The Student Room Group

Professor says career ‘effectively ended’ by union’s transphobia claims

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dupe Hunter
Something that you all seem to have missed is Stock is a trustee of the LGB Alliance, a transphobic group that wishes to stop trans people recieving treatment and barring education on trans matters.

They don't "wish to stop treatment", they are against children being given puberty manipulating drugs on the basis of supposed gender dysphoria, as are a great many other people.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They don't "wish to stop treatment", they are against children being given puberty manipulating drugs on the basis of supposed gender dysphoria, as are a great many other people.

Withholding treatment is stopping treatment.
Question to the audience given the link provided above.

Do you think that Professor Stock is someone transphobic and do you think that the group https://lgballiance.org.uk/about/
is one that holds and promotes transphobic views?
Original post by Dupe Hunter
Withholding treatment is stopping treatment.

Not really. Withholding treatment is different from stopping treatment.
Original post by Lucifer323
Not really. Withholding treatment is different from stopping treatment.

How?
Original post by Dupe Hunter
Withholding treatment is stopping treatment.

You know this has been through multiple court actions and is not the simplistic cut and dried thing you imply. The Supreme Court is still to rule on it.
Think the crux is that it's not a "treatment" at all.
Original post by TCA2b
Think the crux is that it's not a "treatment" at all.

It's extremely dubious and appears to be that rare thing, a medical treatment based on an ideology and a pretty confused one at that. The recent court decision to overthrow the lower court ruling that children cannot decide such a thing before puberty is bizarre and inexplicable. I hope the Supreme Court reverts to the earlier ruling.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You know this has been through multiple court actions and is not the simplistic cut and dried thing you imply. The Supreme Court is still to rule on it.

Are they or are they not advocating for the cessation of treatment?
Original post by Dupe Hunter
Are they or are they not advocating for the cessation of treatment?

First of all one has to show clearly that the individual needs this type of treatment and this treatment won't have long term consequences for their mental and physical health.

That's why the word withholding instead of stopping should be used into my understanding.
Original post by Lucifer323
First of all one has to show clearly that the individual needs this type of treatment and this treatment won't have long term consequences for their mental and physical health.

That's why the word withholding instead of stopping should be used into my understanding.

LGB Alliance wants to stop the treatment not weigh up whether it is the appropriate treatment for the patient.
Original post by Dupe Hunter
LGB Alliance wants to stop the treatment not weigh up whether it is the appropriate treatment for the patient.

Again, you are misrepresenting. They don't want unwarranted and dangerously irreversible severe medical interventions to be given to children who may simply be going through a phase, or misguided by ideologically driven parents.
Original post by Dupe Hunter
LGB Alliance wants to stop the treatment not weigh up whether it is the appropriate treatment for the patient.


Original post by Fullofsurprises
Again, you are misrepresenting. They don't want unwarranted and dangerously irreversible severe medical interventions to be given to children who may simply be going through a phase, or misguided by ideologically driven parents.

This is what I have understood from reading their statements referring to the last reply from Fullofsurprises

From their statements:

"We work to protect children from harmful unscientific ideologies that may lead them to believe either their personality or their body is in need of changing..."

I think their motives are perfectly legitimate and especially when it comes to children who in many cases have neither the experience, nor the knowledge or critical ability to decide for themselves on potential dangerous and irreversible medical processes.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Again, you are misrepresenting. They don't want unwarranted and dangerously irreversible severe medical interventions to be given to children who may simply be going through a phase, or misguided by ideologically driven parents.

And the children that do in fact want and need the treatment, should they too be denied treatment?
Original post by Dupe Hunter
And the children that do in fact want and need the treatment, should they too be denied treatment?

The correct people to ask that question of are the adults who now bitterly regret having had such 'treatments' applied to them before they had the capacity and experience to evaluate the consequences.
Original post by Cancelled Alice
If you stopped Joe Bloggs in the street and asked him if he agreed with Kathleen Stocks position, chances are he would.

Risk of physical violence aside, she has been subject to an utterly shameful hate campaign. This has most likely been orchestrated by a small group of biter and deeply unhappy individuals who probably need some form of psychiatric help and who also must face appropriate legal consequences.

I agree that it is probably serious, I wanted to know why RAR thought it wasn’t.

2CE2C460-BA7E-437E-A412-D45813BD4DDB.jpeg
9EF67B3D-DA34-4A6C-B95D-C439B8ED401B.jpeg

Well those are very disturbing images, I take back what I said. These fools could benefit from some "baton treatment" and a free stay in the cells
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The correct people to ask that question of are the adults who now bitterly regret having had such 'treatments' applied to them before they had the capacity and experience to evaluate the consequences.

Should all treatment options be based on those that regret having it?

I regret having dry needling done every month, should that stop others from having it done?
Reply 37
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Again, you are misrepresenting. They don't want unwarranted and dangerously irreversible severe medical interventions to be given to children who may simply be going through a phase, or misguided by ideologically driven parents.


Yeah good point. Did you ever question how you felt at the age of 5? I didn't. I found girls pretty and wanted to kiss them just as all of the gay people I know wanted to kiss people of the same sex when they were 5. But hey - sexuality and trans-gender is a social construct if you are cis right and entirely the result of peer pressure. I reckon I was only attracted to my wife because my parents made it absolutely clear that I had to fancy girls. It must be awful for all these confused children who know what their feelings are but are told it is just a phase!

I genuinely don't understand why non-cis people get such a hard time. Those who feel they need to judge speak more about the insecurity of their own identity or sexuality than those they choose to judge. Judging others causes harm. Letting people choose their own identity without judgement harms no one. I don't condone any harm against this lecturer but you do make your own bed to an extent. Trans people have been protected by law now for 11 years and still people are seeking to make their points.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
Yeah good point. Did you ever question how you felt at the age of 5? I didn't. I found girls pretty and wanted to kiss them just as all of the gay people I know wanted to kiss people of the same sex when they were 5. But hey - sexuality and trans-gender is a social construct if you are cis right and entirely the result of peer pressure. I reckon I was only attracted to my wife because my parents made it absolutely clear that I had to fancy girls. It must be awful for all these confused children who know what their feelings are but are told it is just a phase!

You are confused.
Children don’t understand adult sexuality because they are children. I am not saying that some people can’t look back retrospectively at their childhood and pick out feelings or behaviours that indicated their sexuality to come, but when a 5 year old boy kisses another 5 year old boy making the assumption that the child must therefore be gay is deeply disturbing.
Before someone accuses me of homophobia, I only care about someone’s sexual orientation when I want to have sex with them.
Unless you are living with homophobes or live in a particularly homophobic country, there aren’t any long term implications that come with getting your sexuality ‘wrong’.

Political paedophiles often argue that children have an adult understanding of their sexuality and whilst I am not suggesting that are a paedo, you should think about who else shares your beliefs.

@hotpud
‘…Those who feel they need to judge speak more about the insecurity of their own identity or sexuality than those they choose to judge… Letting people choose their own identity without judgement harms no one…’

Edit: I thought the official party line was ‘gender identity isn’t a choice’.

According to you 5 year olds are miniature adults who know what their sexual orientation and gender identity will look like in 15 years time but just lack the words to express it. I don’t think I need to say anymore.

In future, if you choose to leave passive aggressive responses which are directed at me can you kindly refrain from doing it on the sly because that might cause me to judge your personal integrity and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
(edited 2 years ago)
Reply 39
Original post by Cancelled Alice
You are confused.
Children don’t understand adult sexuality because they are children. I am not saying that some people can’t look back retrospectively at their childhood and pick out feelings or behaviours that indicated their sexuality to come, but when a 5 year old boy kisses another 5 year old boy making the assumption that the child must therefore be gay is deeply disturbing.
Before someone accuses me of homophobia, I only care about someone’s sexual orientation when I want to have sex with them.
Unless you are living with homophobes or live in a particularly homophobic country, there aren’t any long term implications that come with getting your sexuality ‘wrong’.

Political paedophiles often argue that children have an adult understanding of their sexuality and whilst I am not suggesting that are a paedo, you should think about who else shares your beliefs.

Were you not a child once? Did you not find certain other children in your class pretty or good looking? I did. I knew that boys were my friends and girls were pretty. I didn't know why but I did know that was how I felt. As you put it, in retrospect, I was exhibiting the feelings of a heterosexual cis man.

I have quite a few gay friends. All have spoken about the same thing but for them, they were attracted to people of the same sex. Except they were really confused because every message they received in school told them that to be normal they should be attracted to people of a different sex.

I have yet to meet someone who was either trans or gay who didn't know how they felt at primary school.

Today I work in a secondary school. You would be amazed how many kids come out at the age of around 14 - 16. And good for them. When I was at school no one came out. But thinking about it, there were still gay and trans kids there. They were just too afraid to come out.
(edited 2 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending