The Student Room Group

Oxford History Professor given security guards after threats

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Again, it's nothing to do with whether I disagree with them, and everything to do with them promoting bigotry. They actively promote hatred towards trans people. That is the sole purpose of them as a group. So, group that exists solely to promote hate = hate group. Really not a difficult equation.

Except they don't... you seem to be confusing your opinion with a fact. Yours is the former and decidedly not the latter.

Since nothing I'm saying against them is an attack on any protected characteristic, no.

No, you're just being delightfully intolerant of any dissenting view. An odd position to take for someone who nominally is meant to respect a diversity of positions :rolleyes:
Original post by Napp
Except they don't... you seem to be confusing your opinion with a fact. Yours is the former and decidedly not the latter.


Look, if you don't actually know anything about the subject, don't weigh in. WPUK are a sole issue group who are firmly anti-trans. Their whole deal is opposing trans rights, that's literally all they do. They promote anti-trans positions, being trans is a protected characteristic, they promote bigotry and hate. Group that promotes hate is a hate group. It really is that simple, and if you're not prepared to deal in reality then this conversation stops here.


No, you're just being delightfully intolerant of any dissenting view. An odd position to take for someone who nominally is meant to respect a diversity of positions :rolleyes:




I respect a diversity of views, but the view that any minority shouldn't be allowed to engage with society is not a view to be respected.
Reply 22
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Look, if you don't actually know anything about the subject, don't weigh in. WPUK are a sole issue group who are firmly anti-trans. Their whole deal is opposing trans rights, that's literally all they do. They promote anti-trans positions, being trans is a protected characteristic, they promote bigotry and hate. Group that promotes hate is a hate group. It really is that simple, and if you're not prepared to deal in reality then this conversation stops here.


The fact of the matter is, as i have repeated as nauseum, you don't get to define whom is or is not a 'hate group' especially is i have yet to see anyone else accusing this group of such crimes bar a couple of extremist trans lobby groups. Especially as saying that trans people arent women (or men) is hardly 'spreading hate'.




I respect a diversity of views, but the view that any minority shouldn't be allowed to engage with society is not a view to be respected.

Apparently not.
Original post by Napp
Ah back to being your usual charming self i see.
The fact of the matter is, as i have repeated as nauseum, you don't get to define whom is or is not a 'hate group' especially is i have yet to see anyone else accusing this group of such crimes bar a couple of extremist trans lobby groups. Especially as saying that trans people arent women (or men) is hardly 'spreading hate'.




Apparently not.

They really aren't a hate group. They are demanding that women determine those policies that affect women and that self-identification as female gender alone is insufficient to access services for women, the latter being a clear threat to women in many contexts and already being exercized by men seeking official permission to invade women-only spaces under the pretence of being justified by law.
Original post by Napp
Ah back to being your usual charming self i see.
The fact of the matter is, as i have repeated as nauseum, you don't get to define whom is or is not a 'hate group' especially is i have yet to see anyone else accusing this group of such crimes bar a couple of extremist trans lobby groups. Especially as saying that trans people arent women (or men) is hardly 'spreading hate'.




Apparently not.


Perhaps you should try learning about a subject first, because as always you're posting absolute rubbish. I don't know how many times I have to spell it out - this is not about my opinion of them, this is entirely about the views they promote. They promote falsehoods about trans people (like the nonsense about it being a fetish), they campaign against reforms like the GRA that simply make it easier for trans people to go about their daily lives. They are a group actively promote hate, they are a hate group, it's that ****ing simple
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Perhaps you should try learning about a subject first, because as always you're posting absolute rubbish. I don't know how many times I have to spell it out - this is not about my opinion of them, this is entirely about the views they promote. They promote falsehoods about trans people (like the nonsense about it being a fetish), they campaign against reforms like the GRA that simply make it easier for trans people to go about their daily lives. They are a group actively promote hate, they are a hate group, it's that ****ing simple

It's quite a stretch to claim that all self-identified trans people are the result of incorrect gender labelling or dysphoria or medical reasons. It is to ignore the long history of transvestitism as part of gay culture. Clearly fetish has played a major part and continues so to do.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/12/10/transgenderism-a-fetish-that-got-out-of-hand/
Reply 26
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Perhaps you should try learning about a subject first, because as always you're posting absolute rubbish. I don't know how many times I have to spell it out - this is not about my opinion of them, this is entirely about the views they promote. They promote falsehoods about trans people (like the nonsense about it being a fetish), they campaign against reforms like the GRA that simply make it easier for trans people to go about their daily lives. They are a group actively promote hate, they are a hate group, it's that ****ing simple

For a member of the 'volunteer team' you are frightfully rude.
At any rate since you seem incapable of admitting that you are conflating your opinion with a fact, and getting it wrong, i feel we're done here.
Reply 27
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They really aren't a hate group. They are demanding that women determine those policies that affect women and that self-identification as female gender alone is insufficient to access services for women, the latter being a clear threat to women in many contexts and already being exercized by men seeking official permission to invade women-only spaces under the pretence of being justified by law.

I know, thats the position i'm taking. It's Stiff Little fingers who is taking the asinine view that they do not but spread hateful lies. Whilst itself doing exactly that.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's quite a stretch to claim that all self-identified trans people are the result of incorrect gender labelling or dysphoria or medical reasons. It is to ignore the long history of transvestitism as part of gay culture. Clearly fetish has played a major part and continues so to do.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/12/10/transgenderism-a-fetish-that-got-out-of-hand/


Again, no, what you are saying and linking is based on falsehoods. Being trans is not a fetish - there is a huge difference between transvestism in gay culture (or indeed any sexual culture) and being transgender. Transvestism as a fetish starts and ends in the bedroom, it has nothing to do with gender identity. The man who likes to wear lacey underwear or stilettos in bed is secure in his assigned gender, he has absolutely no desire to see himself as a woman outside of sexual situations, nor in reality inside of it. He considers himself a man, wholly and fully, without any doubt. For a trans woman this couldn't be further from the truth, she may be a sexual being (which leads to claims of being a fetishist from those who make no attempt to understand, because her existence has been fetishised. However, as the lesbian community can attest, being treated as a fetish by others and actually having a fetish yourself are completely different), but her gender is not her sexual nature. She does not desire solely to see herself as a woman for the purposes of sexual gratification, but as a fundamental aspect of her being, apart from her sexual nature. She desires to live as a woman, whatever that might mean to her (far from the claims of people like Selina Todd, being trans is not about conformity to gender stereotypes), to be seen as a woman, she declares herself to be a woman as a fundamental part of her being. (And of course, flip the pronouns and gender descriptors and you describe trans men, while non-binary folk by very definition live outside of this entire structure, rejecting manhood or womanhood in part or in full)
Original post by DiddyDecAlt
She isn't opposed to transgenderism, she has said that herself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51248684

If I understood her views correctly, she opposes the idea that men can transition into women. She does not recognise male to female transexuals as females. She believes they are men and that women need to be protected from them, which is 100% the current stance of the anti-transgender feminists.

(edited 4 years ago)
I don't really care about these arcane disputes amongst the far left. It is amusing, of course to realise that they hate each other even more than they hate us, and that progressivism is a zero sum game, but the actual points at issue are of no interest. Both groups are a bunch of total loony tunes, as far as I am concerned.

But why does it have to involve security guards and the threat of violence? Can any of you lefties explain this to me?
Original post by Pinkisk
If I understood her views correctly, she opposes the idea that men can transition into women.

I don't think that's a correct explanation of her views. As far as I can tell from available sources, she takes the view that transitioning can be due to biological/genetic factors, but that this does not apply to the whole swath of gender identity changers. In other words, merely declaring when you are a man that you are now female does not qualify sufficiently to then access services for women.

As others have pointed out, the government appear not to be allowing the 'gender identity only' argument, but parts of the organised trans community are extremely vocal on this point, aggressive in campaigning on it and sometimes threatening to women who hold contrary opinions. That is the issue here.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I don't think that's a correct explanation of her views. As far as I can tell from available sources, she takes the view that transitioning can be due to biological/genetic factors, but that this does not apply to the whole swath of gender identity changers. In other words, merely declaring when you are a man that you are now female does not qualify sufficiently to then access services for women.

As others have pointed out, the government appear not to be allowing the 'gender identity only' argument, but parts of the organised trans community are extremely vocal on this point, aggressive in campaigning on it and sometimes threatening to women who hold contrary opinions. That is the issue here.


No, that's not true either. She claims on her website that gender transition is solely about gender stereotypes, not biological factors, which combined with her promoting transphobic conspiracy theories about it being a form of conversion therapy for LGB folk is why several students have complained about her (and fundamentally why she should not be a lecturer - because she fails that fundamental duty of care towards her students): https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/04/29/oxford-professor-found-tweeting-transphobic-tweets/

Again, all access to single sex services and spaces is covered under the equality act 2010 through the protection of gender reassignment as a characteristic. The current reform discussion is around the acquisition of a gender recognition certificate, which would allow them to change their birth certificate. This matters purely in the case of marriage (i.e. a trans woman being recorded as a wife officially and a trans man as a husband), within HMRC systems (ensuring that a trans man for instance doesn't receive letters addressed to Miss Robert Smith rather than Mr, and ensuring letters sent to employers are gendered correctly) and, for those that care, ensuring their deaths are recorded as the correct gender (for many people this is not a consideration, because "what do I care, I'll be dead":wink:, as well as removing the spousal veto (where an abusive spouse can block their trans partner from getting legal recognition). GRA reform affects no-one except trans people, it does not impact on single sex services at all. Unsurprisingly, trans rights advocates campaign to make their lives easier, this shouldn't be controversial, and are justifiably annoyed that reforms which do not affect anyone else are being blocked by the phony concerns of people unaffected by it
(edited 4 years ago)
I thought it was about the ****
The thought that any old Tom **** or Harry can at a moment's notice self identify as a woman and use toilets, changing rooms even all female wards in hospital.
If a 6'4" person with a full beard and a full set of tackle wants to call themselves a woman you have to agree they are a woman and if you don't you are literally a nazi. The use women's safe spaces by such people seems to be the problem.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
No, that's not true either. She claims on her website that gender transition is solely about gender stereotypes, not biological factors, which combined with her promoting transphobic conspiracy theories about it being a form of conversion therapy for LGB folk is why several students have complained about her (and fundamentally why she should not be a lecturer - because she fails that fundamental duty of care towards her students): https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/04/29/oxford-professor-found-tweeting-transphobic-tweets/

Again, all access to single sex services and spaces is covered under the equality act 2010 through the protection of gender reassignment as a characteristic. The current reform discussion is around the acquisition of a gender recognition certificate, which would allow them to change their birth certificate. This matters purely in the case of marriage (i.e. a trans woman being recorded as a wife officially and a trans man as a husband), within HMRC systems (ensuring that a trans man for instance doesn't receive letters addressed to Miss Robert Smith rather than Mr, and ensuring letters sent to employers are gendered correctly) and, for those that care, ensuring their deaths are recorded as the correct gender (for many people this is not a consideration, because "what do I care, I'll be dead":wink:, as well as removing the spousal veto (where an abusive spouse can block their trans partner from getting legal recognition). GRA reform affects no-one except trans people, it does not impact on single sex services at all. Unsurprisingly, trans rights advocates campaign to make their lives easier, this shouldn't be controversial, and are justifiably annoyed that reforms which do not affect anyone else are being blocked by the phony concerns of people unaffected by it

First of all you haven't quoted her correctly and the link you gave wasn't to her website as you stated. This is her website:
https://selinatodd.com/being-an-academic-online/

No mention there of her views on this subject.

I quote from the article you did point to:

"Like every other gender critical feminist I know, I encountered the current debate about whether transgender people should be able to self-identify as such (without fulfilling other legal and medical requirements) from the instinctive standpoint that I wanted to support transpeople’s rights. But after months of research, I concluded that this position would harm the rights of women, because so often what is being asked for is free access to women-only spaces."

That and her other quoted comments don't support your assertion that she rejects the concept of transition, it is clear that she is talking about pure self-identification.

She is right that the more strident and aggressive parts of the trans community are determined to achieve a situation where self-identified gender alone is sufficient to access women's services.
https://youtu.be/ak8v1LxdavY

Rose of Dawn "Transgender activists dont speak for me."

An interview with the boys from Triggernometry.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
First of all you haven't quoted her correctly and the link you gave wasn't to her website as you stated. This is her website:
https://selinatodd.com/being-an-academic-online/

No mention there of her views on this subject.

I quote from the article you did point to:

"Like every other gender critical feminist I know, I encountered the current debate about whether transgender people should be able to self-identify as such (without fulfilling other legal and medical requirements) from the instinctive standpoint that I wanted to support transpeople’s rights. But after months of research, I concluded that this position would harm the rights of women, because so often what is being asked for is free access to women-only spaces."

That and her other quoted comments don't support your assertion that she rejects the concept of transition, it is clear that she is talking about pure self-identification.

She is right that the more strident and aggressive parts of the trans community are determined to achieve a situation where self-identified gender alone is sufficient to access women's services.


No, her Twitter activity discussed in that article, and the views quoted from her demonstrate an ideological opposition to transition, in that she does not see it for what it is - one of the many ways in which gender can manifest within society and a method of treating discomfort - but rather for what it isn't, the reinforcement of gendered stereotypes and a form of conversion therapy.

Will you please listen, because I have explained self identification several times and you seem to be missing it. Self identification within the context of GRA reform, which she is opposing, HAS. ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. SINGLE. SEX. SPACES. All the proposed self identification system does is streamline the bureaucracy of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. It does not impact single sex spaces or anything of day to day life - indeed with the current system many trans people choose not to try for a gender recognition certificate because its impact on their life is not worth the hassle. It does not impact access to single sex spaces, it does not even impact getting identification issued with the correct gender on it, you can apply for a passport in your acquired gender without a gender recognition certificate or even genital reconstruction surgery, you can get a driving license issued in your acquired gender without a gender recognition certificate.

All the gender recognition certificate does is allow you to get a birth certificate issued in your acquired gender and so update any government records like marriages, whether you are recorded as the mother or father on a child's birth certificate for government systems like state pensions and inheritance for those who still have gendered inheritance (e.g. hereditary titles). Currently the process of getting a gender recognition certificate requires the person applying to gather evidence that they are transitioned and go before a panel who will decide whether you are trans enough to be legally recognized, with your spouse able to veto any award of a gender recognition certificate (in which the spouse can refuse to 'consent for the marriage to continue', which is a misnomer - the marriage continues and the trans person is denied a gender recognition certificate, then forced to pursue divorce, which the spouse can also block forcing long and arduous divorce proceedings). Those lobbying for reform want that process to be streamlined, to remove the spousal veto which merely allows the spouse to deny someone legal recognition, and to remove the panel considering whether you are trans enough (living as your acquired gender, however that is supposed to be judged) and instead done by simple self declaration - person applies, sends in evidence of their transition, gender recognition certificate granted.

Single sex spaces are entirely different, they are not affected at all by any reforms to the gender recognition act because they were never under the purview of the original gender recognition act. They are instead covered by the equality act 2010, which made gender reassignment (among other things) a protected characteristic, meaning someone could not be banned from accessing any services (including single sex ones) on the basis of being trans. However, single sex services could apply for an exception to be made under exceptional circumstances - for instance a rape and domestic violence shelter can still be for cis women only if they are granted that exception, and the provision of a gender recognition certificate does not alter that. Beyond which, since the way gender reassignment is protected does not need a gender recognition certificate, single sex spaces which do not have an exception made are accessed on the basis of self identification anyway, and have been for decades.

Quick Reply

Latest