May 30, 2023 - 10:30am
Human beings are often irrational. They believe all sorts of improbable things, and demonise people who disagree with them. That’s what has happened to Professor Kathleen Stock, the philosopher who politely but firmly points out that people can’t change sex. But the opposing view has spread so widely that the Prime Minister has had to intervene, insisting on Stock’s right to be heard.
This evening, Stock is due to take part in an event at the Oxford Union, which has caused a furious reaction from trans activists. Now, into the echoing silence of other party leaders, Rishi Sunak has spoken. “University should be an environment where debate is supported, not stifled,” he said on Monday night. “We mustn’t allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion. Kathleen Stock’s invitation to the Oxford Union should stand.”
Trans activists will no doubt see the Prime Minister’s intervention as evidence that opposition to their ideology is part of a Right-wing plot. But if Conservative politicians are leading on this, it is only because the leaders of the UK’s supposedly progressive parties appear to have mislaid their principles in a fog of magical thinking.
Of course Sunak can see some advantage in positioning the Tories as the party willing to defend traditional liberal values. That’s politics, and it’s not his fault that he’s shooting at an open goal. Sir Ed Davey and Sir Keir Starmer both affect to believe that some women have a penis, a proposition so risible that it’s hard to believe they’ve had any education at all. (What is it with these “sirs”? Does getting a knighthood now involve having critical faculties surgically extracted?)
Also this evening, Stock will appear in a Channel 4 documentary, Gender Wars, which some of the people who spew bile against her see as a “gotcha!” moment. How can she be “cancelled” when she’s on TV and appearing at the Oxford Union? It’s one of several bad arguments used by trans activists, who are effectively demanding a veto over when and where their opponents are allowed to speak. When one venue caves in to pressure, others soon follow suit, the aim of activists being to limit or shut down the expression of opposing views without appearing to do so.
By any reasonable standard, Stock’s views on the subject of sex are “moderate”, as she described them to a petulant Ed Balls on Good Morning Britain yesterday. Until about a decade ago, the idea that human beings belong to one of two sexes was unexceptional, and there was no penalty on the rare occasions it needed to be said. Now, in an extraordinary reversal, the opposite is the case. Women like Stock, J.K. Rowling and the Labour MP Rosie Duffield are smeared and threatened because they won’t bow to a malignant new orthodoxy.
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.
SubscribeTerminology from the start was wrong… Men should not be referred to a trans-women but a trans-men; a man who wants to transition. The language has been intentionally misused – granting an instant and undeserved “woman” status, when clearly not one. Because of that we now try to take womanhood from a (trans) man.
It has been politicised from the start. Shame on these politicians.
Precisely, well said.
what happened to the old hamaephrodite?
I think we should just revert to calling them “trannies”.
Or ladyboys, as they do in delightfully un-PC Thailand.
Or ladyboys, as they do in delightfully un-PC Thailand.
I think we should just revert to calling them “trannies”.
what happened to the old hamaephrodite?
You are misdiagnosing – as so many traditional liberal and conservative commentators do on this subject. It isn’t primarily “these politicians” who have promoted this ideology – though many such as Sir Keir Starmer have been utterly pusillanimous in response to it. It is the long march through institutions – particularly academic – in which a very small proportion of ideological and fanatical zealots can and have had undue influence.
Your idea isn’t a bad one in itself, but it is much too late now to start a pushback on terminology, which risks adding even more confusion and chaos to the debate – an environment in which the fanatics thrive
Quite so, which is why we should quarantine phrases like “trans woman” and “trans man” inside quotation marks.
Precisely, well said.
You are misdiagnosing – as so many traditional liberal and conservative commentators do on this subject. It isn’t primarily “these politicians” who have promoted this ideology – though many such as Sir Keir Starmer have been utterly pusillanimous in response to it. It is the long march through institutions – particularly academic – in which a very small proportion of ideological and fanatical zealots can and have had undue influence.
Your idea isn’t a bad one in itself, but it is much too late now to start a pushback on terminology, which risks adding even more confusion and chaos to the debate – an environment in which the fanatics thrive
Quite so, which is why we should quarantine phrases like “trans woman” and “trans man” inside quotation marks.
Terminology from the start was wrong… Men should not be referred to a trans-women but a trans-men; a man who wants to transition. The language has been intentionally misused – granting an instant and undeserved “woman” status, when clearly not one. Because of that we now try to take womanhood from a (trans) man.
It has been politicised from the start. Shame on these politicians.
Well done to Rishi!
He’s a radical thinker!
But better he should be a radical doer.
It’s funny that believing there are two sexes is now considered radical. What depressing times we live in!
But better he should be a radical doer.
It’s funny that believing there are two sexes is now considered radical. What depressing times we live in!
He’s a radical thinker!
Well done to Rishi!
Universities suppressing free speech are the equivalent of doctors violating the Hippocratic Oath. They should immediately lose all state funding.
I think the Oxford Union is independent of the University.
I think the Oxford Union is independent of the University.
Universities suppressing free speech are the equivalent of doctors violating the Hippocratic Oath. They should immediately lose all state funding.
Sir Ed Davey and Sir Keir Starmer both affect to believe that some women have a p***, a proposition so risible that it’s hard to believe they’ve had any education at all.
Of course they don’t believe it.
Perhaps the women protestors could line up at the entrance to the debating hall and then as Ms Stock approaches, whip out their tackle in a coordinated show of their womanliness? This would demonstrate that they are “quite clearly” feminine as Sir Ed Davey might say. Just an idea
As a gentleman, you should not suggest it!
genitalman?
genitalman?
The sad thing is these Sirs will probably be governing us. If they can be this stupid about basic mammalian biology what will they do to the body politic, the economy and our nation? God help us.
As a gentleman, you should not suggest it!
The sad thing is these Sirs will probably be governing us. If they can be this stupid about basic mammalian biology what will they do to the body politic, the economy and our nation? God help us.
Indeed they don’t. I am sure of it. I am also quite confident they do know what a woman is.
Well, they’re both married to women, and therefore have had plenty of opportunities to inspect female anatomy at close quarters. I wonder if they’ve found any penises yet.
In Scotland your argument would open a BIG can of worms 😀
What?
You mean bigger than the one that has already exploded over the SNP and its ‘funding’?
What?
You mean bigger than the one that has already exploded over the SNP and its ‘funding’?
What do their wives say when they hear their husbands spout such drivel?
In Scotland your argument would open a BIG can of worms 😀
What do their wives say when they hear their husbands spout such drivel?
Well, they’re both married to women, and therefore have had plenty of opportunities to inspect female anatomy at close quarters. I wonder if they’ve found any penises yet.
What an optimist you are!
“Of course they don’t believe it?????”
On the contrary, said the Mad Queen to Alice, ““Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Here in Wonderland, after having crashed through the Looking Glass, I am totally convinced that Davey and Starmer, et al. ALL firmly and absolutely believe that women, can indeed, have a p****. Why not?
The fact that it’s an impossibility doesn’t even slow these people down.
As for ‘education’…what they’ve all been thoroughly taught to believe is whatever it’s necessary to believe to be successful. Someone just has to tell them what that necessary belief happens to be today.
You do realize, I hope, that the
MadRed Queen’s remark was an oblique reference to erroneous mathematical conjectures. I myself have often believed impossible things until I found a counter-example, thereby demonstrating their impossibility, something we mathematicians do with surprising frequency (though six before breakfast is a bit over the top).Actually, what I realize is that it was the Mad White Queen (not the Red) who believed the impossible things before breakfast …and later, upon crossing a brook, ‘transitioned’ to sheep and ‘transitioned’ yet again into a rowing boat….which transitioned back to a Shop…which brought us all to Humpty Dumpty.
And yes, indeed, the Stock/Sunak dialogue does seem entirely appropriate here at the bottom of the deep and getting deeper rabbit hole….where we ask with absolutely puzzlementicity (as per Ketanji Jackson): What the heck is a woman anyway? (for none of us is a Biologist!)
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Actually, what I realize is that it was the Mad White Queen (not the Red) who believed the impossible things before breakfast …and later, upon crossing a brook, ‘transitioned’ to sheep and ‘transitioned’ yet again into a rowing boat….which transitioned back to a Shop…which brought us all to Humpty Dumpty.
And yes, indeed, the Stock/Sunak dialogue does seem entirely appropriate here at the bottom of the deep and getting deeper rabbit hole….where we ask with absolutely puzzlementicity (as per Ketanji Jackson): What the heck is a woman anyway? (for none of us is a Biologist!)
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
You do realize, I hope, that the
MadRed Queen’s remark was an oblique reference to erroneous mathematical conjectures. I myself have often believed impossible things until I found a counter-example, thereby demonstrating their impossibility, something we mathematicians do with surprising frequency (though six before breakfast is a bit over the top).They just need to peer into the looking glass and they will see a giant purple mushroom peering back at them…
Keep that image to yourself, Nicky.
Keep that image to yourself, Nicky.
Perhaps the women protestors could line up at the entrance to the debating hall and then as Ms Stock approaches, whip out their tackle in a coordinated show of their womanliness? This would demonstrate that they are “quite clearly” feminine as Sir Ed Davey might say. Just an idea
Indeed they don’t. I am sure of it. I am also quite confident they do know what a woman is.
What an optimist you are!
“Of course they don’t believe it?????”
On the contrary, said the Mad Queen to Alice, ““Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Here in Wonderland, after having crashed through the Looking Glass, I am totally convinced that Davey and Starmer, et al. ALL firmly and absolutely believe that women, can indeed, have a p****. Why not?
The fact that it’s an impossibility doesn’t even slow these people down.
As for ‘education’…what they’ve all been thoroughly taught to believe is whatever it’s necessary to believe to be successful. Someone just has to tell them what that necessary belief happens to be today.
They just need to peer into the looking glass and they will see a giant purple mushroom peering back at them…
Sir Ed Davey and Sir Keir Starmer both affect to believe that some women have a p***, a proposition so risible that it’s hard to believe they’ve had any education at all.
Of course they don’t believe it.
I would have thought that politicians who state the truth at the expense of a tiny number of votes from people who are not going to vote for them anyway are onto a winning tactic. Sunak understands this, and is prepared to support Stock’s right to free speech because he knows it plays well with the “common sense” majority, while only alienating a minority of extremists. Starmer’s problem is that this minority of ideological extremists – mainly young people who want something to be radical about, and a tiny group of obsessive mentally ill people who spend all their time on the internet – is now a significant chunk of his electorate. And it’s entirely the Labour Party’s fault. By giving up on the proletariat and courting a bizarre mosaic of Muslims, ethnic minorities, benefit recipients, rejoiniacs, and identitarian misfits, they have handed their leader a very difficult task. Sunak would do well to exploit this again and again.
Starmer’s going to have problems with the Muslim vote.
I don’t know quite how global the reach of a fatwa is but I read one yesterday issued against transgenderism in the US.
It was very thorough, very compassionate but very definitive.
Starmer’s going to have problems with the Muslim vote.
I don’t know quite how global the reach of a fatwa is but I read one yesterday issued against transgenderism in the US.
It was very thorough, very compassionate but very definitive.
I would have thought that politicians who state the truth at the expense of a tiny number of votes from people who are not going to vote for them anyway are onto a winning tactic. Sunak understands this, and is prepared to support Stock’s right to free speech because he knows it plays well with the “common sense” majority, while only alienating a minority of extremists. Starmer’s problem is that this minority of ideological extremists – mainly young people who want something to be radical about, and a tiny group of obsessive mentally ill people who spend all their time on the internet – is now a significant chunk of his electorate. And it’s entirely the Labour Party’s fault. By giving up on the proletariat and courting a bizarre mosaic of Muslims, ethnic minorities, benefit recipients, rejoiniacs, and identitarian misfits, they have handed their leader a very difficult task. Sunak would do well to exploit this again and again.
I need to find a way to watch that debate tonight.
Stock is a sharp tack and I imagine she will make very good arguments.
My one fear about all this push back that has been going on around trans activist agenda, such as the Bud Light and Target situations, schools (very few but happening), the cycling ban, and this, is that the trans activists, not the most stable group of people, are going to see they are beginning to lose and act out violently.
I need to find a way to watch that debate tonight.
Stock is a sharp tack and I imagine she will make very good arguments.
My one fear about all this push back that has been going on around trans activist agenda, such as the Bud Light and Target situations, schools (very few but happening), the cycling ban, and this, is that the trans activists, not the most stable group of people, are going to see they are beginning to lose and act out violently.
Stay truthful and be safe, Dr. Stock.
Stay truthful and be safe, Dr. Stock.
Sunak is still only saying that she has the right. He is not saying that she is right. Do not vote for any parliamentary candidate who will not say that, or whose Party Leader will not say it.
He doesn’t have to say she’s right for me, even if I do fully support her. He’s supporting her right to be heard, which is a huge improvement on the illiberal Liberal Democrats and the roiling cesspit that is Labour currently.
He doesn’t have to say she’s right for me, even if I do fully support her. He’s supporting her right to be heard, which is a huge improvement on the illiberal Liberal Democrats and the roiling cesspit that is Labour currently.
Sunak is still only saying that she has the right. He is not saying that she is right. Do not vote for any parliamentary candidate who will not say that, or whose Party Leader will not say it.
I don’t envy you Brits. Sunak or Starmer? When Sunak looks like the best option, things have truly hit rock bottom.
I think it is possible to get a little lower, not much lower but a little; Trump v Biden for example.
Holy crap yes. The west is a mess. At this point I’m starting to question desantis too. At least in Canada we have Pierre Poilievre. He seems like a reasonable, rational thinker.
Holy crap yes. The west is a mess. At this point I’m starting to question desantis too. At least in Canada we have Pierre Poilievre. He seems like a reasonable, rational thinker.
I think it is possible to get a little lower, not much lower but a little; Trump v Biden for example.
I don’t envy you Brits. Sunak or Starmer? When Sunak looks like the best option, things have truly hit rock bottom.
‘Petulant’ is Lady B_lls’ default setting.
You should have tried being at university with him.
I expect Cooper has Ed ‘over a barrel’.
You should have tried being at university with him.
I expect Cooper has Ed ‘over a barrel’.
‘Petulant’ is Lady B_lls’ default setting.
Apparently the event is going ahead as planned with just some minor disruption: a couple of protestors got into the debating chamber and started shouting but were evicted.
Looking forward to the C4 programme later on this evening.
Apparently the event is going ahead as planned with just some minor disruption: a couple of protestors got into the debating chamber and started shouting but were evicted.
Looking forward to the C4 programme later on this evening.
The overreaction of the “trans activists” exposes the weakness of their arguments. They protest too much. In fact, they have no arguments, only feelings.
The overreaction of the “trans activists” exposes the weakness of their arguments. They protest too much. In fact, they have no arguments, only feelings.
All well and good, but how strange, really.
Imagine a world in which a tiny group of loud someones says, “Cats are Dogs”. They tell us, “Cats can transition to Dogs, and Dogs to Cats”. They insist that CatDogness is a spectrum, and that to consider the two a binary (one is a either a cat or a dog) is false science…an oppressive simplification of what New Science tut-tuts is actually a more accurate and truly nuanced reality in which the only way to know for sure is to ask Zem: ‘Are you Cat or Dog today?’
‘Meowruff!’, Spot declares, ‘I’m a cat’. See Bob & Sally be baffled.
Now further imagine that when a Certain Woman continues to contend that Cats can NEVER transition to Dogs (nor visa versa), the Prime Minister must step forward to suggest, that just maybe, perhaps, she has a right to think that CatDogness Spectrums are a made-up, no good, very bad, and extraordinarily silly thing. (Note, HE’s not saying that, he’s only saying that she has a right to say that!)
Yes, indeed, is is all well & good that the PM did stand-up to declare that actually speaking the Truth is still allowed, even if it makes Loud Someones’ bellies all Woozie….but imagine the world this world must have already become to make Truth (as validated by Reality) such a painful and unusual thing requiring an active defense by the nation’s leading politician: “Kathleen does too have the right to say Up is Up, even if a lot of you have perversely come to believe that it’s actually Down. So there!”
‘MeworuffMoo!’ I say, I’m a CowCatDog! Don’t you dare diss me!
All well and good, but how strange, really.
Imagine a world in which a tiny group of loud someones says, “Cats are Dogs”. They tell us, “Cats can transition to Dogs, and Dogs to Cats”. They insist that CatDogness is a spectrum, and that to consider the two a binary (one is a either a cat or a dog) is false science…an oppressive simplification of what New Science tut-tuts is actually a more accurate and truly nuanced reality in which the only way to know for sure is to ask Zem: ‘Are you Cat or Dog today?’
‘Meowruff!’, Spot declares, ‘I’m a cat’. See Bob & Sally be baffled.
Now further imagine that when a Certain Woman continues to contend that Cats can NEVER transition to Dogs (nor visa versa), the Prime Minister must step forward to suggest, that just maybe, perhaps, she has a right to think that CatDogness Spectrums are a made-up, no good, very bad, and extraordinarily silly thing. (Note, HE’s not saying that, he’s only saying that she has a right to say that!)
Yes, indeed, is is all well & good that the PM did stand-up to declare that actually speaking the Truth is still allowed, even if it makes Loud Someones’ bellies all Woozie….but imagine the world this world must have already become to make Truth (as validated by Reality) such a painful and unusual thing requiring an active defense by the nation’s leading politician: “Kathleen does too have the right to say Up is Up, even if a lot of you have perversely come to believe that it’s actually Down. So there!”
‘MeworuffMoo!’ I say, I’m a CowCatDog! Don’t you dare diss me!
There clearly is a sensible compromise, which can only be reached if people like Stock are allowed to talk about the issues and people are prepared to at least listen to what she says and respond to the argument not attack the speaker.
There needs to be clarity between sex, which is a biological fact determined at conception, and gender.
There also needs to be some differentiation between social transition and medical transition and in the latter how far the transition has advanced – I really don’t have a problem with a former man, who is no longer able to function as a man, having access to women only spaces even if she still has the appendage.
The other key issue, which is mainly impacting teenage girls, is the medical profession need to be able to do proper research and have a reasoned scientific debate on the diagnosis and treatments for Gender Dysphoria – a mental heath issue. Parents need a say in this too.
None of the above should be anywhere near as difficult as it is being made. The trans activists are just behaving like toddlers having a screaming fit whenever there is a chance they might hear something they don’t like. It is the toddlers who need to be sent to the naughty step.
How can there be compromise? I support a man’s right to dress as a women 100%. I won’t judge them and I won’t discriminate against them. But it doesn’t make them a woman. I feel bad for a tranny who doesn’t feel comfortable in a men’s washroom. But should he/she be allowed to make women feel uncomfortable by going in the female bathroom.
A question! If Susie Green was Stevie Green and took his sixteen year old daughter to Thailand and had her breasts cut off to turn her from Jackie to Jay would he be lauded? In the Guardian probably. The rest of us would be disgusted.
Should have been Jack not Jay!
Should have been Jack not Jay!
A question! If Susie Green was Stevie Green and took his sixteen year old daughter to Thailand and had her breasts cut off to turn her from Jackie to Jay would he be lauded? In the Guardian probably. The rest of us would be disgusted.
Pedantic biologist here. Sex is determined at fertilisation which is a full 5 days before “conception” an archaic term meaning “to get pregnant” from when everyone knew that men sowed their seed in the fertile field of the womb, and maybe every sperm had a miniature human in it. X or Y bearing sperms enter the ovum up near the ovary. Implantation in the uterus lining takes place when the fertilised ovum has divided many times and is developmentally able to implant and start chucking out the HCG hormone which is what a pregnancy test looks for. Many many fertilised ova never implant, in fact all do if the IUD is the contraceptive method used!!
It’s oh so easy to wax lyrical on sensible compromise on issues that will never affect you personally. Sorry, I don’t want any males undressing and showering next to me, regardless of whether they’re impotent or lack the appendage. You, as a man, might regard a male who is no longer able to function sexually as some sort of “non-man”. But it doesn’t mean that it’s ok to lump all “non-men” together.
How can there be compromise? I support a man’s right to dress as a women 100%. I won’t judge them and I won’t discriminate against them. But it doesn’t make them a woman. I feel bad for a tranny who doesn’t feel comfortable in a men’s washroom. But should he/she be allowed to make women feel uncomfortable by going in the female bathroom.
Pedantic biologist here. Sex is determined at fertilisation which is a full 5 days before “conception” an archaic term meaning “to get pregnant” from when everyone knew that men sowed their seed in the fertile field of the womb, and maybe every sperm had a miniature human in it. X or Y bearing sperms enter the ovum up near the ovary. Implantation in the uterus lining takes place when the fertilised ovum has divided many times and is developmentally able to implant and start chucking out the HCG hormone which is what a pregnancy test looks for. Many many fertilised ova never implant, in fact all do if the IUD is the contraceptive method used!!
It’s oh so easy to wax lyrical on sensible compromise on issues that will never affect you personally. Sorry, I don’t want any males undressing and showering next to me, regardless of whether they’re impotent or lack the appendage. You, as a man, might regard a male who is no longer able to function sexually as some sort of “non-man”. But it doesn’t mean that it’s ok to lump all “non-men” together.
There clearly is a sensible compromise, which can only be reached if people like Stock are allowed to talk about the issues and people are prepared to at least listen to what she says and respond to the argument not attack the speaker.
There needs to be clarity between sex, which is a biological fact determined at conception, and gender.
There also needs to be some differentiation between social transition and medical transition and in the latter how far the transition has advanced – I really don’t have a problem with a former man, who is no longer able to function as a man, having access to women only spaces even if she still has the appendage.
The other key issue, which is mainly impacting teenage girls, is the medical profession need to be able to do proper research and have a reasoned scientific debate on the diagnosis and treatments for Gender Dysphoria – a mental heath issue. Parents need a say in this too.
None of the above should be anywhere near as difficult as it is being made. The trans activists are just behaving like toddlers having a screaming fit whenever there is a chance they might hear something they don’t like. It is the toddlers who need to be sent to the naughty step.
Probably because Starmer knows his current and potential voters, his MPs, indeed perhaps the whole country, doesn’t really care about this issue?
It’s a very UnHerd issue.
Probably because Starmer knows his current and potential voters, his MPs, indeed perhaps the whole country, doesn’t really care about this issue?
It’s a very UnHerd issue.
‘Petulant’ Ed B***s is still the same prat he was when he was in politics. Smug, arrogant and totally out of touch with the views of people outside the Westminster bubble.
Meanwhile on planet earth
Meanwhile on planet earth