X Close

Kathleen Stock: I won’t be silenced The trans activist campaign against her has backfired

Come at me


November 4, 2021   7 mins

The recent hounding of Kathleen Stock was supposed to be a warning to women everywhere: dare to speak out against transgender ideology and expect to be burnt at the stake. But despite the hell unleashed by trans activists at the University of Sussex, the bullying campaign against Kathleen has backfired. Those who sought to ruin her life and career, most of whom are not transgender, have been exposed as misogynistic totalitarians.

I have known Kathleen since 2018, when I discovered her research on gender identity and women’s sex-based rights. We have remained close since then, and I have looked on with horror at the abhorrent treatment she has been forced to endure in recent months.

Watch the full 50 minute interview on UnHerdTV below, or listen to the podcast version here:
 

When I interviewed Kathleen for UnHerd this morning, she detailed the true extent of the aggressive campaign of targeted harassment she’s been forced to endure. Kathleen might be a mild-mannered, liberal academic, but she is not one to shy away from a fight. Her decision to leave Sussex after 18 years teaching there was no easy decision.

“I went to work as normal, and saw stickers all over my building about the ‘transphobic shit that comes out of Kathleen Stock’s mouth’,” Kathleen says. “That was obviously distressing but the next day it escalated.” As she walked to campus from the train station, she was confronted with a number of posters calling for her to be sacked: “Fire Kathleen Stock”, “Kathleen Stock’s A Transphobe”, “We’re Not Paying Our Fees For Transphobia With Kathleen Stock”.

“They were setting off flares
 And they later took a picture of a man in a balaclava, all in black, looking just like Antifa. The imagery was obviously intimidating: holding a massive banner saying ‘Stock out’, while setting off pink and blue flares because those are the colours on the transgender flag.

“I ran back to the station, got the train home, tried to teach a class on Zoom, burst into tears and my dear students said I must be having a tough day and they let me off,” says Kathleen. “It was the beginning of the end of the campaign to intimidate me out of my job.”

The campaign to push Stock out of Sussex began after she self-published a number blog posts critical of extreme transgender ideology. Kathleen was concerned that the majority of academics, including philosophers such as herself, were reluctant to criticise campaigns to introduce self-identification for transgender people. After all, she thought, why should we just ignore material categories such as sex?

But to implement self-identification without question is to ignore a key safeguarding problem. As Kathleen puts it, “Self  ID policies trade on a fantasy that suddenly putting on a dress or saying ‘I’m a woman’ will change your basic nature. But, in fact, what was there before will be there after. Humans are humans, and if you make it the case that you can self identify into a better situation than you were in — i.e. a woman’s prison as opposed to a male prison, which are usually less intense, aggressive places — then some people will do it, whether they’re trans or not.” And as both Kathleen and I keep saying, this isn’t about every trans person. It’s a safeguarding policy.

“These academics were not attending to the obvious consequences for women,” she says. “Yet on the other hand, there were plenty of academics who were cheerleading self-ID, ostentatiously moralising about it, and talking about Terfs and transphobia.”

Kathleen continues: “Gender identity theory is egregiously false. It is terrible, pseudo philosophy and would fail a first-year essay. As a philosopher who cares about logic and truth at a basic level, I couldn’t believe that all these academics were just waving it through.”

One aspect in particular that baffled her was the claim that a person’s belief about their psychological identity, whether they are male or female, is more important than their material sex at birth — not least due to the impact such categories have on medicine, sport, science, education and more.

“I’m a lesbian and a feminist,” states Kathleen. “I assumed that academic feminists were covering women and girls’ rights and I didn’t need to get involved. I started to see that they were not only not covering it, but they were also actively undermining women’s rights in the name of feminism, and there were all these knock-on consequences for lesbians. On all those levels, it annoyed the fuck out of me.”

Although Kathleen is understandably upset by the conduct of the small number of abusive students, she is adamant that many of them are taking a cue from the influential adults around them. “I don’t think they’ve actually read what I think. There’s a lot of enabling, or inciting, of individuals in this story,” she says.

“Many of these academics contribute to an environment in which some pretty terrible things are happening to, for instance, children in gender identity clinics. I can see why they had a vested interest in shutting me down.”

She stresses: “I absolutely believe that trans people should be protected in law, so I’m never going to waiver from that. I just disagree about the laws that should be used.”

Like a number of other women in the public eye who have been deemed to be transphobic, Kathleen is tired of being “lumped in with holocaust deniers” as the personification of all evil.

“I’m not even a free speech absolutist,” she says. “This is preposterous framing and entirely set up by our enemies to mean that we can’t win. All we’re doing is insisting on basic obvious facts of biology and their social significance. Nearly 99% of the planet agrees with us. The most I can get out of people is a tentative ‘Well, we absolutely support Kathleen Stock’s right to say what she thinks’ but they won’t say ‘And yeah, of course we agree with her because it’s bloody obvious’.”

And this insistence on keeping silent has had a toxic impact on the transgender debate, allowing small groups of extremely vocal and aggressive activists to fill that gap. For example, Kathleen firmly believes that Stonewall is in large part responsible for the current witch hunt mentality. As someone who has experienced the ensuing vitriol first-hand, it is hard not to agree. During the past few years, its business model has prioritised promoting a very narrow conception of what they would call trans rights.

“I would say these rights don’t benefit trans people,” says Kathleen. “But they were already embedded in all these national institutions, government departments, the CPS, the EHRC, almost all of our universities, schools and local authorities. And being in one of their schemes means these institutions get a constant stream of instructions such as: ‘We would really appreciate it if you would put out a tweet lobbying for this project’. Our national institutions have almost unwittingly been instruments to be used by extremists.”

Those extremists are swift to accuse Kathleen of “weaponising her trauma” if she ever dares talk about how the attacks have affected her personally. Which they have, obviously. She insists on talking about it, though, because it’s not just affecting high-profile characters like us two. “It’s what’s happening now in every institution, not just universities, to women who feel like they’re choking,” she explains. “They cannot get their words out — or if they do, then they’re put through complaints systems, they’re socially ostracised, they are told by their bosses, ‘we’re watching your Twitter feed.’ There’s just this feeling of surveillance that is unacceptable. So that’s why we have to talk about the human cost.”

What was the final straw for Kathleen? She tells me it was when the Sussex branch of the University and College Union (UCU) put out a statement in support of “our trans and non-binary students” and against “institutional transphobia”.

“At that point I was just hanging on. I was teaching from home. I saw the posters. I was advised to stay at home for my own protection. The police were coming round. I’m getting security stuff delivered to my house, trying to think about the future. I thought I’d  have to stay off campus for the rest of the term but at least I can teach on Zoom. I hoped they would support me.”

And then her UCU branch issued its damning statement. “It was a pompous peroration about ‘standing with our trans and non binary students against institutional transphobia’” Kathleen explains. “And all they could possibly mean by that is that I was there”.

“There’s nobody else who speaks out like I do. Plus, every second communication that comes out of the university is about trans and non-binary spaces in the library and trans or non-binary support groups and LGBT issues. There’s a staff network; there’s a Centre for Sexual Dissidence; there’s a Centre for Gender Studies.

“It’s literally saturated with positive messaging. It’s in Brighton, one of the most queer-friendly places in the world. So all they could mean by institutional transphobia is: ‘We haven’t shut that bitch up yet’. It came through on my email and it just felt like a punch in the gut.

“But this is a union! They are supposed to protect employees from their bosses and to offer solidarity with anyone who is an employee — especially in a university where they are being targeted for their academic research and their philosophical beliefs, which are also protected in law under the equality act.”

And, Kathleen tells me, this intolerance trickles all the way down from the top of UCU. As far back as 2019, for instance, Jo Grady, UCU’s general secretary, boasted of her decision to instal ‘Terf Blocker software’ on Twitter, which automatically blocks any account that has been deemed transphobic.

“Grady is not unusual in academia,” says Kathleen. “She has these relatively extreme views but they’ve become the norm and it’s all so moralised. These people are a small number of hardcore totalitarians.”

I ask Kathleen if there’s anything we can do. How can we enable students to critically examine controversial topics without being scared to speak out?

“What we can do is demand that universities reduce the influence of lobbying groups like Stonewall, and insist that senior management do not make politically loaded pronouncements in controversial areas of public dispute.”

She explains that having transgender flags on campuses, holding quasi-religious ceremonies such as Trans Day of Remembrance and so on are not neutral gestures, despite how they are presented. These are political gestures and managers should not be participating in them.

Despite all the abuse she’s received, Kathleen believes there is better news on the horizon. She has seen a tsunami of support from Government ministers, students, feminists and, of course, right-minded liberals who are now less afraid to speak out, having been inspired by Kathleen and others who have put their heads above the parapet.

“We’re obviously having some success because I see more and more people speaking out. I think as the public becomes better educated about the basic issues and our particular position, which is the opposite of how it has been represented.

“One thing that’s happened recently is that the Guardian and the BBC are no longer presenting our views as anti-trans or transphobic. And at least some of the people working there seem aware that there’s actually a proper intellectual dispute here. Beforehand, I honestly think Guardian readers hardly knew about any of the implications of self-identification. They just were being protected from that information, because it wasn’t serving the newspaper’s business model very well.”

What will Kathleen do next? “I’m not going to stop,” she tells me with defiance. “In leaving Sussex, I’ve become even more able to speak out and now I’ve got a bigger platform.”

What she does with that platform is yet to be seen. But I suspect it won’t be long until we find out.


Julie Bindel is an investigative journalist, author, and feminist campaigner. Her latest book is Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation. She also writes on Substack.

bindelj

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

130 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R MS
R MS
2 years ago

Great interview here and on Woman’s Hour. Thanks to you both.
I was especially glad, Kathleen, to hear you say despite everything you did not regret speaking up and it was the most worthwhile thing you have done. We all owe you a huge vote of thanks – and to step up and take up this challenge.

Matt B
Matt B
2 years ago
Reply to  R MS

Is it a related matter: a prof with a book on their shelf entitled “How to Fight Anti-Semitism” might have fallen foul of today’s large BDS academic and student body. Was she thus double-targeted by stealth? I wonder.

Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
Stella Kane
Stella Kane
2 years ago
Reply to  Matt B

It’s probably the Unherd office

Peter Francis
Peter Francis
2 years ago

Kathleen’s case is appalling. Her trade union acted appallingly and her university acted in a cowardly way. Yet there was no bitterness in that interview. Good luck to her in the future.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter Francis

I do hope this sort of mania ends up with a great swing in the opposite direction, like the election of Youngkin in Virginia.

There is a real phenomenon of ‘Going Too Far’ which results in a hard push back.

These students are building up enough outrage it could result in ‘Defund the Universities’ of the social damaging insanity. I think it is in USA – I feel USA is about to make education a big issue – not because the students craziness, but the school teachers and administrators insanity.

Last edited 2 years ago by Galeti Tavas
Gunner Myrtle
Gunner Myrtle
2 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

I agree. However if you spend any time around academics you will find they are utterly indifferent to how bad their institutions are and they will remain that way right until their funding is cut. At that time they will start blathering about the role of the university in society, etc, but it will be too late. They deserve to be defunded.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago

Good news that there appears to be something positive on the horizon. The treatment of Kathleen Stock has been appalling.
Many in South Africa haven’t heard of the Woke, but the tendrils are obviously twining through universities, organisations and workplaces. This intolerance and anger and hypocrisy needs to be stamped out. The emphasis is on hypocrisy. They are frauds.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
2 years ago

It’s the anti-science that gets me.

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Well yes, me too.
But it’s on both sides in this case. JB is a social constructionist, so, against all the evidence, she believes that the personalities and behaviours of men and women, and the average differences between them, are all down to social conditioning.
in JBs case this seems to be up to and including sexual orientation. In spite of the massive evolutionary advantage of having a predominant sexual preference for the opposite sex, biology plays no, or a minimal, role.
in effect, this is an argument over just how malleable human beings are. With both sides arguing that they are far more malleable than is actually the case.

Jane Watson
Jane Watson
2 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

Interestingly, my MSc Psychology thesis was on ‘the essential difference’ (as per Simon Baron-Cohen’s theory of ‘male/female’ cognitive styles).

I was completely baffled by the apparent belief, in some of my subjects, that human beings are infinitely malleable. I wasn’t looking at the whys and wherefores or correlations, but there was a ‘taboo’ response amongst some individuals to the very idea that women and men can think differently. Mysterious.

I’ve got 6 brothers and 3 sisters – we were and are different; not better/worse, superior/inferior, more or less intelligent or aggressive (mum always said her girls were more aggressive than the boys), but different inclinations and priorities from birth.

Some women are not ‘feminine’ females and some men are not especially ‘masculine’ males, but we would be a very strange species indeed if biology didn’t influence behaviour (particularly in the sexual arena). In fact, we’d be extinct.

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Jane Watson

The reasons are well covered in Pinkers “Blank Slate”. Our society seems to be quite big on things that we know to be true, but don’t want to believe.

Mike Bell
Mike Bell
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Science? Oh,that’s so last century! Didn’t you know? Science is patriarchy and oppression. Facts are misogynistic and trans-phobic.
What we need is ‘lived experience’, that’s the new replacement for science.

Ian Morris
Ian Morris
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Yes its a similar thing with climate change. Nobody discusses the science because once the truth is revealed people cant politicise the issue. Its clear cut..

Ann Ceely
Ann Ceely
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Morris

Climate Change isn’t a verifiable truth! (apart from the fact that Climate always changes – both up and down).

It’s a Precautionary Action.

Last edited 2 years ago by Ann Ceely
Charles Lawton
Charles Lawton
2 years ago

Well said, but can we please stop using “Woke” and use bullying and harassment. One of the reasons the whole debate slides under the radar is very little is clear to the wider population of the arguments and why and who they are made by. Apart from the Guardian and now somewhat belatedly the BBC (last week), very little information on transgender issues gets into the MSM.

Victoria Hart
Victoria Hart
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Lawton

The Guardian is wholly pro-gender ideology and doesn’t report GC views, so I wouldn’t cite that as a source of information. The Times, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are pretty strong on the harmful influence of gender-identity politics and self-ID. The BBC has only just started to broadcast/publish material of which Stonewall disapproves, but I’m afraid I don’t have much hope that it will escapet that so-called charity’s poisonous influence, so embedded is it in the Beeb’s structures and editorial policies.

Charles Lawton
Charles Lawton
2 years ago
Reply to  Victoria Hart

Thanks I agree with you. However, there are a couple of Guardian articles that are not pro gender I can look them up if you want, I have several LGBT friends who are concerned about Stonewall’s stance.
The DM is so light weight now that it does not get the proper message across. The Telegraph has now become so sensational that it’s lightweight on the detail of what is happening. My parents avid readers of the DT stopped reading it after 60 years because it was so sensational and removed from reality.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Lawton

I cancelled my Telegraph subscription after encountering a couple of articles in which the word “black” was capitalised.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 years ago
Reply to  Victoria Hart

But, Victoria, how can you argue against something if you don’t know their arguments? I do read liberal-left publications, sometimes I actually agree with them, and from this reading I have a sound basis from which to form my own arguments against them. If one never reads or engages with the opposition one is in danger of being immersed in one’s own bubble much like the “woke” left is. By the way, I would never rely on the Daily Mail for any reasoned argument – sorry about that.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Lawton

If you don’t refer to Woke, then the masses will think that Woke is good and bullying and harassment are separate and bad.

Julia H
Julia H
2 years ago

It’s none of my business but I sincerely hope you didn’t sign a compromise agreement and are planning to make a claim for constructive dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The law needs to come out swinging (no pun intended!) on this matter.

Roger le Clercq
Roger le Clercq
2 years ago
Reply to  Julia H

Good one anyway

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
2 years ago

‘Gender identity theory is egregiously false. It is a terrible, pseudo philosophy and would fail a first-year essay.” – A concise, excellent summary of what’s going wrong.
Bravo, professor Stock, and best wishes for the future. It’s sad that future students won’t benefit from your teaching, but nobody could have done more to stand up to these charlatans.

Terry Needham
Terry Needham
2 years ago

I can feel sympathy, indeed admiration, for an individual, but during my many years I have not noticed that feminism, as a movement, was overly-endowed with love, tolerance and empathy. I think what we are seeing now is a group of decidely unpleasant people upping the ante, because they have seen that intolerance pays.

Last edited 2 years ago by Terry Needham
Heggs Mleggs
Heggs Mleggs
2 years ago
Reply to  Terry Needham

Which “side” here had the balaclavas, flares and aggressive pickets and posters?

However, the nice gentle suffragists weren’t successful. The suffragettes were. Women were done with being told to be nice 120 years ago.

Terry Needham
Terry Needham
2 years ago
Reply to  Heggs Mleggs

Trans are playing exactly the same game and are getting exactly the same result. What is your point, other that you approve of the aims of one group, but not the other?

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Terry Needham

Spot on!

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Terry Needham

There is a huge difference between women demanding the vote and men demanding to be women when they wake up in the morning.

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Heggs Mleggs

Hmmm – that’s a contentious piece of history. But clearly the trans movement believes your interpretation and has learned from it. If being nice doesn’t work, why would you expect the trans movement to be anything but unpleasant.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 years ago
Reply to  Heggs Mleggs

This is not true about the suffragists; they were very busy behind the scenes and the suffragette movement probably put back the cause of women’s suffrage. Most of the mobilisation of women during the WW1 was through the suffragists, and this was instrumental in women’s achieving the vote. The continual lauding of teh suffragettes is, to my mind, appalling; it is celebrating the use of terrorism to achieve a political end rather than using democratic/parliamentary means.

Warren T
Warren T
2 years ago

Unfortunately, that is becoming the norm in these movements. In fact, when you look throughout history, war was the answer to many of these differences between peoples. It sure appears that we are heading down that same path, regrettably.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
Reply to  Heggs Mleggs

It was women serving in the front lines( nurses)and working in factories( munitions in particular due to danger of explosions and poisons) which had the most effect. Basically if one is prepared to die for one’s country one should have the vote.

John Wilkes
John Wilkes
2 years ago
Reply to  Heggs Mleggs

Not true actually. Despite what we are taught now the suffragettes just p’ed people off, rather like the insulation folk today. Contemporary newspapers make this very clear. A combination of public support for the Suffragists and work done on the home front by women during WW1 was behind the rise in public and political support.
In Parliament Square, suffrage is commemorated with a statue of Millicent Fawcett, who was leader of the Suffragists. Also the main organisation for women’s rights is the Fawcett Society.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
2 years ago
Reply to  Terry Needham

I would agree with you that feminism is not all about love, tolerance and empathy, but I don’t remember Germaine Greer or Gloria Steinham threatening anyone with violence and trying to ruin the careers of their opponents. I think in demonstrations women did not wear balaclavas, a threatening act in itself. They were proud to show their faces and be identified with a just cause.

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Christina Hoff Sommers – Who Stole Feminism gives plenty of examples of feminist dirty tricks, including career ruining.

MJ Reid
MJ Reid
2 years ago
Reply to  Terry Needham

The feminism I know is about women being treated fairly not at the expense of men but to level a playing field that has been biased against women basically forever.
Inheritance, education, marriage, property ownership has always been biased towards men – fathers, brothers, husbands. Women who refused to koetow to this were punished and in some cultures, including Christian communities, are still punished for going agin this “norm”.
In 2021, women and men should be treated equally and fairly. Women should be in senior positions in companies, on boards, get equal pay for equal work, be shown to play “men’s” sport (never understood how football and rugby could be gendered and women’s games kept off the TV), and be treated fairly in the justice system. We should not be treated either as virgin or whores, but as equal to the other 49%of the population.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago
Reply to  MJ Reid

This is eminently reasonable IMO. One small point though,Women should be in senior positions in companies, on boards, is obviously a laudable goal, but I would qualify that with ‘if that is what they wish’. Also, to balance the equation, don’t you think women should also be in the least prestigious or low status positions involving, for example, construction – such as brick laying – refuse collection, laying pipe and road work maintenance etc.?
Or are you advocating that women should be allowed in senior positions companies… ? I couldn’t tell which interpretation was appropriate.

Last edited 2 years ago by michael stanwick
Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago

There are plenty of low paying, low status jobs mainly populated by women – such as cleaning ladies.

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago

Laying pipe is well paid. Nothing to stop them. Cleaning is low paid. Change jobs.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
2 years ago

The thing to remember is that universities have always been seminaries, educating future priests in the state church. Sometimes it didn’t take, like with Fred Vincy in Middlemarch. No problem, said My Girl Mary Garth. Just get a job, Fred! And no nookie until you do.
Properly therefore universities today are seminaries training young minds full of mush in the orthodoxies of today. And the orthiest doxy of the moment is trans.
Of course, I think it is monstrous how Kathleen Stock has been treated. As a profound sexist I say that “women expect to be protected” and they should be. I understand, as a racist-sexist-homophobe, I probably could not be a student at Sussex, let alone a noble professor. But never mind.
But things are going to get worse before they get better. There’s nothing that well-born educated humans like more than a nice witch hunt before the pub opens.

JP Martin
JP Martin
2 years ago

Middlemarch…I haven’t read it in ages. The book that comes to my mind when thinking about the modern university is Jude the Obscure.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
Reply to  JP Martin

Somebody should write a modern version called “Jude the Obscurantist”.

Margaret Tudeau-Clayton
Margaret Tudeau-Clayton
2 years ago

For me this was one of the most telling demands: “We’re Not Paying Our Fees For Transphobia With Kathleen Stock”.
Students today conceive of their university education as consumers — they want to get what they want to hear, not an education. The same consumer mentality drives gender identity ideology too.

James Joyce
James Joyce
2 years ago

Kathleen was concerned that the majority of academics, including philosophers such as herself, were reluctant to criticise campaigns to introduce self-identification for transgender people.
“It was the beginning of the end of the campaign to intimidate me out of my job.”
This is a bit like the Iran-Iraq War, in the sense that it is a shame they both can’t lose. With respect, may I suggest that Kathleen add a word to her vocabulary: resiliency?
Kathleen has one of the most privileged jobs on the planet. So do the academics referred to above. They have zero integrity, and are simply cowed by the mob/s. The campaign to hound Kathleen out of her job worked! Mob rule!
Compare that to Scandinavian cartoonist Lars Vilks and other French (Charlie Hebdo) and Scandinavian cartoonists. These people, sometimes physically, stood up to the mob and did not back down, often at great personal costs. Resiliency. And it may turn out that Lars Vilks was murdered–a bit odd that his car, driven by his police bodyguard, would suddenly cross lanes head on into a truck in excellent weather conditions. The plight of Kathleen and Julie is pale fire compared to the bravery of the cartoonists, and others, but not academics, a pathetic, cowardly, and feeble lot.
It is important to realise several things: first, the uni is the enemy and cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed and completely made over, hopefully without the pathetic losers who reside in academia today. Second, I take great objection to Kathleen being described as “liberal,” as she and others at the uni are illiberal–the very opposite of liberal–and they only noticed this and claim the “free speech” and “free thought” because they have been “outwoked” by people even more crazy and intolerant than them. Now they claim martyhood. Disgusting.
I advocated a temporary truce with Kathleen and Julie, but only a temporary truce, to defeat an even greater enemy. But let’s not lose sight that Kathleen and Julie and their ilk, often academics, are not on the side of free thought, free inquiry, they are woke, they are the enemy, and their (fleeting) cause is in our interests now only because there are even crazier people with louder voices out there.
Is Julie “liberal?” Perhaps we should look to her history of pouring cement in the toilets of theatres who dared to play content that she objected to. How tolerant.
Finally, to Julie, heard you on HONESTLY, which was almost impossible to get through. It did, however, reveal you for the extremist that you are. Iran vs. Iraq. A pox on both of you!

Last edited 2 years ago by James Joyce
Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Thank you James. Like many, I was hounded by feminists at uni. In my case it was for speaking up about female violence. I was warned to stop speaking or writing on the subject or my career would be ruined. Others around me agreed with my stance, but cowered down.

The most stupid thing was that I came at it from an angle of gaining help for female victims of intergenerational family violence to heal and have their lives turn for the better. But ‘NO’ this did not fit the feminist narrative, so anything I wrote on the issue was marked down.

Mirax Path
Mirax Path
2 years ago
Reply to  Karl Juhnke

The ‘feminists’ have made many mistakes and these two women themselves mention the biggest (self-destructive) mistake the movement is making right now. It seems gratuitous to be harping on the past without looking at the needs of the present and how to use whatever allies we are presented with.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
2 years ago
Reply to  Mirax Path

As a feminist myself, I agree. Sewing the wind and reaping the whirlwind comes to mind.
I remember discussing De Beauvoir’s contention that ‘woman is made not born’ (apologies for paraphrase) at Uni when studying feminism. I felt uneasy at the time, but I content she was speaking metaphorically about the training that women at the time had to undergo in order to become a ‘proper’ woman. I don’t think she meant that sex is ‘assigned’ in an arbitrary fashion at birth.
Yes there have been mistakes but we have to learn and move forward.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

De Beauvoir is interesting. Some women served in the resistance such as Sansom, Khan and Szabo who won the GCs. Sartre did next to nothing in WW2 and her lover Sartre supported Mao by the end of the 1960s.
If De Beauvoir was so keen to promote women why did she not join the SOE and undergo the rigorous training as undertaken by Sansom, Khan and Szabo? Why is there such a massive difference between what she said and did ?
Why has feminism not lauded all the actions of the women in SOE and resistance groups in WW2( Ursula Graham Bower and V force also de Jongh and the Comet Line come to mind )?
The singer Lynsey de Paul brought out a video on self defence in the early 1990s after being attacked. Why have feminists not promoted de Paul’s video on self defence and further refined the techniques?
In the 1980s an retired lady academic in in Bristol was attacked by three muggers and defeated them due to the self defence techniques taught by W Fairbairn when she was in the SOE.
Why have males not stood up to support Professor Stock and offered to protect her ?
It would appear feminists have ridiculed chivalry and then not learned self defence which makes them vulnerable. Surely if women do not want to be protected by men, which is the basis of chivalry, they should learn effective self defence which is possible as demonstrated by the retired lady academic in the 1980s. Or is it they wish to play the victim in order to gain sympathy and win the debate through manipulation ?
If feminists say women cannot protect themselves against stronger men why are there women in the Police Force?
Those who have threatened Prosseor Stock are thugs but they are not hardened enforcers from organised crime with experience of boxing and hard manual work.
If effete university males can remove freedom what hope is there, if we, as nation, have to fight a war machine as strong, ruthless and remorseless as Nazi Germany ?

Michael James
Michael James
2 years ago
Reply to  Karl Juhnke

‘Others around me agreed with my stance, but cowered down.’
It’s striking how people openly admit to cowardice these days. If people won’t run any risks at all to defend liberty, they’ll lose it.

Tim Bartlett
Tim Bartlett
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Compared to the poisonous state of our universities the mullahs were and are beacons of moderation. I object to the comparison. Even evil old Saddam and his US enablers must feel slandered.

Mirax Path
Mirax Path
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

If these two women are extremists, what are you? You advocate the complete eradication of universities for one. You define others in the most absolute terms possible. Perhaps you are not best placed to speak of tolerance and liberalism.
Some the usual male commenters making the same tiresome grudge-posts on the past sins of Bindel may want to give it a rest.

James Joyce
James Joyce
2 years ago
Reply to  Mirax Path

Good question! I’m a Libertarian. I believe in being left alone, and treating everyone with respect (at least initially). I don’t care about gays, transgender, two spirits, I treat people as individuals, always initially with respect. I believe in personal responsibility and freedom of choice. I’m against the death penalty, pro-choice, pro-gay (sort of, makes no difference to me, do your own thing), pro environment. Are we really that different? Perhaps we are, as you–the woke, only slightly less nutters than the transgender nutters– seem to want to enforce a rigid ideology on me. Give it a go!
I make no apologies for my comments such as the complete eradication of unis–at least in their present form. I am also against Vietnamese re-education camps, Stalin’s gulags, China’s Cultural Revolution camps, Pol Pot’s Year Zero and the like. Unis–at least American unis–too far gone to be saved. They should appear in a different form, with true freedom of the mind, true searches for the truth, not political correctness and enforced “we are right” ideology. No Gender Studies majors, No Black History majors–this is not education but indoctrination, cheerleading. No Brittney Cooper….
I only learned about Julie 30 minutes ago (figuratively) and Kathleen 15 minutes ago. They’re not my cup of tea, as they are vile, hectoring, worthless people, Kathleen especially, since she has or had a perch at the uni. Not only that, she’s a coward. America beckons. She will be lauded at some unis there.

Mathilda Eklund
Mathilda Eklund
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

And calling people “vile” and “worthless” really does say more about you than about these women.

Tim Knight
Tim Knight
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Neither of them struck me as vile or hectoring. I may not agree with them on everything, and I may not understand everything, but Stock’s measured persistent response is anything but hectoring.

James Joyce
James Joyce
2 years ago
Reply to  Tim Knight

With respect, I disagree. Radical lesbian feminists at the uni are, by definition, hectoring. This is also about what they teach at the uni, not only the trans issues where the woke have been outwoked. I understand that Kathleen teaches philosophy and haven’t examined her syllabi, but is it “lesbian centric?” Is it anti-male? Julie certainly is both.
Vile may be a bit of hyperbole, but I’m entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. The bottom line is that the uni, especially the social sciences, are the problem, not the solution, though this has carried over into the hard sciences like medicine, where professors routinely apologise for making reference to men and women in the course of teaching medicine.

Edwin Wine
Edwin Wine
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Your almost total ignorance of the issues here shines through brightly

Charles Lawton
Charles Lawton
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Getting rather bitter and personal which actually weakens your argument.

Alex Stonor
Alex Stonor
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Hmm, 30 mins, 15 mins…I thought you said that you treated everyone with respect; initially?

James Joyce
James Joyce
2 years ago
Reply to  Alex Stonor

With respect, may I suggest you give my posts a closer reading? I said that I treat everyone with respect at least initially. I’m sufficiently familiar with Kathleen and Julie to form an opinion. I said it, I meant it, I stand behind it. I challenge you to listen to the HONESTLY podcast with Julie and arrive at a different conclusion–it’s a big investment of time, not worth it, but I made it through. If you’re woke, you will not agree with me. If you’re not woke, you might say Blimey, he’s right!

Michael James
Michael James
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Kathleen a coward? What on earth are you talking about? The cowards are those of her colleagues who tell her privately that they agree with her but won’t speak out in her defence.

Last edited 2 years ago by Michael James
Edwin Wine
Edwin Wine
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Read Stocks book before making such a judgement.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
2 years ago
Reply to  Mirax Path

Indeed: ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ applies. Let us welcome them with open arms and hope that this new contact with small c conservatives helps them to see us in a new way.

Sandi Dunn
Sandi Dunn
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Charlie Hebdo was shut up by religious FASCISTS! And they have more or less succeeded bcs of Liberals allowing the specious argument that religion is a race! The religious ones are laughing at how easily they managed to achieve confounding liberals who they will eventually string up on gaining power

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

It is all as though the Cybermen were to appeal to Doctor Who to save them from the Daleks. There’s no need to do anything; the Daleks will exterminate the Cybermen, but eventually someone will turn up who’s even worse than the Daleks who will in turn exterminate them.
Normal people are Doctor Who and we just look on, laugh and really couldn’t care less.

Warren T
Warren T
2 years ago
Reply to  James Joyce

That needed to be said. Glad you did.

Sean McGrath
Sean McGrath
2 years ago

Am 100% in support of Kathleen Stock. The UCU is a disgrace of a union. Jo Grady should be absolutely ashamed. Stonewall is a malign lobbying group with far too much reach into all our institutions. It claims to be a charity but is making a shedload of money out of it’s ridiculous Equality Index materials. Has it been reported to the Charity Commission yet?

Alison Tyler
Alison Tyler
2 years ago
Reply to  Sean McGrath

Hear.Hear well said.

D Ward
D Ward
2 years ago

i suspect – and i hope i’m right on this – that in 10 years’ time we will be wondering what on earth possessed us to allow this to happen. This is the next big scandal waiting to erupt (by which i mean, putting kids on puberty blockers).

Last edited 2 years ago by D Ward
Karl Francis
Karl Francis
2 years ago

Thank you UnHerd. Riveting interview.
I intend to buy Kathleen’s book, I wish her well and will be following all the events as they unfold. I have no problem with the people that Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock are NOW. We all evolve, we’ve all got a past.
Good luck to them both.

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago

holding quasi-religious ceremonies such as Trans Day of Remembrance and so on

All woke ideologies have quasi religious elements. Much second wave feminism was quasi religious.
They all claim victimhood. With this latest round we see two opposing groups out claiming each other in victim status.
Most of these groups claim that the previously accepted norm was some sort of imposition, to be opposed and rejected. JB in her time saw “heteronormativity” as imposed, and thought women should break free. Trans people (some at least) feel the same about lesbians who won’t date “women with penises” and “cisnormativity”.
The only real disagreement seems to be over when the world went mad. JB thinks it was sometime after her, but pre trans. The rest of us might push the date back a bit.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
2 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

Slightly off the main topic, but how do the various religions claim victimhood? Do you see them doing so in the same way or in different ways?

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

In this case, trans activists are claiming trans people to be victims of terfs, while terfs are claiming that women are the victims, or potential victims of trans women. Both groups of activists are claiming victimisation by each other.
Feminists claim women are victims of men, masculinity and the patriarchy. Lesbians are victims of heteronormativity. Trans people are victims of transphobia and cisnormativity.
For the record, I’m an old fashioned believer in tolerance. I’m happy for feminists to pursue their beliefs so long as they don’t make, and push policy based on, unwarranted truth claims. Similarly I am tolerant of all sorts of sexual preferences and orientations, so long as it is not insisted that social norms, and even biological facts, have to be toppled to make way for their supporting ideologies.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

Millions of women who are anti gender self ID are not Terfs, nor are they activists. They are just called Terfs because it is a slur. In fact many men are against gender self ID. You are not understanding the problem. Hockey mums at the bake sale for example who are against gender self ID are not radical feminists.

Last edited 2 years ago by Lesley van Reenen
David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago

You are not understanding the problem.

You’re not understanding my comment.
Nothing in yours I disagree with.
And of course the extension of a negative term to people it doesn’t apply to is activist bread and butter. It gets applied to anyone who disagrees with the activists ideology.

Alison Tyler
Alison Tyler
2 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

I am even more old fashioned I believe in both God and the common good.

Tim Knight
Tim Knight
2 years ago

I applaud you. Professor Stock. Thank you. What support I can offer in my little powerless sphere I will do so.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago

“Beforehand, I honestly think Guardian readers hardly knew about any of the implications of self-identification”

They must be very well educated indeed to miss the glaringly obvious problems of (some) men identifying as women to beat them at sport or get into their changing rooms, refuges or other institutions. Although in any other context the Identitarian Left would be attacking men as incipient rapists.

And child abuse is just ticket boo as well, through encouraging confused kids to take puberty blocking drugs (whose long term effects we do not know) and to undergo irreversible surgery. ‘Trans women’ will never have children.

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Charles Elvin
Charles Elvin
2 years ago

Thank you for writing this. The support for KS’s position is broad and deep in the UK but, as you say, a tiny number of violent, intolerant and unthinking groups have hijacked what should have been a sensible debate about the issues (and there are real, important, debates to have regarding the protection of all rights for all groups while not placing one above the other). To deny biological fact is simple insanity. You cannot change the physical world just by wishing it be different. I have terminal (stage four) cancer – don’t you think I would like to ‘identify’ as someone without cancer and then see it simply vanish away…. It is the same wish as wanting all my cells with sex chromosomes in them to miraculously change. I may want to live a life without cancer – but I can’t. The world did not allow that to happen.
I hope those who have threatened and campaigned against KS have the full force of the law thrown at them. More importantly, I hope the full force of public opinion on this issue can be lined against this psychological violence before it spills into physical violence.
Time for politicians to get seriously involved to ensure this on-going nonsense in this trans issue is stamped out, free speech and logic are returned not only to University campuses but into the media (who are stoking these fires and ridiculously supporting absurd positions). They could start by making sure sense returns to all government institutions and funded projects.

Last edited 2 years ago by Charles Elvin
Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Elvin

Comparing trans activism to cancer is clearly hate speech, Charles. You would be banned for that at the Grauniad.

Alison Tyler
Alison Tyler
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Elvin

Thank you for sharing your information to make the common sense connection. To try and change reality just by saying it is not so is a form of delusion. Sense, generosity and kindness are becoming increasingly rare

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
2 years ago

As a member of ROTC on campus 1968-1972, I understand what it’s like to be hounded by leftists. The tactics haven’t changed that much. However, to me this whole article seems to be a request for a specific exemption for feminists who are leftists in good standing, rather than an objection to leftist harassment in general.
Once upon a time, the left said they supported free speech. Perhaps that was just tactical, because they certainly don’t support free speech now. Until leftists support free speech for everyone, including people they completely disagree with, nobody should take them seriously. Censorship for some means censorship for all.

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
2 years ago

Is this a pure ‘free speech’ issue though? We are beyond opinions and interpretations here. Physical sex is a fact and for someone to insist on being treated as something he is not, and then insist that he is equal in that somethingness to someone who really is that thing, and that he should be afforded full and automatic access to all privileged spaces and considerations available for the protection of that something he is not, a protection required against dangers posed by people like who he really is, and further that anyone who says otherwise is tantamount to a criminal… we are in the realm of psychopathy and madness.

Last edited 2 years ago by Martin Smith
Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
2 years ago
Reply to  Martin Smith

I agree with your argument, but you can’t even argue the point if you lose your job for saying it.

Alison Tyler
Alison Tyler
2 years ago
Reply to  Martin Smith

No just misogyny.

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  Alison Tyler

Misogyny clearly involved of course, but how do you account for mainstream feminist support for the extreme demands of the trans lobby, if not by some wider form of madness?

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago

this insistence on keeping silent has had a toxic impact…allowing small groups of extremely vocal and aggressive activists to fill that gap

So they’ve adopted your tactics and you don’t like it?

Michael Chambers
Michael Chambers
2 years ago

There is no freedom of speech on trans issues wherever trans activists hold sway as they have successfully confected a case that any dissenting view undermines their safety. I have experienced that personally.
But it’s important to remember that not every transsexual takes this extreme position and that they are part of society and so the rest of us have some responsibility to understand their experience and political positions.

Jeffrey Chongsathien
Jeffrey Chongsathien
2 years ago

“War on Woke” sounds appealing.

Sandi Dunn
Sandi Dunn
2 years ago

The campaign against people like Kathleen is Fascist in effect – Nazi in style even. Some might say Stalinist!
Remember the author of the book White Swan who wrote about the Chinese cultural revolution and its Fascism/Stalinism! So depressing. What is happening to others like Kathleen? Didn’t The Guardian hound out journalist Suzanne Moore? What of their employment rights re extreme bullying. And the fascist nature of Stonewall?

Marion Richardson
Marion Richardson
2 years ago

Thanks for putting your head above the parapet. Great interview s and writing. Refreshing.

Gia Underwood
Gia Underwood
2 years ago

Great piece. Almost a template on how women who dare to disagree are treated by these extremists. And the bubbling up, as predictable as a fart in a bathtub, of the misogynists who have always disliked feminism.

But what grace under pressure Stock has shown!

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago

The left’s standard tactic is to paint everyone who doesn’t agree with them as far Right. Everyone who’s not a Trot is a fascist, everyone who thinks climate change alarmism might be a bit over-egged is a “denier”, everyone who doesn’t agree that a man can become a woman by saying so is a “transphobe”, and so on. Whatever the most extreme imaginable opposing position to theirs might be, including positions nobody actually holds, the left insists that all its opponents hold that view.
Because to be left is to be narcissistic and self-righteous, it is structurally hostile to difference of opinion, and gives itself permission to hate its enemies. This hostility and loathing of heresy extends to any others on the left not considered left enough by the worst loonies.
As a result, the left is always in smithereens that hate each other as much as they hate everyone else. Far more communists have been murdered by other communists than by actual fascists, or indeed anyone else, for example.
The comedy of the gender nutters lies in watching one lot of loonies appeal to sensible people for protection from new loonies who are even worse than themselves. Suddenly, instead of getting to “call out” other people for their “hate”, cranks like these two are having it done to them. And apparently, we should all pitch in to preserve their valuable and reasoned perspective.
Well, not really. What is the agenda here? That we go back to leftism as usual, with JB once again being heard respectfully as she generalises inanely and offensively about all men?
Pffffft. I don’t think so. The left deserves this, and it deserves itself. I find all this internecine leftist hatred quite cheering. In fact, I look forward to the day when a new lot of leftist hatemongers comes after other leftist hatemongers for having pushed the neo-colonial dogma of climate change, which has caused, er, literally trillions of deaths in Africa.
Someone has compared this to the Iran-Iraq War, wishing there was a way both sides could lose. I’d echo Bismarck and say that rescuing loonies from each other is not worth the bones of a single grenadier.

AC Harper
AC Harper
2 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Broadly speaking the Left indulge themselves in Utopian thinking. A Utopia where all are equal, all are virtuous, all agree, and no-one hates anyone else. It follows that people who don’t agree or argue with these Utopian views *must* be ignorant or evil… and the extremists set out to resolve that ignorance and evil through ‘direct action’ up to and including killing.
That one branch of leftist thinking is actively warring with another branch of leftist thing is merely the narcissism of small differences. I have no wish for people to be (truly) harmed but the irony of the ‘battles’ is not lost in the latest exhibition of internal intolerance.

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Exactly. As to historical guilt over climate change- no records before 19th century then UK estimates coal use. Graphs as a result show UK in 1750 responsible for 100% of world emissions! At height of ind rev around 1890s UK used 500m tons of coal per annum. China by 1950 using 2.3bn tons per annum and currently 5bn tons and rising. Many young greens aren’t numerate enough to understand the order of magnitude difference that is.

Last edited 2 years ago by Terence Fitch
Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
2 years ago

Buy her book. Make her rich.

Marsha Dunstan
Marsha Dunstan
2 years ago
Reply to  Malcolm Knott

Oh, I have… am actually about halfway through. And I have yet to detect anything other than compelling clarity, fairness – and kindness. I’m looking forward to reading the rest. A lot of people will be getting a copy for Christmas.

Tim Knight
Tim Knight
2 years ago
Reply to  Malcolm Knott

She is rich, courage and integrity are priceless.

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
2 years ago

Any organisation is entitled to expect its workers, at every level, not to act against the core interests of the organisation. A university’s core business is maintaining intellectual discussion in a tolerant manner. In short, a university should not tolerate intolerance. Those academics and students, who cannot accept that, have no place in any university.

H M Edgecombe
H M Edgecombe
2 years ago

Hello Kathleen
Of course we agree with you it’s bloody obvious!!
There are many of us out here in the new upside-down world who back you in your efforts to set it the right way up again.
Good luck!

Brendan Newport
Brendan Newport
2 years ago

Identity politics has shredded the liberal and the Left (not necessarily the same). ‘Progressive’ is increasingly associated with homophobia, misogyny and an anti-science tendency which harks back to before The Enlightenment. Intolerance and hatred stalks social media with cancel culture being increasingly driven by a fundamentalism which can only be described as religious in nature.
Yet Dr. Stock, rather than being an antagonist in all of this, presented an opportunity for both sides. Someone wrote on a Mumsnet posting that she has travelled beyond the sectarian arguments of both side and is camped-out, waiting for when dialogue might just start.
Except it won’t. Like all fanatical causes, transgenderism in its current form is losing its moderates, its potential peacemakers and even its leaders. Instead it is left with the most fanatical of his exponents, lashing-out at women, gays and lesbians, rebel academics and journalists.
Frantic in the desire to claim victimhood TRA’s are hobbled by the burden of tens-of-thousands of screen-shots of death-and-rape threats they’ve made against the likes of J.K. Rowling, the gay-and-lesbian community, Doc Stock herself and anyone who had stood against the gender ideology. Except now, behind every person who stands their ground, are ten-of-thousands more who provide backing, encouragement, financial and legal assistance. Only eighteen months or so ago, social media was the preserve of the TRA, and woe-betide anyone identified to step-out-of-line, to question the ideology. Thanks to over-enthusiastic use of ‘block-lists’ by the TRA’s, the Web is being ceded to those who keep on asking awkward questions.
When these ‘crazy times’ are over, Dr. Stock will find herself with a legacy that she will have reason to be eminently proud of. Like some modern Gandalf The Grey, she has been ejected from academia but will be reborn anew, infinitely more powerful and dangerous to those whose evil has been manifestly witnessed.

Jim Cox
Jim Cox
2 years ago

Kathleen Stock was right to quit her teaching job. she now has a wider platform and more freedom to be herself in her thinking and writing. She has left a corrupt institution where her ability to function had been denied both by intolerant transgender students and by a cowardly administration. Antitotalitarian
folk should wish her well.

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
2 years ago

Wow! 2+2 really does equal 5, or at least xx=xy. What disgraceful and frightening behaviour and thought. Ms Stock is being brave. A great piece Julie thanks. How did plain fact and common sense become taboo? But, sub-editors alert, ‘waver’ not ‘waiver’ surely.

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
2 years ago

David Deutsch has defined truth as that which hard to change. Imagine a rock. A flood passes and covers the rock with debris. However, time passes, and eventually the debris is swept away, and the rock is revealed, where and as it always was.

Jon Hawksley
Jon Hawksley
2 years ago

Truth is a completed pattern. It is always context specific so two people who have learnt something in different contexts can sincerely hold as truths ideas that are contradictory. It is verifiable in mathematics because the rules are universal and rigorous and therefore tautological. The less you search to expand your context the more convinced you will be that you have found the truth and for you it will be a rock.

Roger le Clercq
Roger le Clercq
2 years ago

I fear for students entering this oppressive environment. Soon we will have the attitude of the Brontes under the Trans microscope. Keep on Kathleen.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 years ago

Bit pathetic hoping for support from trans fascists at the Guardian and the BBC. It’s the truly free thinking media where she’ll get support.
Who’d a thunk it! Stonewall has gone 180 degrees and now opposes equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Warren T
Warren T
2 years ago

“I assumed that academic feminists were covering women and girls’ rights and I didn’t need to get involved….”
Doesn’t that say it all?

Stephen Spurdon
Stephen Spurdon
2 years ago

Great interviews both here and on Woman’s Hour. Kathleen the model of reason and dignity.
Unfortunately, the same can not be said of either those in charge at Sussex University (and I take note of Ms Taylor’s previosly reported comments with regard to the ‘support’ she has received from them), the university lecturers who egged on the adverse responses, student ‘activists’, and the Sussex University Student’s Union.
There should be consequences for them. But what will happen? Nothing, if we sit on our hands and just shout. However, in this case, Ms Taylor obviously has the right to dictate just what response there should be.
In that she has my full support.

Alex Tickell
Alex Tickell
2 years ago

As ever, a Lesbian fights the battle, not for the community or society in general but to safeguard their own niche.
The legislation in recent years in favour of homosexuality and the subsequent acceptance by the pubic,was the Rubicon which has led directly to the anti-science madness of trans sexuality……is there anything in traditional family life which is safe? I think not, as children are now being separated from parental guidance in favour of educational and social “group think” Future generations have a bloody sight more to fear from indoctrination by the education and social services than they have from global warming.

Sandi Dunn
Sandi Dunn
2 years ago

Which other countries are going through this?

Jane Watson
Jane Watson
2 years ago

“I ran back to the station, got the train home, tried to teach a class on Zoom, burst into tears and my dear students said I must be having a tough day and they let me off,” says Kathleen.

Hmmm
. I think we’re going to need a bit more grit. I’ve no doubt the anonymous trolls on Twitter are vile, but masked students, with banners and flares? Entertainment for them.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Jane Watson

This was after a lengthy time of being hounded, threatened and vilified. Can you not conceive of how this will affect one?

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
2 years ago
Reply to  Jane Watson

That’s true, but it’s not easy. As a lifelong leftist I now find myself vilified by my own children and my fact-based, rational, comments deleted on the Guardian and Times websites. I’m finding it quite hard to deal with and no-one has called for me to be raped or killed. Even Richard Dawkins, who must be used to vilification, says that he is being very careful what he says these days.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Have you got as far as working out that the right has always been right about the left?
Leftism is all about finding someone to enjoy hating.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
2 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

You make yourself look ignorant with such generalisations.

David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

You have my sympathy Hilary. Much of the left has gone slowly mad. Hopefully your children are young enough to grow out of it. But perhaps they are only pushing to its conclusion a logic that you taught them??

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Congratulations on raising more mini Eichmanns. Thanks from the rest of us. You reap what you sow.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

In the 1930s The Jarrow March was a peaceful and sombre affair. In the 1950s there were jolly marches to Aldermaston to protest against nuclear bombs .
From 1968 there were violent protests by the middle class Left against everything they disliked. Gormley, President of the NUM managed to achieve strikes without violence. Scargill the Marxist created violent strikes.
The NUS banning speakers started in the late 1960s.
Keir Hardie a miner and a devout Christian along with other founders of the Labour Party, achieved improvements in the life of the poor through peaceful methods, as did E Bevin founder of the TGWU and were completely against the use of violence. Hardie and Bevin were Christian Preachers.
Since the late 1960s, the middle class Left have been used to hurling abuse at those whom they dislike. The violent Trans Lobby is a Frankenstein like monster of their creation.
One can go back further, the French Revolution mocked gentility and it rapidly turned into mass murder.

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

I’m sorry that your own children are vilifying you. That’s intolerant.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
2 years ago
Reply to  Jane Watson

I thought that at first, and then I imagined posters with my name plastered all over a campus. I fear I would have crumpled. Therefore I’m not going to blame Kathleen Stock.

Terry Needham
Terry Needham
2 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

If you have vocal support, from even a minority of your colleagues, then you will be able to cope. It is being isolated that causes people to crumple. I stated earlier that I felt sympathy and admiration for her – She stood her ground for quite a while.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
2 years ago
Reply to  Terry Needham

I think you have a higher estimate of my courage than I do, Terry!

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
2 years ago

In keeping with the ‘over the top’ imagery of rage and outrage in modern ‘rights’ debates I often find myself thinking “it’s rather like the brown shirts complaining about the beastly, bigoted, black shirts”. In this case it seems as if the ‘knives’ are well and truly out !

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago

Any individual in civil society should be able to live their private life as they wish within common law boundaries of not harming others. BUT this means that we have this idea in common. Identity politics inevitably ends up insisting on difference and uniqueness. What makes us different. Paradoxically you thereby fracture the body politic and institutions and weaken common values. This seems to have caught up with her.

Last edited 2 years ago by Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago

Any individual in civil society should be able to live their private life as they wish within common law boundaries of not harming others. BUT this means that we have this idea in common. Identity politics inevitably ends up insisting on difference and uniqueness. What makes us different. Paradoxically you thereby fracture the body politic and institutions and weaken common values. This seems to have caught up with her.

Last edited 2 years ago by Terence Fitch
Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
2 years ago

Such a shame that Julie Bindel is so desperate to emphasise her sexism. Any man who challenged the transgender movement would also be targeted. Many of the people supporting the trans intolerance are women. Bindel also takes away the agency of young female prospective students at Sussex, when she asked whether their parents decided to take them away from the university on seeing the trans demonstrations. Hasn’t Bindel heard that women are no longer chattel to be transacted between fathers and husbands? Presumably she could not bring herself to accept that women supported this intimidation of Stock.
Stock has suffered simply for expressing her views. Unfortunately, however, she does not reflect that she happily swam in the cesspool of academia until the other creatures swimming there attacked her. What would she have done, if the trans movement had attacked another academic and not her? Would she still be working at Sussex, relieved that the intolerants had taken their bigotry out on someone else?

David Batlle
David Batlle
2 years ago

Trans movement just a chip off the ol feminist block. Ideologically different, yes. But same tactics. Stalin and Trotsky. Zero sympathy from me.

This is Left on Left fire. Feminists have lost their safe spaces on the left, so now they are coming to the middle and even to the Right for comfort and relief. I don’t believe we should oblige them. Let them eat each other.

Last edited 2 years ago by David Batlle
David Morley
David Morley
2 years ago
Reply to  David Batlle

And as a potential white knight, I’m not quite sure which damsels in distress I should be coming to the aid of. The ones with, or the ones without, p-nises?
Maybe best to sit this one out as you say.

David Batlle
David Batlle
2 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

The white knight is a vestigial relic of the Patriarchy. Thanks to feminists.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago
Reply to  David Batlle

I would argue that the trans movement is a chip off the queer theory block of Judith Butler. Butler went after feminist thought by undermining the reality and the concept of ‘woman’.

David Batlle
David Batlle
2 years ago

“I won’t be silenced.”

You quit your job, didn’t you?