Victory lap
What a loathsome prick.
He wrote the Pink News story. The title is as stupid as his tweet.
Anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock quits Sussex university in ‘massive win for LGBT+ students’
She’s not “anti-trans.” How is it a win for L students to bully an L professor out? How is it a win for LGB students to bully an L professor out? How is the win “massive”? More likely James Barry is right that Sussex University has sustained a damaging injury.
Sadistic Vic Parsons gloats.
LGBT+ students at the University of Sussex have welcomed news that professor Kathleen Stock is to leave the institution.
Yeah sure lesbian students are thrilled to see a lesbian professor bullied until she can’t stand to be there any more.
She has also argued that self-ID “threatens a secure understanding of the concept ‘lesbian’”, rooting her rhetoric in a belief of immutable biological sex.
Stupid little toad. It’s not “rhetoric,” it’s argument; she’s a philosopher. Vic Parsons, by the way, is not. And guess what, sex is immutable, it’s gender that’s not.
Vic Parsons should change his gender to stupid misogynist flea.
The BBC has a story on it, sent to me by a friend who lives in Sussex:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-59084446
Peaceful protest? Has someone redefined peaceful?
I saw it, but didn’t blog it because it’s based on her tweets & the University’s tweets & so on and we’ve already read those. Not very probing work by BBC standards.
iknklast, what ever do you mean? Nobody misgendered Professor Stock, or said she wasn’t valid, or culturally appropriated something from her community, or anything of the sort of horrible violence *real* victims experience. They just burned her in effigy and accurately identified her as worthy of removing from society and possibly from the planet and invited her to stimulate their female penises. What could possibly be considered violent about any of that?
The TRA infested Sussex doesn’t deserve such an intelligent and virtuous person. Staying to ‘fight the good fight’ only works if it’s a good fight in the first place, and it’s not a good fight, it’s a bunch of over indulged juveniles crying for their pacifiers. I don’t blame her for leaving, I have left jobs for much less abuse, even when I couldn’t financially afford to. It’s their loss. Piss on ’em.
I am confident that Kathleen Stock will land on her feet and continue on with her outstanding work; she is a quality philosopher and will be a valuable asset wherever she chooses to be.
The long standing conscious and unconscious homophobia in most men in 2021 – Mea Culpa! I have always thought “homophobic” men must be bad men however now having been called transphobic myself, makes me think this should not be taken at face value.
Throughout history more often than not men have always got away with rape and sexual abuse of women. For most of history, women have not had the legal protection against rape and sexual abuse but even where such legal protection was available on the paper, in reality only 1% or so of the men ever get punished for their assaults against women.
In general historical terms, is it agreed that all of the following are true?
Men can not get enough sex.
Men have very low self-control over their sexual urges.
Men do not take no for an answer.
Men will use physical strength either directly or threat of force to coerce a consent from a woman for his pleasure.
All of the above is made worse still if the man is under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
If all of these are true for heterosexual men, is it also true for gay men to the same degree or lesser degree or even more?
Answer is that all of these are true for all men no matter what their sexual orientation but arguably even more so for homosexual men.
The proof of this is that when 4 gay men and 1 lesbian were on the centre stage of the inaugural LGB Alliance conference, the men started extolling the power of their penises in the presence of lesbians. (Ontological position)
Ordinary men who do not have the protection from being raped by homosexual men either through physical power or political power have to have a preventative strategy against this, this strategy is “homophobia”.
Women as a class are unwilling or unable to develop a “phobia” against a class of people who have a proven track record of not being able to control their desire to rape and abuse them on a mass scale, men can and have developed a “phobia”, which protects even the weakest of their fellow men against a man who has shown even the slightest tendency for the desire of other men’s bodies. The cost in modern terms is the transing of “non-gender” conforming boys but all societies have always allowed men’s interests and desires to take precedent over those of women and children with the added bonus this time of allowing a lot of men to show their misogyny openly while being applauded by “feminists”.
N.B. Queen Victoria and the men of the British Parliament had specifically considered the option to make homosexual activity a crime among women but chose not to, they rightly decided that it was only homosexual men who posed a threat to their fellow men.
@6 Sounds like life in the rapist ward of a prison. I don’t agree.
@6 In particular both “all true for all men” and the “proof” being 4 trans examples. What?
And as for the Victorians ‘rightly’ deciding ‘that it was only homosexual men who posed a threat to their fellow men’, whereas lesbian women might be left alone – that is complete poppycock. Perhaps, Chinggis Khan, you could give chapter and verse (i.e. evidence) as to your statement that the Victorians made their decision on the grounds you say they did, and also clearly explain why the decision was ‘rightly’ made.
@8 (correction, 4 gay examples, not trans) and again, what?
I like boodleoops take on the celebrating >> https://mobile.twitter.com/boodleoops/status/1453821140028338178
Warning: argument by assertion forthcoming.
Depends on the man, and whose definition of “enough” you’re using. But in the absence of other options, most men have two willing partners at the end of their arms.
That’s a nice lie to justify bad behavior, but in fact most men can control their urges.
That’s a broad brush you’re painting with.
“Drink sir, is a great provoker of three things… nose painting, sleep and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire but takes away the performance.”
Why should we accept that all of these are true for men of any sexual orientation? Most of us learn to control our urges, and not to force ourselves on others. Blaming bad behavior on men’s nature is just a way of justifying rape.
#12 What a Maroon –
“Why should we accept that all of these are true for men of any sexual orientation? Most of us learn to control our urges, and not to force ourselves on others. Blaming bad behaviour on men’s nature is just a way of justifying rape.”
Nature did not give us wings but that did not stop us flying, but in any case Nature or Nurture, we have invented the jail and the hanging rope, it is just that women are unwilling or unable, even in free democratic countries to enact laws that will punish the mass scale rapes and abuse of women by men.
All other comments above by you and others –
LOL
Wow, “LOL”? Now I’m thinking either satire or just being provocative. In light of that knockdown argument I can only agree in submission, I mean wow, that’s brilliant. :P
Also hugely off topic, a troll tactic.
twiliter,
I’m just bowled over by all the lack of evidence. Not to mention the victim blaming. Clearly we’re dealing with a vastly superior intellect.
Yes, this sub-conversation is over.
Firstly, the anecdote is that Victoria refused to believe that women could be capable of actually desiring the act of sex in the first place and thus saw no need to criminilise female homosexuality (as opposed to not even having to debate the criminilisation of male homosexuality); whether this is true or not in itself isn’t as relevant as what its truthiness tells us about Victorian attitudes toward sexual congress, wherein everything an erect penis did was against the law, except for penetrating a vagina in order to ejaculate there within the confines of marriage. This law had nothing whatsoever to say about whether the married woman did not wish to undertake said procedure.
Secondly, one must not assume absurdities when making an argument; rather, to do so is to render one’s conclusions not even wrong, and certainly not within the countenance of reasonable people to fairly consider. Taking your assumptions as given would mean that every single man is a rapist, that every sexual encounter a woman had with a man which she did not initiate or did not initiate out of the singular desire to have an orgasm was a crime, and all male homosexual sex is enacted on the level of rutting beasts whose only law is raw strength.
To state plainly these positions is sufficient to rebut them, so I will not do so further.
It is true that the presence of testosterone has a potent effect on the depth and frequency of the sex drive; many (if not all) women who take testosterone report a change in the character of their sexual appetites, for example. And this general truth has a social and perhaps a political valence in how we think about sex and sexual relationships between men and women. As already stated, at one time the law nearly everywhere said absolutely nothing about married men satiating their sexual desires upon their wives, whether or not those wives wished be a part of that satiation.
There are interesting topics to consider about the nature of sex and committed relationships, in light of this statistical disparity in sexual desire. But any reasonable world would involve acknowledging that disparity while holding people generally responsible for their actions, having a reasonable notion of what constitutes rape, and allowing men in committed relationships some kind of sexual release (via their own hand at a minimum) should they find themselves matched to someone with significantly less sexual drive than they have.
Ophelia, in the interest of truly ending said conversation, feel free to delete my comment above if you think it appropriate
Thanks DD but no need, the eccentric commenter will need approval to comment in future.
Sorry OB, to have abused my white list status to post a comment on your blog, that you did not approve beforehand, I did not even know I had that privilege.
I searched the site for “homophobia” and did not find any recent blogs for that topic, so I convinced myself that the false accusation of “phobia” onto Prof. Stock is topic adjacent to my reconsideration of homophobia also as a false accusation of “phobia” onto heterosexual men for their legitimate fears. I made a pima face case for “unconscious homophobia” and proposed that this is the reason why “progressive” men see a non gender conforming 4 year old boy as girl, surely you have to admit this a very important topic and allow this to be discussed on this site somewhere.
I note that no women have commented to refute my general characterisation of men’s behaviour towards women. I am very surprised to find so many men on here making typical MRA comments.
My plea to these MRA’s, please address my point, whether it’s nature or nurture, men DO commit rape and abuse of women on a mass scale, do homosexual men have more self control and less desire to rape and abuse other men?
Women are unable or unwilling to develop a “phobia” against a class of people who have a proven track of not being able to take a no for an answer but you can not blame men for having a conscious or unconscious “homophobic” strategy because homosexual men are still men, who have no self control even in 2021 – as per current rampant unpunished rape and abuse of women throughout the world shows.
It is this homophobia, which is 50% responsible for the judicial and medical acceptance for the transing of children, the other 50% is the deep misogyny in all men – gay, straight, bi, trans, queer etc etc.
Given that the trans gender identity ideology is harmful through and through, when this madness starts to wear off, the straight men in power will not be blaming themselves but will be looking to blame other groups, the two best candidates will be women themselves, who did not speak up en mass against the loss of their rights and the LGBTQ+ community, under whose name the trans activists pushed through all the policies and laws. As straight women and lesbians are already at the bottom in the human rights column, they do not have much to loose, however homosexual men are in the position with most to loose when rightly, they will required to take their fair share of the blame and a lot more.
In the last 15 / 20 years it has been gay men who have shown the most horrendous amount of misogyny and disregard to children’s safeguarding. Even in 2021, when so much work has been done by grass roots women – lesbians and straight women, the number of gay men who have spoken up, has been pathetic. Even if homosexual men have no regard for women and children, they should be very afraid – very very afraid that they are legitimately in line to be punished heavily for the harms caused by the trans gender identity madness.
It will be very easy for AGP men to escape punishment by getting back into the closet and go back to bulling a wife or partner into providing much of the validation they crave however gay men will have to risk outing themselves for what they crave.
I promise, I have not hacked this site – I thought my comment would not be published unless approved by OB. Looks like I am still on the white list. Sorry, OB please delete my last comment if you wish.
My fault that the pre-approval didn’t work, because typo. It will work in future.