloo Exactly as Stock said though, it's going to be a ballpark, rather than, say, what grandfather of q / we/ er theory Foucault argued for: do away with age of consent laws down to infants because it's all just ~social constructs~ so why not? The interviewer specifically calls "child" a social construct, making a direct leap there from "Woman is a social construct". Why does this repeatedly come up in reference to q / weer theory? Because it is all about transgressing boundaries and undermining categories, "man/woman", "child/adult" Everyone should know basically ALL major figures in q / we/ er theory get into incredibly disturbing places with children very quickly. Highly recommend the video "q* Theory Jeopardy! with Professor Derrick Jensen" See: Jacob Breslow and Mermaids. I'm not piling on the interviewer. I just think it's hilarious that even as he appears to have not looked into this beyond a very surface glance, he homes right in on "Child is a construct" Where am I defending Stock? I love this debate, I love that the interviewer unknowingly makes a beeline straight to the logical conclusion of postmodernism & q / we/ er theory.
Well said. I agree with your sentiments. But asking a question should not be interpreted as subscribing to a particular position. If someone makes the claim that X is a social construct, then I can claim that the claim that X is a social construct is itself a social construct, and that, therefore, as such, the claim X lacks legitimacy. Of course, being social humans, we can only do so much as humans to make statements about the realities we experience. So, one might say, everything we do is made by us as members of human societies. So, everything is a social construct. Then the problem becomes: Where does all this social construction menality take us? Nowhere but a society of confused speech, blagghh, ..., inane garbage talk. If the truth conveyed by the equality 5+2=7 (or the falsity conveyed by 5+7=3) is a social construct, then who cares ... about anything? An automobile is certainly constructed by a society of people, but that fact does not negate the (non-socially constructed) reality that the automobile takes us from point A to point B, which fact is not a social construct.
@@fraiopatll633 There's a great question to ask the "everything is a social construct" people, and that's: Is oxygen a social construct? If I deprived you of oxygen for 2 hours, are you going to be alive at the end? Is the socially constructed concept of "oxygen" required for that to be true? Of course, you will not be alive if deprived of the "thing" called "oxygen" by our "society". And you know this very well. This is just a language/categry game which postmodernism likes to play. This pretence that words and categories actually CREATE material reality is where the junk thinking comes in. Humans do not need the concept "oxygen" as our scientific model has it to know that, if held underwater for 2 hours, you will not survive. Even in the absence of language, this MATERIAL reality remains the objective truth.
@@eatmanyzoos if you are born male, you are a man. Full stop. It doesn’t matter if you are a manly man or a feminine man. You are a man. Our sex is encoded in the dna of every cell in our body. Hormones, cosmetic surgery and makeup do not change that.
@@eatmanyzoos Separating men from women how? In single sex toilets and changing rooms? In sports, where men have a biological advantage over women? No one is saying all men are bad and all men are a threat against women. Of course not. The problem is that we cannot identify the ones that are bad from the good ones. Therefore, for women and girls safety and privacy, single sex toilets and changing rooms are a necessity. As well as single sex sports-for safety and fairness. It is shocking that we live in a society where this even needs to be said.
@@eatmanyzoos CoEd bathrooms exist in my city (3rd largest in the US) as single use toilets. I have never seen one with multiple toilets. Here in the US we have these flimsy toilet stalls full of large gaps where you can see everyone doing their business. Are you saying there are large bathrooms with multiple stalls that are completely Co-Ed? Please tell me where you live so I can avoid that place. That is absolutely not acceptable.
@@eatmanyzoosYou have made a huge assumption of a random woman in the comments. Why do you have the right to decide that she is afraid and won't admit it? Single sex space is not necessary because all women are afraid of all men. Feeling uncomfortable or disliking a situation is not the same as fear. Personally I don't have a problem with almost passing transwomen in women's space, but I don't see why all women and girls should have to share my view.
@@eatmanyzoos I don't agree at all. Of course the extreme will be used to really drive the point home, as actual danger and assault are what we really want to avoid, but in every day terms it is about not being uncomfortable with the vague unease that comes from a much higher probability of encountering a sexual predator of a male in women's space.
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef its a simple statement. I dont need to back everything up with polls or data collection. Mentally balanced peoole can discern their environment without consulting outside sources.
I don’t think she does. I’m appalled to hear her dismiss trans people’s identities as mere fiction. She argues that identity has shifted from how you are perceived by others to merely how you feel, but identity has always been a combination of how you’re perceived as well as your sense of self. For instance, people may or may not perceive her as heterosexual, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is a lesbian woman. I wonder, if the gender identity of trans people is a mere fiction, why is her own sense of self not mere fiction as well? Her arguments about identity are just not coherent, and it strikes me as insidious to use the word ‘fiction’ at all. When the interviewer confronted her with the implications of that word, she engaged in a slight of hand and started talking about the supposed ambiguity and social shift of identity as a concept.
By the way, I’m not sure why we should be impressed with a philosopher expressing common sense. Common sense often goes against scientific facts and truths which philosophers attempt to elucidate. If a philosopher says nothing beyond what most people already think, I have to question their utility as a philosopher. I’m actually really shocked that she makes no references to the work of other philosophers either. I think she is careful not to contradict the body of work of other philosophers, and articulate the thinking of the masses. It’s quite bereft of any intellectual depth. In that sense I’m not surprised so many people agree with her. I personally much more enjoy listening to philosophers like Slavoj Žižek-someone I don’t agree with in everything he says, and who made quite controversial statements about trans people, but who exactly doesn’t articulate common sense, but urges you to think about things in ways we didn’t consider. I find that a lot more conducive and satisfying, but maybe that’s just me.
She is absolutely the most intelligent person I have ever had the privilege of listening to. The interviewers questions were loaded, but she provided measured responses which nobody could ever doubt. Thank you Kathleen Stock for everything you have lost (and gained) for this cause x
@@irongalaxy3720 Really ? Well as long as it is not some non-binary drivel, I am certainly willing to do that. I also have massive respect for Douglas Murray 🙂
That question about the arbitrariness of adulthood is, of course, salient for discussions about pedophilia. This guy keeps on wanting to deny all boundaries: adult vs child, man vs woman, etc. Thanks, Kathleen for standing your ground and speaking up against living full-time in a fictional world where we make things up as we go. I always wonder how smart people can believe in this, but, of course, it is exactly some smart people primarily living in, and maybe more comfortable in, abstract worlds who are responsible.
How do you present the debate if you don't present the counter-arguments? You might think the counter-arguments are BS, but the interviewer would not be doing a good job if he didn't pose the alternative points of view. He then let Kathleen Stock speak for as long as she liked to put her point of view. I thought he did a good job.
@@deborahcustance2754 I agree with you. It's not the interviewer's job to set up easy answers with easy questions. A good interviewer asks those oppositional questions to allow the interviewee to elucidate their positions.
You mean a person who wants to commit genocide against a tiny percentage of the population. You are a bigot. Trans people exist and there isn't anything that you can do about it. We won. You lost.
@@karlscher5170 Because it's good to have voices against religious authoritarianism, and against 100% evidence-free religious beliefs, which erase the rights of women, gays and lesbians, which mutilate healthy children, and which enforce conformity to gender stereotypes (bad regardless, but even MORE harmful, when done in defiance of biology, when it requires physical mutilation). Why WOULDN'T you want voices against a religion that mutilates children, in the name of the incoherent, evidence-free belief that "some men are REALLY women (in whatever mystical, undefinable sense of the word)"?
There are no other words I can add to what has already been posted. But I so want to thank you Professor Stock for everything you are saying out loud may your voice never be silenced ❤️
'Kathleen Stock discusses her controversial views on sex and gender'. Controversial? What the hell is controversial about knowing what a woman actually is? I wonder whether the interviewer would define a woman correctly? I doubt it.
I look forward to her work on how and why academia allowed this to happen. This is one of the most important questions of our time in my opinion and I am delighted to hear that Dr Kathleen Stock is working on it.
She and others have already done it. Her book, 'Material Girls', sets out in full the position she stakes out here. Helen Joyce has written a book called 'Trans', which deals with the political and cultural development of this, as well as current policy implications. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay have written a book called 'Cynical Theories' on the intellectual/academic background. Happy reading!
@@lewreed1871 I have read both Kathleen Stock's and Helen Pluckrose's book and have listened extensively to Helen Joyce and I still think there is a lot more to be said about why and how the "Academy" have colluded in this travesty. I look forward to hearing more from Kathleen Stock.
@@TheSapphire51 Me too. But I don't see how you can have read Stock's chapter 'How Did We Get Here?' or Pluckrose and Lindsay and still not understand how this swept through academe. They set out in great detail how the original schools of thought, from the Frankfurt School to the French postmodernists, swept through the humanities and "liberal arts" in English-speaking countries, particularly the US, incrementally and then in a tsunami as the literature grew. These are the subjects which activists, lobbyists, journalist and people engaged in politics tend to study. They're also subjects which keep a lot of people inside academia to become teachers themselves, and activism tends to begin on college campuses. With critical theory (of which queer theory is a branch) predominant in the humanities, this was almost bound to happen. College administrations are also saturated in it, which has meant that it is now flowing out of the humanities and into other disciplines, most worryingly the "hard" sciences. It's a disaster.
12:30 That is precisely where it goes off the rails. When she says that transwomen are not women, this is NOT a metaphysical statement. It would be like saying that brass is different from gold or that the sun is not the moon. These are scientific statements. The level at which such statements can be called "metaphysical" or "essentialist" is so abstract and fundamental.
How she hears these ludicrous arguments time after time and maintains her cool is a testament to her commitment to rational thought and debate. The title of this video could be "Man attempts to lecture woman on how giving up her rights is good for her".
I don't know how Kathleen managed to be so patient. Who is the interviewer? Does he actually believe that a man who "feels" he's a woman is the same thing as his own mother, for example? No difference at all? Does he believe that a trans woman has the same health issues as a woman? Does he not know that there are women in certain prisons who are being impregnated by other "women"? His comments about age being a social construct are borderline p*dophilia. Children are children and need protection.
I’m amazed how she could resist laughter at the idea that a man can shape everyone’s reality by simply declaring he’s a woman. But more importantly, I commend her courage and integrity for standing on sound reasoning, academic principles, and genuineness in stating her stances. I wish there were more like her in this discussion because shutting down opposing views isn’t the answer. We should have healthy debates about this in society and not just relegate it to the whims and desires of the academic elites.
"sound reasoning, academic principles, and genuineness" is the exact opposite of what she's doing. If she followed those qualities, then she's be aware of the criticisms that gender non-conforming people have instead of just waddling along with the disinformation about us. "that a man can shape everyone’s reality by simply declaring he’s a woman" Yes. A male is capable of associating with feminine-stereotypical behaviours. Why do you find this contentious? "shutting down opposing views isn’t the answer" It can be. When we all agree to be honest and constructive, it's never right to shut people down because any individual might have a valuable clue that'll help us. People like Kathleen, however, do not aim to be honest and constructive, and any space she's given will be used to derail the whole cart. See above, where she bases her entire opposition against a strawman instead of just reading out literature.
@@Capybarrrraaaa Just because a man can associate with female characteristics that doesn’t make him a woman. Just like me being a Tom boy as a child doesn’t make me a man.
@@suzie_lovescats What you just did is the same foolishness as saying _'if you season the beef like this, you'll want to eat it'_ to a vegan; the man/woman/tomboy/etc. distinction (the seasoning) doesn't apply to my position because I'm a Gender Abolitionist (vegan). We need to discuss whether Gender Norms (meat-eating) should even be a thing, before the 'seasoning' even matters. We could argue until we're blue about what constitues 'woman' or 'man' or whatever other gender, and we'd get nowhere because we'd be presupposing a really bad foundation for our beliefs. Gender Norms just need to be scrapped. I mean well, Suzie, but this conversation doesn't have simple answers, just because so many people draw hasty conclusions. People, like Kathleen, weaponise these gaps in our abilities.
@@CapybarrrraaaaActually no they don’t need to be scrapped. Men and women are separated in sports for a reason because we’re both different. Men are physically stronger than women which is why men who can’t compete with their own gender invade women’s sports for the purpose of stealing their awards. In the beginning God created male and female- enough said!
You can see Dr. Stock's growing frustration with the interviewer's somewhat inane line of questioning. He seems to deliberately misunderstand her perfectly clear responses. To me,the guy sounds naive and unaware of what has entered the social arena over the last 5 to 7 years.
The state of play. Self-evident truths are being challenged. Sex is real, human stages of development, childhood and adulthood are real. I feel sorry for Kathleen.
The best bit is at 18:10 where it seems necessary to affirm the existence of the world. I didn't know of Kathleen Stock until last night's Gender Wars documentary on Channel 4. I've been in and out of these discussions for about a year now and experience the same baffling accusations, though not risked as much as this brave woman. Her attitude is exemplary, particularly something that wasn't explicit in this interview, her commitment to freedom of speech. It was implicit, however, that we're moving into a new normal where the thought police will arrest you for using the wrong pronoun. Kathleen also emphasises the opportunity that trans ideology has dug into a hole, of freer gender expression for either sex instead of the deepening of gender stereotypes that trans people too often are obsessed with fitting in with, particularly in appearance. It's meant to be about being who you are, but has become a demand for others to see you as you want to be seen, and then affirm that you are what you say you are. WOMEN ARE NOT SKIN SUITS GET OVER IT (and nor are men)
Interviewer saying that linking a specific age to the status of adulthood is arbitrary is the age-old cry of paedophiles and what are now known in bonkers circles as MAPS (minor attracted person/people). In the early 70s I met PIE guys who said exactly this. This is very problematic.
I've never heard the Halloween costume effect discussed. People with social anxiety say that their anxiety is greatly diminished if they go out on halloween in a costume. I believe for many people the calming feeling they get by pretending to be a different sex is due to the costume effect.
That's an interesting point, thanks for the insight. Identifying heavily with a social persona may be a way to avoid confronting deep inner problems. On the other hand, people who do actually confront for real their inner problems may have a greater chance to be socially confident and less sensitive to the opinions of others, precisely because they have done the hard work of trying to really know themselves. I can see trans people in the two categories. They are not the same. Social contagion facilitates this "costume effect," but there is a tiny minority for whom the gender dysphoria is truly a deep issue.
I can‘t believe women have to answer such basic, arrogant, unempathic, utterly-removed-from-common-sense questions around our most basic rights in our day and age. Thank you so much for playing on Team Sanity, Dr Kathleen Stock. You are a heroine.
“What do you mean by “male bodied”?” He literally asked her that question and was genuinely waiting for her to answer that question… this is where we are, it’s absolutely BONKERS.
I know I wouldn't have. Good lord. Interviewer was pickled in kool-aid because _obviously_ not well-versed enough to credibly ne seen as simply playing devil's advocate. Gave me a migraine.
@@DoggieFosters I think he represents the "at a glance" view most well-meaning liberals / progressives adopt. It was clear from his questions he had not looked into this too deeply...
@@L_Martin not really , I think he's doing a very old thing, denying that there is a violent dynamic between men and women, denying rape. It always comes back to this ,one way or another.
10:20 identity is also determined by people outside of yourself. You perceive yourself to be good looking, like say with plastic surgery, while others are repulsed by your looks. You are not the only person who identifies you; every person and sentient being does too.
17:35 You can see her patience disintegrating by the sentence as the conversation gets more and more removed from common and academic sense. 18:54 Then you get her "Maybe?" and he tries to cover what he's said, and she actually does an eye roll. 😅
Thank you Kathleen. Just bought your book 'Material Girls'. Looking forward to having an intelligent, nuanced, compassionate and philosophically stimulating summary of this extraordinary moment where a kind of late-epoch decadence is experiencing a divorce between language and objective reality. Kathleen Stock will be remembered with gratitude as someone who noticed that the Emperor's New clothes were a fiction, and bravely pointed it out.
The interviewer is annoying. It's clearly a mad situation that we are in that any man can claim to be a woman and there are obvious threats and risks to that claim....as we have already seen....how the hell did we get here?
the threats are exaggerated. men are only a threat because women draw lines and separate us and refuse to communicate and tell us what they want or dont want until its too late. stop being cowards. letting far right politicians spin the issue and use fear just like they do with qanon. congrats you are in the same camp as qanon and flat earthers. made up issues that somehow are spun into anti-left anti-democrat sentiments. its so transparent to people who are indifferent to trans issues like i am.
@@eatmanyzoos no, men are only a threat if they hate women and decide to use their biological advantages to harm us. So a woman has to communicate or yu're a threat? No normal man threatens women no metter what.
Reading and listening to Kathleen Stock articulate the issues and conflicts inherent with gender self-ID took me from an unquestioning supporter of T+, to conducting further investigation, and to ultimately finding myself on the same page as Stock.
@@SnarkyMarx I am deeply insulted by your UNIMAGINATIVE choice of a too prevalent insulting word "bigot". Insult me with something more deserving, something better, worse, anything other than "bigot".
The interviewer seems to think the majority of t* identified males pass... The majority do not. I do wish the point about passing would be more underlined, and frankly, the point about HSTS (same-s* attracted males) successfully passing, while the straight AGP males do not. That is the crux of the issue. So central but so rarely spelled out: There are 2 types of t* identifying male. same-s* attracted (hsts) and straight (agp). The social equation changes entirely when that truth is exposed. Women do not want straight males in our spaces. We believed we were making this agreement with hyper-effe/ mi/ nate g* men who suffer great persecution, and pose us no threat. We did not think we were agreeing to share every space, e.g. women's pri / so /ns, our r* shelters, etc., with STRAIGHT MEN who have agp. Should straight males calling themselves women, who do not pass (because AGPs don't, because they t* later in life due to the nature of AGP) - be treated as if they are women? Should women be obliged to play along with something that is nakedly a lie? A fiction. It is very dangerous for us, and frankly totalitarian to force someone to say things that are obviously false. If a AGP male is in a women's pri / so/ n, what, the women are meant to play along that this straight male is indistinguishable from any woman? Come on.
Thx for pointing out AGPs (pretending to be lesbians by the way). I believe they are the ones who made this cult gain more and more power, especially on the young generations. Most AGPs will never admit they exhibit a paraphilia and that they genuinely hate and envy women.
It’s asinine that what was once common sense has to be explained and defended here so articulately. Kathleen does an excellent job of providing concise and clear ideas and boundaries of where biological axioms meet human ideas and nonsensical self beliefs.
I am yet again shocked that this is actually being debated. Every time I watch a video on this topic, and someone is disagreeing about sex, and the markers of sex, it blows my mind. It's a complete denial of common sense, reality, science, and biology. The interviewer tells Kathleen at 12:44 that they're probably never going to convince one another of their beliefs, and it's all so maddening. WHY are people having to be CONVINCED of a basic concept? Too many people are so far gone it's truly crazy. I am infinitely grateful for people like Kathleen who don't back down. I hope more people come around to it.
Dr Stock has a firm grasp on reality, and she is strong minded enough not to be bullied into compliance with the mass delusion. Her contribution is so essential because she can support her conclusions with evidence and rational arguments. That is why the TRA lobby consider her so dangerous and made special effort to have her removed. That does not mean she will win, as history shows many cases where truth was deliberately suppressed where it threatens power, but she deserves the support of everyone who loves truth and freedom of thought.
Pretty simple if you ask me. If you were born with a "Y" chromosome, you're a male. If you weren't, you're a female. And all this silliness about gender identity, sex identity is just subterfuge for not wanting to be honest about what's really going on here and attempting to normalize abnormal behavior and mental illness.
It’s happening because the trans agenda is not a grass rooted movement. It’s not driven by the people. It’s a top down movement. It’s driven by extremely powerful people, who have the control, power and authority to dictate to governments, hence the toxic legislation. Regardless of political ideology, most western governments, and developing countries controlled by the west, are all singing from an identical trans song sheet.
I can tell you absolutely how this was allowed to happen. The liberal minded, well intentioned, academics wanted to support the TRA movement because it came from homosexual activist institutions such as Stonewall. There has been huge repressed guilt about how gay people have been mistreated since legalisation 54 years ago. The outright prejudice of the tropes, the way that AIDS patients were ignored, the fight to have the basic rights that everyone else in society has automatically. The TRA movement have been exceedingly clever in manipulating and leveraging that guilt by using it to legitimise an authoritarian intellectual didact around gender erasure. It's misogynistic, it's anti-gay, it's even anti-trans. It doesn't advocate for the small number of genuinely transsexual people in society. It legitimises heterosexual males who don't want any societal constraints on their sex practices. It's attempting to enshrine these in law and make women secondary citizens and gay people non existent, reduced to fetishists. This is supported by social media groups which in turn feed into mainstream media until the idea becomes an unchallengeable monolith. It's been this way for over a decade.
Fabulously useful dialogue - thanks to all 🙂 (As an aside, the University of Sussex were disgracefully late in declaring support for KS when a member of their academic team, with respect to her right to peaceful and respectful free speech. I hope they have reflected on their actions.)
On the point at 20:50 One fact I come back to is the ~90% of violent crime and >98% of violent sexual crime is committed by males. And when women _do_ commit violent crime, the motivations and methods tend to be different, in ways which are indicative of societal risk (e.g. poisoning a spouse vs. stabbing a rival gang member). If you are comparing 'likelihood to assault or harass somebody in a changing room', males are _overwhelmingly_ more dangerous. It's not close. A woman is much, much safer in a female-only space than in a mixed-sex one. And that this trend is consistent across cultures and time periods (e.g. I read a paper examining Neolithic skeletons, and surprise surprise, _overwhelmingly_ skeletons with signs of injury consistent with armed conflict were male). The idea that sex is this niche, socially inconsequential characteristic is Just Not True.
Brilliant and courageous. The university system - and the young generations it is supposed to serve - have suffered a great loss in her leaving that system.
Having long hair, wearing dresses, using make up etc are socially learned norms and have nothing to do with biology. I'm a man but don't care much for sports and like romantic films and cry at least 5 times every time I watch Now Voyager. I don't take that to mean anything in particular about my gender at all. I am well aware these are superficial signafyers but I do get upset when anyone uses the term CIS about me. I don't want to be put in a box I didn't choose thank you.
18:04 Kathleen makes good point. Classifications might have blurry edges but large portions of the canvas are still black or white or red. They are distinct. A monotreme is distinct from a placental mammal in a very non arbitrary way.
Thank you for affirming that females should not be expected to share washrooms with biological males!! Not just because it might pose a physical threat, but 1 in 3 women have been sexually abused by males, and having to share private spaces with male bodies is a deep psychological threat. As a biological female identifying as female, I believe I have rights too, and my right to use a washroom or a changeroom that excludes biological male bodies should be respected. I totally agree with 3rd spaces. I identify as a biological female, trans people overtly identify as the new category of trans. So they need to have their own spaces.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you agree with Kathleen Stock's framing of the public conversation around trans rights? We would love to hear about it in the comments!
To watch Stock lay out her case on the problem with universities, go to iai.tv/video/truth-prejudice-and-the-university3?RUclips&
Yes, I agree with Kathleen, she has the rights to express her views which are based on facts. There is indeed a serious concern of the safety of women, sex matters and by law must be protected.
Kathleen has no academic background in medicine, biology or psychology. Couldn't you have found an actual expert to speak on this topic? What value does an uneducated person (in the relevant fields) bring to the table, exactly?
@@tommylakindasorta3068 most people don't need to be an expert in biology to recognise biological sex in themselves and others, hence why the human race has managed to reproduce for millenia just fine. It's only in the 21st century that we could play make believe that medical technology comes anything like close to reframing this very basic, yet fundamental, fact.
@Astrid Alaniz please stop spreading false information. Sex is binary in humans since a third human gamete has never been discovered. It takes one egg and one sperm to create a human fetus. Two gametes = two sexes, male and female. No third gamete, no third+ sex, which is why you cannot name a third gamete nor a third or more sex in humans.
@Astrid Alaniz facts are that women’s safety has been undermined by allowing anyone to enter to single sex spaces only. She is concerned about the erosion of women’s rights. People can dress however they please and call themselves whatever they like and live the best life in peace and security. But force women like Kathleen out of their job for stating that biological sex is real? It is absolutely disgraceful the way she has been treated. Whatever your argument is, the reality is that a man is born as a male and will die as a male and same is for women.
Arguing that adulthood is arbitrary is very worrying, adulthood is clearly linked to sexual and biological maturation. Biology matters and sexual maturation matters. Women and Men are different and have different needs. I love Dr Kathleen Stock, she is so sensible and measured, how anyone could be offended by her is beyond me.
When you know that at the core of all of this Nonce-sense is to lower the age of consent you will see!
Adulthood is based on how many times the planet has resolved around the sun since you were born, not sexual maturityor frontal lobe development. That's obviously arbitrary.
It’s one of the dirty little undercurrents of this mvt that activists do not want to face. Basic safeguarding for women and kids.
Very good points.
@@eatmanyzoos Why is it so hard for you to understand that having a problem with predatory or inappropriate men is not an act of misandry? Males hurt everyone in society more than women do. Just a fact, we all know it. We can't cook the books to change it. However many women predators there are there will always be more men, whatever their gender identity
16:50 "Just because there's ambiguity around the edges doesn't mean it's completely arbitrary"
Perfect response from Dr Stock
It's like saying that just because viruses aren't easily categorized, there is no such thing as life.
He said "kind of arbitrary" and he was right in that.
@@spacemess4607 yes there is some arbitrariness around the edges but the categories as such are not arbitrary
"Women are not skinsuits" 23:15 - Kath has reduced the discussion and argument to 4 words. Kath is a human totally in control of her intelligence and communication. Wow!
But the other thing is the threat to girls of having breast tissue taken away during their childhood, when they can't give informed consent.
At 2:33 “Well, I wouldn’t care at all if people weren’t trying to ratify it into law and policy”,
Yep, that is how many of us feel and the argument, “They just want to be left alone to live their lives as they please” is a flat out lie.
Ratifying equality will happen.
But first we have to get beyond the radical essentialism of patriarchal misogyny adopted and internalized by so many females including Trans females . It’s the traditional discrimination of non confirmed in gender binary cultures like ours.
And then we have to get beyond the fear mongering binary thinking that has produced over 436 anti lgbtq bills of every kind in 2022 and 2023 alone in the USA.
We will get there. Accuracy and justice are coming because love wins. Fear and disinformation are powerful but love wins.
"reify"
But what is the problem if we all share the same bathroom?
What protects "women's spaces" from men entering? The law? Not even sure. But surely, in practise, mainly male police officers (some call it the patriarchy) will come, step in and eject men from women's spaces.
But why are women not afraid of policemen? Why are women afraid of men in general? Why is this misandry allowed and accepted?
And what makes women sure they are mot being assaulted by women?
Facts > feelings.
@@Kritikanbringer You bring only feelings, no facts whatsoever. Why are women not afraid of being assaulted by women? Because 99% of sexual assaults are done by men. "What makes women "sure" they are not assaulted by women?" is a pure straw man argument on your part. No woman has ever claimed that. Just that with men, there is a clear and present danger, and crime statistics prove it. So, just stay out of women's spaces. And cops are supposed to follow law and order. What you're saying boils down to "might makes right", which is a rapist's attitude. You're a creep, and you should probably be locked up.
Why are her views "controversial"? She talks nothing but sense
I don't think they are controversial, I think they are a bit naive, banal and superficial.
@@divxxx could you engage with the ideas further? Which of her ideas are wrong?
@@jezdavis1865 Sorry, I don't remember this video and I am not going to watch it again in order to answer to your question. Forgive me.
@@divxxxnaïve in what way?
As Ser Humphrey Appleby famously said "Government Policies have nothing to do with common sense"
The fact that this ladies views can be seen as controversial is the real controversy.
It is so tiring that the fact you have to explain it appears to make it contentious.
A shame, I'd say.
💯 💯 💯
Yeah. I wonder that because we treated homosexuality so heinously in past decades, and at last, thankfully, rights have been won...are we frightened to say something that might be seen as not supporting that? And I hate that right wing religious wankers tends to take an anti-trans view, then any critique is viewed as right wing. Its not in this case . Can we separate these concepts
@@debdoc100 Separate which concepts
Kathleen Stock is an absolute hero and all credit to her for keeping her cool in this conversation. It is unbelievable that what Kathleen is saying is considered in any way controversial. People have been captured into a cult and voices like Kathleen, Helen Joyce and Julie Bindal are vital.
Well said.
I admire Posie Parker a lot too.
I was calling it a cult years ago when this was barely being discussed in public. I had to wait a while, but now more, and more people are learning. I just hope we can restore women's sports, private spaces etc., to being cie women only, like they are supposed to be.
This cult you mention, I wonder what percent of it believed wholeheartedly in the mandates that turned out to be a lot less scientific than we were assured, the benefits of the v that turned out to be a fraction than what it was built up to be, and won't hear one word about side effects 🤔
I'm thrilled to see her getting media attention. The way she was forced out of her job is shameful. We need sane, rational, educated, critical-thinking people like her in the limelight to fight this absurd ideology.
She's wasn't pushed she left because of her biased idealism
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef She actually was pushed out because she spoke about truth and reality which is unacceptable to the emotionally immature trans activists and gender theorists.
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef Her life was made so difficult she had to leave. Would you want to be in a workplace where you're threatened with rape and death and your bosses don't support you? She was bullied out.
@@sarahsnowe she made her own position untenable sorry
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef They made her life as wretched as they could.
Totally agree with Dr Stock. Why is it - again - women have to accomodate others for whatever reason, usually entitled men, now entitled men who want to be 'women'. Sooo exhausting for women who just want equal recognition in a masculine dominated society.
Can you imagine someone who is pro-gender identity coming on the show and being pushed on the topic the way this woman was. It will never happen! The pro gender identity person would wither and collapse, and then accuse the interviewer of transphobia. The fact that they can’t defend their ideas is further proof of the insanity of this premise
I volunteer!
The "anti-gender" movement is purely based on indulging in fictional scenarios that can reinforce your own prejudices. Whether it is fictional transphobia accusations or fictional situations of trans women raping people. Let's talk about things that actually happen
Disgusting remark
I am pro-gender identity and very happy to discuss the subject in a clear and committed way. Where would you like to start?
@@heliusfacenna4109 fair enough anywhere you like like
God this woman’s patience is phenomenal.
With narcissistic, pompous asses who think they know everything, like the interviewer? Yes, indeed!
the interview was asking the dumbest questions lol. him insisting adulthood is superficial had me pulling my hair. as if there's no difference between a 9 year old and a 19 year old! She has the patience of a saint. I would've snapped.
Yeah seriously. When I saw they were having Kathleen Stock on, I thought I'd subscribe because I thought that signified that it was an intelligent channel. But after sitting through the unbelievably blockheaded questions by the idiot interviewer, I have changed my mind. Not subscribing if this is the level of this channel.
@@gamer1X12 He said "arbitrary", not "superficial", and that's because he's correct.
You're taking an average of the population and trying to apply it to an individual. That's why it gets "fuzzy around the edges", because an individual is not a society. Some mature faster, some mature slower.
You're choosing to make assumptions, instead of directly observing the individual, because it's materially-difficult to do so. You're choosing to not investigate the individual, because of a factor that's irrelevant to their level-of-development. That's, definitionally, arbitrary.
@@Capybarrrraaaa A certain amount of arbitrariness is inescapable when deciding on things like the age of consent. In the UK and Ireland it's 16 on the basis that in the mean, most people will have reached a certain level of cognitive and emotional development by that age and are ready to begin learning about how to conduct intimate relationships. In that sense, it's not truly arbitrary at all. When it comes to competence to consent to medical treatments for example, anyone under 16 would have to meet what's known in law as 'Gillick competence', whereby their consent can be established as being reasonably well informed.
In the former situation, typical development at a given age is taken as standard. In the latter, the individual is looked at.
I wonder, do you think puberty blockers and hormones should be available to children under 16 on demand?
I could listen to Kathleen all day! Always so erudite, clear and reasonable. It’s so shameful the way that she has been treated - the University of Sussex should hang it’s head in shame
I couldn't agree more.
IAI should arrange a debate between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and this woman. Neil is in team cancel culture woke
Shame on those professors!!!
100% agreed.
Hardly. If only you knew what actually went on at Sussex.
The intelligent, thoughtful, clear, patient and consistently kind Dr Stock.....the world has gone completely insane when someone of her calibre has to explain basic biology day after day...
Thank you. It’s frankly embarrassing that she has to carefully explain reality.
I personally think what we define as a clear biological divide between male and female is outdated. Even biologists will tell you that there is so much more than xx and xy genotype. It is a complicated debate and goes beyond a simple: a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
@@kenzi3168 As a biologist I can assure you it is not outdated, and it will never will be. The developmental pathways are indeed very complicated, but the divide between male and female is pretty simple - two sexes, two gametes.
@@dax2005 It is totaly outdated, hence why so many scietists and biologists in this world fully acknoledge that trans women were born biological females, based on the criteria of gender identity that is fully biological and innate, as a guiding biological principle that deal with self perceptin and neurobiology, it has been officially recognized that way by the scientific community hence why it has been implemented in education and dictionaries. The world is moving on, and this lady is just resisting reality and basic science and the actual advanced biology with regards to what we know about transgender people. People like her are going to have a very hard time on earth, including conservatives.
@@dax2005 Which biological characteristic(s) do you think is a definitive marker of the sex binary you assert ?
I could listen to this woman for hours. I hope she sells a million books. Her elegant bravery is a breath of fresh air.
bravery because she acts in her interests as lesb ian?
@@karlscher5170 No. because daring to have an opinion that mildly opposes far left ideologies often results in doxing and death threats. Not sure what her being a lesbian has to do with anything?
@@profplum5 As a butch lesbian she views men primarily as sexual competitors, especially men in a female role intruding 'female spaces'. That is understandable but not noble or idealistic by any means. Trans ideology is not far left but extreme libertarIian.
@@karlscher5170 did you really just say that? Serious homophobic undertones here. Yuck.
Same here. She is FANTASTIC.
Brilliant Kathleen Stock. Thankful these conversations are taking place. She has more patience than I would have.
It's very rare that I find myself in complete agreement with someone on a particular topic, but as a gay man and someone who has had a keen interest in this for some time, I am absolutely aligned with Kathleen Stock. Her perspective as a philosopher of fiction on the controversy around "gender" shines a bright light on an issue which is so often murky and shot through with intellectual garbage and political sleight-of-hand. She's a great ally in this fight -- and for any number of reasons I do see it as a fight -- against an ideology that I see as inherently harmful. Someone below said that Sussex University should hang its head in shame over her treatment. I agree. What a loss to teaching it is that this brilliant woman was thrown to the wolves.
Applaudable post, Lew. Yep, Sussex blew it and lost an exceptional member of academic staff - but I suspect she'll prove to be more influential away from full-time university employment than she would have been had she not been unjustly forced out of her job.
All best
Totally agree. Hope you are somehow using your good writing/communication skills to approach this cultural/political agenda, and bring it to the fore.
But she lied, Lew? She lied about what trans people claim several times and half of her points were just purely contradictory.
Trans people claim that gender is innate, but want to "switch sexes" (whatever that means) somehow?
Either you're a cosplaying identity fraud, or you're a gay, bigoted hypocrite.
@@notreallydavid :Yup, like Peterson. These censoring idiots just help spread the word.
It's almost beyond belief that anyone can equate her claim that: "saying trans women are literally women is a type of fiction" with the idea that she thinks they don't exist.
It's such a bizarre interpretation of her words that its difficult to understand how anyone could have put it forward. Of course she's not saying they don't exist as ppl. She's saying the claim that they literally are women is a fiction.
The people who make this claim cannot define what a woman is, ergo erasing the meaning of both women and trans women in one swoop. Then they'll claim that's what you're doing. It's wild.
Individuals having two X chromosomes (XX) are female; individuals having one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY) are male
@@janinemcmahon218 That argument will get you bogged down by the lunatics,who will try to conflate men dressed as women with people with disorders of sexual development.
The correct formulation is the potential to produce small,motile gametes or large sessile gametes.
Why we have to descend to this level is insane,but that is what we,as a society,have come to.
it's actually the opposite. If TW were W then the trans is erased
@@pwrite7273 What's more,only men can become trans women...
Good luck Kathleen, stay strong! You've been harassed and bullied for the Orwellian crime of 'wrongthink'. Ideology is very much meeting reality, the edifice of manure is crumbling.
Orwell is when people say other people wrong hur hur
Highly intelligent, erudite and wise woman. Don’t know who was asking these questions but her patience and kindness towards the interviewer spoke volumes about where this debate is at and where we as humanity seem to have become lost.
But no male should be allowed in women's single-sex spaces no matter how well HE passes b/c then how do you legally keep all other men out. Men cannot 'identify' into the female sex-class and belong in the male sex-class and the males need to sort this out in male spaces. Women are not men's shields and need to stay out of women-only spaces.
I think the interviewer missed the obvious question about intersex, however. She seems to think that it’s easy to define biological sex, but it’s actually not. 🙂
@@lenaforsgrenit's about "trans" intersex/DSD has nothing to do with "trans" , TrA just hijacked the term for their own purposes!
@@katharinaangelazafarani7220 Intersex/DSD obviously has nothing specifically to do with trans, but the point still stands that biological sex is not easy to define; that it’s multifactorial and has a bimodal expression.
@@evasilvertant exceptions to the rule shouldn't redefine the rule. Just because intersex people exist doesn't change the definition of man and woman. It's like saying we need to rethink how many fingers a human has because some people are born with 6 instead of 5. Intersex is their own category and should not reduce their humanity in any way.
Commenting from New Zealand and as a indigenous Maori, feminist and lesbian it has been a harrowing time trying to understand the reactionary position of peoples drawing a trans argument coming fast and furious from the west. UK women like Professor Kathleen Stock, the author JK Rowling and academic Maya Forrest to Posie Parker who was attacked here when visiting. Just need to say thanks for all of you good women pushing back. This interview is the best and the professor has done fabulous in not missing an interview whether at Oxford or on entertainment news outlets. The erosion of women’s rights and the need to reaffirm indigenous rights in this instance with the changing laws to cater for transgender activism has colonialism all over it. Kia kaha waahine toa/Stay strong women of the world. Our children need protecting and in my view no child is born in the wrong body. Na Mihirawhiti Searancke
My son was presumed female at birth. He has female external genitalia. We assumed him a girl and pushed back when he said at three that he is a boy. As it turns out he has xy chromosomes. It's more common than being trans - although I have no doubt there's an overlap. He is intersex as are around 2% of the population.
Was he born in the "wrong body"? He feels he was.
Regardless, we were certainly treating him as the wrong gender.
@@Denidrakes69 Look intersex is still not the same as trans, despite any attempts in making the two overlap. Most trans people don't have any intersex conditions and when they make it a "whataboutism" they seem to be appropriating being intersex. And since I'm genuinely unsure and don't like the implications, what does it actually mean to treat someone as the "wrong" gender without using any gender stereotypes?
@@Denidrakes69 how would you have treated him differently if you had known he was a male?
"Kathleen Stock discusses her controversial views on sex and gender" - expect they are not really controversial at all are they?
Only for people who read The Guardian or Independent
@@briancox9357Nonsense. If I pick up a rag I’ll often choose either of these papers. I also align with Kathleen’s views. I also suspect her broader policy’s are left leaning. Please don’t let the populist right wing lure you in based on these types of issues.
@@briancox9357 I read the Guardian and they're not controversial for me. Let's stop making huge generalisations.
"Women are not skin suits".
Thank you for saying so Kathleen.
Seems there are quite a few in the medical industry with a "buffalo bill" philosophy that think otherwise.
Hear, Hear!
Why she thinks that is such a 🔥statement when she argues “women are gametes!” I have no idea.
Feminists have been teaching since the 80s that men and women were only superficially different. No backtracking, now.
@@zoeh8487 You have a problem acknowledging physical reality then though "literally no one is denying biological facts"?
@@ambientjohnny I would be happy to respond to your argument if i could figure out what it is
Well that was painful. Thank you Dr Stock for persevering in your insistence on a reality based approach. The twisting and torturing of what we can see with own eyes is cringeworthy.
Absolutely, there is never anyone more knowledgeable about and invested in reality than a philosopher.
But she's not taking a reality-based approach; she lied about what trans people claim several times and half of her points were just purely contradictory.
Trans people claim that gender is innate, but want to "switch sexes" (whatever that means) somehow?
@@highroller-jq3ix The fact that she's a philosopher is very worrying, considering the stuff she's willing to spout. She's knows how, where and why she's wrong about what she's saying, and still choses to say it.
It makes it easy to write-off incompetence in this case; this is intentional.
@@Capybarrrraaaa You may have missed my intended irony. I don't actually hold philosophers as a whole in particularly high esteem. I think you're probably correct however.
@@Capybarrrraaaa Elaborate. You keep flinging the charge around with nothing to substantiate it.
omg it's thrilled to just get to know what happened! As a philosophy student I understand what she means by academics have the power to say things that look themselves fancy. It's really just a relief to finally hear someone say yes trans people can do things to aestheicize their body but nobody can change their sex, it's just a simple fact, I think academic has been immerse themselves too long in the philosophical thinking of 'yeah everything is a construction'
What do you mean, “finally hear someone say...”? This is what most people say. How is this a refreshing statement?
@@evasilvertantI mean normally when someone states that the statements become controversial and the person get cancelled. I wouldn't say it's what most people say now. What most people say now is 'we shouldn't be and we dare not to be transphobia (whatever that means)'
thats a plain lie. in most places youre risking to be attacked in some way when you dont look manly enough as a man and so on.
Unbelievable that a person can be criticized for stating a plain incontrovertible fact. Most sane people will agree that we should not discriminate against people based on how they choose to identify, but it is highly problematic when we’re being bullied into buying into someone else’s fiction.
You're not being bullied into buying another's fiction. That's bullshit that she just made-up. Her argument breaks-down every single concept from personal-identity, to loving your parents, to your favourite colour as "fiction". It's unhinged.
And then she lies about trans people "wanting to be a different sex" when transgenderism is all about wanting to associate with a different set of social-traits. All the while complaining that this is 'middle-class word-games' while she's just, plainly, refusing to address what trans people are saying.
@@CapybarrrraaaaYes you are bullied into anothers fiction, demanding to be adressed and seen the way you want to be seen is something different than how you present yourself or your appearance/behaviour is taken in. You can identify yourself as a sweet girl or boy, but when shouting to another i demand to be adressed and seen a certain way because of how you feel or think, you present yourself not very sweet at all. In american idol auditions some identify themself as great vocal artist mainly by doctrination of the sweet parent. And everybody can hear it is not great , accept the one singing and they get mad when told the truth
@@JohnJohnson-gg2xm You're presuming that you're not imposing because you default to society's default.
We're recognising that all gender is arbitrary and calling-out people who impose their ideas on others.
If anything, you're bullying into a fiction by imposing this system. Our entire point is about how gender is stupid and that we're trying to compromise with you. Yet again, willingness to compromise bites us... and you wonder why we get frustrated.
Ugh, in a discussion about trans people she never mentions gender dysphoria, which is the basis. It's like talking about WW2 and never mention Germany.
@@divxxx AMEN
I feel that women’s concerns are, by and large, completely pushed aside, for the feelings of trans people. I feel let down. I feel angry. I feel mocked. Outside of other women who feel like I do, and supportive men, the establishment has washed it’s hands with us.
^This... is the issue going-on here. Not what you said, but why you said it.
Women's issues aren't being pushed-aside, that idea is incompatible with the claims of trans people. Your fear and discontent is being weaponised by people like Kathleen.
Your upset about the issues are absolutely justified. From what you've been told and led to believe, you are being ignored. I can't say that I see that from trans people, though.
If you'd like to step-through a concern you have, I have all the time in the world for you.
Can you please justify that silly-ass claim? So outside of people who agree with your transphobic hysteria, you feel like people who disagree disagree? What a stunning realization.
Your concerns are valid, just make sure you don't go down the rabbit hole. You can be upset, for example, that sometimes transwomen are unfairly competing in sports against ciswomen; just don't hate all trans people for that (not saying you do), as even some trans people obviously are against that as well.
@@commandershepard9920 Name any instance in which a trans woman cheated her way into athletic competition. Genetics is never fair. Why should any trans people be HATED for competing within the rules?
I agree. They claim they really are women, they claim to feel as women do, yet when you say keep out of women's spaces they suddenly revert to feeling like men. Men who are desperate to be in our areas. If transwomen won't change with men because they don't feel like men, and they feel at risk of harm (which we all respect), then respect that women don't want to change around a man and feel at risk of harm
16:35 uh-oh. Stock grimaces and my jaw drops as this dude keeps talking lmao
He stumbles straight into post modern q / weer theory talking points. "Is a child really a child? 'Child' is a social construct, it is invented... therefore they can consent?" Ughhhh
Interviewer, if you have a 10 y/o girl, I think you know damn well it's not merely a "social convention" that is telling you why you can't sleep with her.
how about a 16 yo?
in Spain?
in the USA?
in Louisiana?
in 1782? 2043?
i think Stock is great.
i don't get why ppl need to pile on to the interviewer.
interviews are not supposed to be purely comfortable, its the interviewer's job to present different viewpoints,
especially major ones, whether he believes it or not.
ironic that people want to "defend" Stock with safe spaces, same as her opposers.. ))
Hi. I think it's sometimes useful for an interviewer to raise an opposing position, even if he or she doesn't subscribe to it. The point is to establish what the subject thinks.
All best
@@zaloo Exactly as Stock said though, it's going to be a ballpark, rather than, say, what grandfather of q / we/ er theory Foucault argued for: do away with age of consent laws down to infants because it's all just ~social constructs~ so why not?
The interviewer specifically calls "child" a social construct, making a direct leap there from "Woman is a social construct". Why does this repeatedly come up in reference to q / weer theory? Because it is all about transgressing boundaries and undermining categories, "man/woman", "child/adult"
Everyone should know basically ALL major figures in q / we/ er theory get into incredibly disturbing places with children very quickly. Highly recommend the video "q* Theory Jeopardy! with Professor Derrick Jensen"
See: Jacob Breslow and Mermaids.
I'm not piling on the interviewer. I just think it's hilarious that even as he appears to have not looked into this beyond a very surface glance, he homes right in on "Child is a construct"
Where am I defending Stock? I love this debate, I love that the interviewer unknowingly makes a beeline straight to the logical conclusion of postmodernism & q / we/ er theory.
Well said. I agree with your sentiments. But asking a question should not be interpreted as subscribing to a particular position.
If someone makes the claim that X is a social construct, then I can claim that the claim that X is a social construct is itself a social construct, and that, therefore, as such, the claim X lacks legitimacy. Of course, being social humans, we can only do so much as humans to make statements about the realities we experience. So, one might say, everything we do is made by us as members of human societies. So, everything is a social construct. Then the problem becomes: Where does all this social construction menality take us? Nowhere but a society of confused speech, blagghh, ..., inane garbage talk.
If the truth conveyed by the equality 5+2=7 (or the falsity conveyed by 5+7=3) is a social construct, then who cares ... about anything? An automobile is certainly constructed by a society of people, but that fact does not negate the (non-socially constructed) reality that the automobile takes us from point A to point B, which fact is not a social construct.
@@fraiopatll633 There's a great question to ask the "everything is a social construct" people, and that's: Is oxygen a social construct? If I deprived you of oxygen for 2 hours, are you going to be alive at the end? Is the socially constructed concept of "oxygen" required for that to be true?
Of course, you will not be alive if deprived of the "thing" called "oxygen" by our "society". And you know this very well.
This is just a language/categry game which postmodernism likes to play. This pretence that words and categories actually CREATE material reality is where the junk thinking comes in.
Humans do not need the concept "oxygen" as our scientific model has it to know that, if held underwater for 2 hours, you will not survive. Even in the absence of language, this MATERIAL reality remains the objective truth.
This lady is too kind ! This destruction of the identity of women is appalling !
@@eatmanyzoos if you are born male, you are a man. Full stop. It doesn’t matter if you are a manly man or a feminine man. You are a man. Our sex is encoded in the dna of every cell in our body. Hormones, cosmetic surgery and makeup do not change that.
@@eatmanyzoos Separating men from women how? In single sex toilets and changing rooms? In sports, where men have a biological advantage over women?
No one is saying all men are bad and all men are a threat against women. Of course not. The problem is that we cannot identify the ones that are bad from the good ones. Therefore, for women and girls safety and privacy, single sex toilets and changing rooms are a necessity. As well as single sex sports-for safety and fairness.
It is shocking that we live in a society where this even needs to be said.
@@eatmanyzoos CoEd bathrooms exist in my city (3rd largest in the US) as single use toilets.
I have never seen one with multiple toilets. Here in the US we have these flimsy toilet stalls full of large gaps where you can see everyone doing their business.
Are you saying there are large bathrooms with multiple stalls that are completely Co-Ed? Please tell me where you live so I can avoid that place. That is absolutely not acceptable.
@@eatmanyzoosYou have made a huge assumption of a random woman in the comments. Why do you have the right to decide that she is afraid and won't admit it?
Single sex space is not necessary because all women are afraid of all men. Feeling uncomfortable or disliking a situation is not the same as fear.
Personally I don't have a problem with almost passing transwomen in women's space, but I don't see why all women and girls should have to share my view.
@@eatmanyzoos I don't agree at all. Of course the extreme will be used to really drive the point home, as actual danger and assault are what we really want to avoid, but in every day terms it is about not being uncomfortable with the vague unease that comes from a much higher probability of encountering a sexual predator of a male in women's space.
She articulates so much common sense, it amazes me people react so angrily with her. She says what so many of us think.
Have you a public opinion poll
@@JustinSmith-kn9ef its a simple statement. I dont need to back everything up with polls or data collection. Mentally balanced peoole can discern their environment without consulting outside sources.
I don’t think she does. I’m appalled to hear her dismiss trans people’s identities as mere fiction. She argues that identity has shifted from how you are perceived by others to merely how you feel, but identity has always been a combination of how you’re perceived as well as your sense of self. For instance, people may or may not perceive her as heterosexual, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is a lesbian woman. I wonder, if the gender identity of trans people is a mere fiction, why is her own sense of self not mere fiction as well? Her arguments about identity are just not coherent, and it strikes me as insidious to use the word ‘fiction’ at all. When the interviewer confronted her with the implications of that word, she engaged in a slight of hand and started talking about the supposed ambiguity and social shift of identity as a concept.
By the way, I’m not sure why we should be impressed with a philosopher expressing common sense. Common sense often goes against scientific facts and truths which philosophers attempt to elucidate. If a philosopher says nothing beyond what most people already think, I have to question their utility as a philosopher. I’m actually really shocked that she makes no references to the work of other philosophers either. I think she is careful not to contradict the body of work of other philosophers, and articulate the thinking of the masses. It’s quite bereft of any intellectual depth. In that sense I’m not surprised so many people agree with her.
I personally much more enjoy listening to philosophers like Slavoj Žižek-someone I don’t agree with in everything he says, and who made quite controversial statements about trans people, but who exactly doesn’t articulate common sense, but urges you to think about things in ways we didn’t consider. I find that a lot more conducive and satisfying, but maybe that’s just me.
Thank god there are still educated, eloquent people talking sense.
She is absolutely the most intelligent person I have ever had the privilege of listening to. The interviewers questions were loaded, but she provided measured responses which nobody could ever doubt. Thank you Kathleen Stock for everything you have lost (and gained) for this cause x
You need to listen to a few more people.
@@irongalaxy3720 Really ? Well as long as it is not some non-binary drivel, I am certainly willing to do that. I also have massive respect for Douglas Murray 🙂
Is she the only person you have listened to?
@@Gaggerlotion No she isn’t, and the point has already been made 🙂
Yes and that contacts only the dumb ones are saying stuff
That question about the arbitrariness of adulthood is, of course, salient for discussions about pedophilia. This guy keeps on wanting to deny all boundaries: adult vs child, man vs woman, etc. Thanks, Kathleen for standing your ground and speaking up against living full-time in a fictional world where we make things up as we go. I always wonder how smart people can believe in this, but, of course, it is exactly some smart people primarily living in, and maybe more comfortable in, abstract worlds who are responsible.
And,indeed,some villains who are quite happy to keep the boundaries blurred...
Love of post modernism / queer theory? Very popular in some middle class intellectual circles.😒
Do we think the man asking the questions was a student of queer theory, he sounded like it!
@@DannyC_ He was annoying.
@@DannyC_ Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I thought!! 😒
I appreciate the way she doesn't let him get away with his BS
He really tried it. Multiple times.
BS like?
How do you present the debate if you don't present the counter-arguments? You might think the counter-arguments are BS, but the interviewer would not be doing a good job if he didn't pose the alternative points of view. He then let Kathleen Stock speak for as long as she liked to put her point of view. I thought he did a good job.
@@deborahcustance2754 I agree with you. It's not the interviewer's job to set up easy answers with easy questions. A good interviewer asks those oppositional questions to allow the interviewee to elucidate their positions.
@@deborahcustance2754 the interviewer was being purposefully derogatory. Are you 77th brigade because your many comments would say you are.
I'm grateful that we have her. The world needs to hear her.
You mean a person who wants to commit genocide against a tiny percentage of the population. You are a bigot. Trans people exist and there isn't anything that you can do about it. We won. You lost.
Why?
@@karlscher5170 Because it's good to have voices against religious authoritarianism, and against 100% evidence-free religious beliefs, which erase the rights of women, gays and lesbians, which mutilate healthy children, and which enforce conformity to gender stereotypes (bad regardless, but even MORE harmful, when done in defiance of biology, when it requires physical mutilation).
Why WOULDN'T you want voices against a religion that mutilates children, in the name of the incoherent, evidence-free belief that "some men are REALLY women (in whatever mystical, undefinable sense of the word)"?
@@karlscher5170 Because she dares to speak out for the use of basic reasoning and evidence.
@@jislaaikrockadopolis7215 she would stand against every law of reason if it's against her interest
There are no other words I can add to what has already been posted. But I so want to thank you Professor Stock for everything you are saying out loud may your voice never be silenced ❤️
'Kathleen Stock discusses her controversial views on sex and gender'. Controversial? What the hell is controversial about knowing what a woman actually is? I wonder whether the interviewer would define a woman correctly? I doubt it.
I look forward to her work on how and why academia allowed this to happen. This is one of the most important questions of our time in my opinion and I am delighted to hear that Dr Kathleen Stock is working on it.
She and others have already done it. Her book, 'Material Girls', sets out in full the position she stakes out here. Helen Joyce has written a book called 'Trans', which deals with the political and cultural development of this, as well as current policy implications. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay have written a book called 'Cynical Theories' on the intellectual/academic background. Happy reading!
@@lewreed1871 I have read both Kathleen Stock's and Helen Pluckrose's book and have listened extensively to Helen Joyce and I still think there is a lot more to be said about why and how the "Academy" have colluded in this travesty. I look forward to hearing more from Kathleen Stock.
@@TheSapphire51 Me too. But I don't see how you can have read Stock's chapter 'How Did We Get Here?' or Pluckrose and Lindsay and still not understand how this swept through academe. They set out in great detail how the original schools of thought, from the Frankfurt School to the French postmodernists, swept through the humanities and "liberal arts" in English-speaking countries, particularly the US, incrementally and then in a tsunami as the literature grew. These are the subjects which activists, lobbyists, journalist and people engaged in politics tend to study. They're also subjects which keep a lot of people inside academia to become teachers themselves, and activism tends to begin on college campuses. With critical theory (of which queer theory is a branch) predominant in the humanities, this was almost bound to happen. College administrations are also saturated in it, which has meant that it is now flowing out of the humanities and into other disciplines, most worryingly the "hard" sciences. It's a disaster.
Not just academia but law, sport, corporations and their HR departments, school, media/news/entertainment …
@@slacktoryrecords4193 you are of course right. They all need to be investigated.
12:30 That is precisely where it goes off the rails. When she says that transwomen are not women, this is NOT a metaphysical statement. It would be like saying that brass is different from gold or that the sun is not the moon. These are scientific statements. The level at which such statements can be called "metaphysical" or "essentialist" is so abstract and fundamental.
How she hears these ludicrous arguments time after time and maintains her cool is a testament to her commitment to rational thought and debate. The title of this video could be "Man attempts to lecture woman on how giving up her rights is good for her".
The interviewer was completely out of his depth with this eloquent lady, she explains the absurdity brilliantly 👏
He was playing devil's advocate. And thus did a great job
@@richardfraser7024 🤣
@@richardfraser7024 au contraire he simply sounded idiotic
I don't know how Kathleen managed to be so patient. Who is the interviewer? Does he actually believe that a man who "feels" he's a woman is the same thing as his own mother, for example? No difference at all? Does he believe that a trans woman has the same health issues as a woman? Does he not know that there are women in certain prisons who are being impregnated by other "women"?
His comments about age being a social construct are borderline p*dophilia. Children are children and need protection.
Well done Kathleen. She’s trying to get the truth out there respectfully which is more than I can do
Kathleen should have her own RUclips channel
Agree, I want to find more of her stuff.
agree!
I agree
I’m amazed how she could resist laughter at the idea that a man can shape everyone’s reality by simply declaring he’s a woman. But more importantly, I commend her courage and integrity for standing on sound reasoning, academic principles, and genuineness in stating her stances. I wish there were more like her in this discussion because shutting down opposing views isn’t the answer. We should have healthy debates about this in society and not just relegate it to the whims and desires of the academic elites.
"sound reasoning, academic principles, and genuineness" is the exact opposite of what she's doing.
If she followed those qualities, then she's be aware of the criticisms that gender non-conforming people have instead of just waddling along with the disinformation about us.
"that a man can shape everyone’s reality by simply declaring he’s a woman"
Yes. A male is capable of associating with feminine-stereotypical behaviours. Why do you find this contentious?
"shutting down opposing views isn’t the answer"
It can be. When we all agree to be honest and constructive, it's never right to shut people down because any individual might have a valuable clue that'll help us. People like Kathleen, however, do not aim to be honest and constructive, and any space she's given will be used to derail the whole cart. See above, where she bases her entire opposition against a strawman instead of just reading out literature.
@@Capybarrrraaaa Just because a man can associate with female characteristics that doesn’t make him a woman. Just like me being a Tom boy as a child doesn’t make me a man.
@@suzie_lovescats What you just did is the same foolishness as saying _'if you season the beef like this, you'll want to eat it'_ to a vegan; the man/woman/tomboy/etc. distinction (the seasoning) doesn't apply to my position because I'm a Gender Abolitionist (vegan). We need to discuss whether Gender Norms (meat-eating) should even be a thing, before the 'seasoning' even matters.
We could argue until we're blue about what constitues 'woman' or 'man' or whatever other gender, and we'd get nowhere because we'd be presupposing a really bad foundation for our beliefs. Gender Norms just need to be scrapped.
I mean well, Suzie, but this conversation doesn't have simple answers, just because so many people draw hasty conclusions. People, like Kathleen, weaponise these gaps in our abilities.
@@CapybarrrraaaaActually no they don’t need to be scrapped. Men and women are separated in sports for a reason because we’re both different. Men are physically stronger than women which is why men who can’t compete with their own gender invade women’s sports for the purpose of stealing their awards. In the beginning God created male and female- enough said!
I sigh with relief every time I hear K Stock. Sober, but direct; deadly serious, but good-humoured; erudite, but down to earth.
You can see Dr. Stock's growing frustration with the interviewer's somewhat inane line of questioning. He seems to deliberately misunderstand her perfectly clear responses. To me,the guy sounds naive and unaware of what has entered the social arena over the last 5 to 7 years.
The state of play. Self-evident truths are being challenged. Sex is real, human stages of development, childhood and adulthood are real. I feel sorry for Kathleen.
The best bit is at 18:10 where it seems necessary to affirm the existence of the world.
I didn't know of Kathleen Stock until last night's Gender Wars documentary on Channel 4. I've been in and out of these discussions for about a year now and experience the same baffling accusations, though not risked as much as this brave woman. Her attitude is exemplary, particularly something that wasn't explicit in this interview, her commitment to freedom of speech. It was implicit, however, that we're moving into a new normal where the thought police will arrest you for using the wrong pronoun.
Kathleen also emphasises the opportunity that trans ideology has dug into a hole, of freer gender expression for either sex instead of the deepening of gender stereotypes that trans people too often are obsessed with fitting in with, particularly in appearance. It's meant to be about being who you are, but has become a demand for others to see you as you want to be seen, and then affirm that you are what you say you are.
WOMEN ARE NOT SKIN SUITS GET OVER IT (and nor are men)
Total RESPECT to this lady who has refused to sell her integrity and also to betray science.!!
She is only acting in her interest as a butch lesbian
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Thank you Kathleen for saying what so many won’t but that so many of us believe to be true!
Interviewer saying that linking a specific age to the status of adulthood is arbitrary is the age-old cry of paedophiles and what are now known in bonkers circles as MAPS (minor attracted person/people). In the early 70s I met PIE guys who said exactly this. This is very problematic.
totally sick, whoever he is
The most basic concepts that a 3 year old can grasp, seem to be unfathomable for some people nowadays.
Yes, a woman is a female human being. How hard is it?
@@Mel-wn9gb No it's not hard. it's dishonest and embarrassing.
and yet, she cannot define any of these concepts (and says "it's complicated" when pressured)
@@brunoreinhardt1182 yes. when u start re-defining words and concepts, and keep moving the goal post..Sure.. it get's complicated.
@@Trackformers she's a philosopher (supposedly). That's their job
Thanks Kathleen for saying what’s considered unacceptable. Great to here your insights
“Middle class academic word games” - I love this woman so much!
I've never heard the Halloween costume effect discussed. People with social anxiety say that their anxiety is greatly diminished if they go out on halloween in a costume. I believe for many people the calming feeling they get by pretending to be a different sex is due to the costume effect.
That's an interesting point, thanks for the insight. Identifying heavily with a social persona may be a way to avoid confronting deep inner problems. On the other hand, people who do actually confront for real their inner problems may have a greater chance to be socially confident and less sensitive to the opinions of others, precisely because they have done the hard work of trying to really know themselves.
I can see trans people in the two categories. They are not the same. Social contagion facilitates this "costume effect," but there is a tiny minority for whom the gender dysphoria is truly a deep issue.
I can‘t believe women have to answer such basic, arrogant, unempathic, utterly-removed-from-common-sense questions around our most basic rights in our day and age. Thank you so much for playing on Team Sanity, Dr Kathleen Stock. You are a heroine.
“What do you mean by “male bodied”?” He literally asked her that question and was genuinely waiting for her to answer that question… this is where we are, it’s absolutely BONKERS.
Well done for keeping your patience Kathleen. I'm not sure I would have done
I know I wouldn't have. Good lord.
Interviewer was pickled in kool-aid because _obviously_ not well-versed enough to credibly ne seen as simply playing devil's advocate.
Gave me a migraine.
@@DoggieFosters I think he represents the "at a glance" view most well-meaning liberals / progressives adopt. It was clear from his questions he had not looked into this too deeply...
@@L_Martin not really , I think he's doing a very old thing, denying that there is a violent dynamic between men and women, denying rape. It always comes back to this ,one way or another.
10:20 identity is also determined by people outside of yourself. You perceive yourself to be good looking, like say with plastic surgery, while others are repulsed by your looks. You are not the only person who identifies you; every person and sentient being does too.
17:35 You can see her patience disintegrating by the sentence as the conversation gets more and more removed from common and academic sense.
18:54 Then you get her "Maybe?" and he tries to cover what he's said, and she actually does an eye roll. 😅
she's astute and clear as always. interviewer seems a bit out of his depth - interesting he is neither named nor shown! bit of cowardice from IAI?
This is an intelligent compassionate thoughtful and precise assertion of the reality of sex and gender. Great interview.
Thank you very much
Kathleen Stock is brilliant.
And closed minded
Thank you Kathleen. Just bought your book 'Material Girls'. Looking forward to having an intelligent, nuanced, compassionate and philosophically stimulating summary of this extraordinary moment where a kind of late-epoch decadence is experiencing a divorce between language and objective reality. Kathleen Stock will be remembered with gratitude as someone who noticed that the Emperor's New clothes were a fiction, and bravely pointed it out.
Great book
She is both knowledgeable and self-reflected. A rare combination in the public space these days...
The interviewer is annoying. It's clearly a mad situation that we are in that any man can claim to be a woman and there are obvious threats and risks to that claim....as we have already seen....how the hell did we get here?
Read the 11th hr blog to find out!
the threats are exaggerated. men are only a threat because women draw lines and separate us and refuse to communicate and tell us what they want or dont want until its too late. stop being cowards. letting far right politicians spin the issue and use fear just like they do with qanon. congrats you are in the same camp as qanon and flat earthers. made up issues that somehow are spun into anti-left anti-democrat sentiments. its so transparent to people who are indifferent to trans issues like i am.
@@radicalcartoons2766yes, major lobby underneath. Follow the money
@@eatmanyzoos no, men are only a threat if they hate women and decide to use their biological advantages to harm us. So a woman has to communicate or yu're a threat? No normal man threatens women no metter what.
Reading and listening to Kathleen Stock articulate the issues and conflicts inherent with gender self-ID took me from an unquestioning supporter of T+, to conducting further investigation, and to ultimately finding myself on the same page as Stock.
Wonderful! I support you Lisa English!
@@SnarkyMarx I am deeply insulted by your UNIMAGINATIVE choice of a too prevalent insulting word "bigot". Insult me with something more deserving, something better, worse, anything other than "bigot".
same here
Concise, articulate and collected. Kathleen is amazing
100% agree--thank you for your clarity and for critiquing out the fallacious arguments put to you.
Kathleen Stock is an amazing, intellectual who has patience I don't have to state the obvious over and over again.
The interviewer seems to think the majority of t* identified males pass... The majority do not. I do wish the point about passing would be more underlined, and frankly, the point about HSTS (same-s* attracted males) successfully passing, while the straight AGP males do not. That is the crux of the issue. So central but so rarely spelled out: There are 2 types of t* identifying male. same-s* attracted (hsts) and straight (agp).
The social equation changes entirely when that truth is exposed. Women do not want straight males in our spaces. We believed we were making this agreement with hyper-effe/ mi/ nate g* men who suffer great persecution, and pose us no threat.
We did not think we were agreeing to share every space, e.g. women's pri / so /ns, our r* shelters, etc., with STRAIGHT MEN who have agp.
Should straight males calling themselves women, who do not pass (because AGPs don't, because they t* later in life due to the nature of AGP) - be treated as if they are women? Should women be obliged to play along with something that is nakedly a lie? A fiction. It is very dangerous for us, and frankly totalitarian to force someone to say things that are obviously false. If a AGP male is in a women's pri / so/ n, what, the women are meant to play along that this straight male is indistinguishable from any woman? Come on.
Would you also agree that women should not be allowed in male spaces?
Thx for pointing out AGPs (pretending to be lesbians by the way). I believe they are the ones who made this cult gain more and more power, especially on the young generations. Most AGPs will never admit they exhibit a paraphilia and that they genuinely hate and envy women.
I find men who dress as women more frightening that men who do not. If they are obviously gay, they don’t generally frighten me.
It’s asinine that what was once common sense has to be explained and defended here so articulately. Kathleen does an excellent job of providing concise and clear ideas and boundaries of where biological axioms meet human ideas and nonsensical self beliefs.
I am yet again shocked that this is actually being debated. Every time I watch a video on this topic, and someone is disagreeing about sex, and the markers of sex, it blows my mind. It's a complete denial of common sense, reality, science, and biology. The interviewer tells Kathleen at 12:44 that they're probably never going to convince one another of their beliefs, and it's all so maddening. WHY are people having to be CONVINCED of a basic concept? Too many people are so far gone it's truly crazy. I am infinitely grateful for people like Kathleen who don't back down. I hope more people come around to it.
We live in a time where pandering to a delusion is preferred over telling the truth.
There are eight billion truths.
Excellent. One of the most eloquent and smart minds on this subject.
One of the smartest women of our century. So proud of her.
Dr Stock has a firm grasp on reality, and she is strong minded enough not to be bullied into compliance with the mass delusion. Her contribution is so essential because she can support her conclusions with evidence and rational arguments. That is why the TRA lobby consider her so dangerous and made special effort to have her removed. That does not mean she will win, as history shows many cases where truth was deliberately suppressed where it threatens power, but she deserves the support of everyone who loves truth and freedom of thought.
Pretty simple if you ask me. If you were born with a "Y" chromosome, you're a male. If you weren't, you're a female. And all this silliness about gender identity, sex identity is just subterfuge for not wanting to be honest about what's really going on here and attempting to normalize abnormal behavior and mental illness.
I too am very interested in finding out how institutions and academic classes have permitted this to happen.
It’s happening because the trans agenda is not a grass rooted
movement. It’s not driven by the people. It’s a top down movement. It’s driven by extremely powerful people, who have the control, power and authority to dictate to governments, hence the toxic legislation.
Regardless of political ideology, most western governments, and developing countries controlled by the west, are all singing from an identical trans song sheet.
I can tell you absolutely how this was allowed to happen.
The liberal minded, well intentioned, academics wanted to support the TRA movement because it came from homosexual activist institutions such as Stonewall.
There has been huge repressed guilt about how gay people have been mistreated since legalisation 54 years ago.
The outright prejudice of the tropes, the way that AIDS patients were ignored, the fight to have the basic rights that everyone else in society has automatically.
The TRA movement have been exceedingly clever in manipulating and leveraging that guilt by using it to legitimise an authoritarian intellectual didact around gender erasure.
It's misogynistic, it's anti-gay, it's even anti-trans.
It doesn't advocate for the small number of genuinely transsexual people in society.
It legitimises heterosexual males who don't want any societal constraints on their sex practices.
It's attempting to enshrine these in law and make women secondary citizens and gay people non existent, reduced to fetishists.
This is supported by social media groups which in turn feed into mainstream media until the idea becomes an unchallengeable monolith.
It's been this way for over a decade.
Stonewall got gay marriage. To keep being relevant, they had to find another crusade to fight for: hence trans
Fabulously useful dialogue - thanks to all 🙂
(As an aside, the University of Sussex were disgracefully late in declaring support for KS when a member of their academic team, with respect to her right to peaceful and respectful free speech. I hope they have reflected on their actions.)
KS is only stating simple facts that everybody has always known, but her views are called "controversial". Seriously weird.
So clever but her super hero quality is her patience!!
So much energy expended on nonsense!
On the point at 20:50 One fact I come back to is the ~90% of violent crime and >98% of violent sexual crime is committed by males. And when women _do_ commit violent crime, the motivations and methods tend to be different, in ways which are indicative of societal risk (e.g. poisoning a spouse vs. stabbing a rival gang member). If you are comparing 'likelihood to assault or harass somebody in a changing room', males are _overwhelmingly_ more dangerous. It's not close. A woman is much, much safer in a female-only space than in a mixed-sex one.
And that this trend is consistent across cultures and time periods (e.g. I read a paper examining Neolithic skeletons, and surprise surprise, _overwhelmingly_ skeletons with signs of injury consistent with armed conflict were male). The idea that sex is this niche, socially inconsequential characteristic is Just Not True.
Brilliant and courageous. The university system - and the young generations it is supposed to serve - have suffered a great loss in her leaving that system.
No it's not right having been a student of philosophy myself that she can't contain her own subjective views unreasonable in teaching
Kathleen Stock speaks perfect sense and her views are logical and well articultated. Her views mirror mine.
If words and phrases are made taboo, there's a good chance that someone doesn't want a topic discussed because they'd lose the debate.
It is absurd and repugnant that Dr Stock's 'views' - ie. biological fact - are presented as unreasonable and deviant. Her patience is superhuman.
i fly to work every morning in my own helicopter and everybody tells me its a skateboard, they're all mad.
Kathleen must have had a lot of experience with very young children to maintain this level of patients and professionalism.
@@loftyradish6972 Yeah I reckon it was all the freshers haha 18-year-olds can be a tough crowd
Brilliant ,rare clear thinking - brave and true - thanks Kathleen.
Male genitals do not belong in women's spaces. Even then, men don't just bully women sexually.
Do women's genitals belong in male spaces? Do men bully women in general?
@@dedr4m yep and they should be creating a third space, even a fourth dependidng what is needed, for transpeople
People are going crazy discussing about if penis and vagina are real. There's no limit in stupidity.
It is more about whether penis or vagina should mean whether you ought to he constrained to a certain social role of "man" or "woman"
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Having long hair, wearing dresses, using make up etc are socially learned norms and have nothing to do with biology. I'm a man but don't care much for sports and like romantic films and cry at least 5 times every time I watch Now Voyager. I don't take that to mean anything in particular about my gender at all. I am well aware these are superficial signafyers but I do get upset when anyone uses the term CIS about me. I don't want to be put in a box I didn't choose thank you.
👏well said. No personality trait or action should be linked to biological sex, ever! We are all individuals who deserve freedom from sex stereotypes.
18:04 Kathleen makes good point. Classifications might have blurry edges but large portions of the canvas are still black or white or red. They are distinct. A monotreme is distinct from a placental mammal in a very non arbitrary way.
The interviewer seems out of depth here.
She is spot on.
Kathleen you are brilliant and extremely calm in your responses. Thank you for always speaking x
Thank you for affirming that females should not be expected to share washrooms with biological males!! Not just because it might pose a physical threat, but 1 in 3 women have been sexually abused by males, and having to share private spaces with male bodies is a deep psychological threat. As a biological female identifying as female, I believe I have rights too, and my right to use a washroom or a changeroom that excludes biological male bodies should be respected. I totally agree with 3rd spaces. I identify as a biological female, trans people overtly identify as the new category of trans. So they need to have their own spaces.