And a lecturer publicly
Dud analogy time.
If a lecturer publicly expressed the view that people with red hair should never eat sauerkraut would you call that humane?
Tip Jar
Dud analogy time.
If a lecturer publicly expressed the view that people with red hair should never eat sauerkraut would you call that humane?
If I was at university and a lecturer publicly expressed the view that there could not be a theory of gravity because of the definitions of up and down, would you call that physics? It’s possible to be clear thinking and very wrong.
Why on Earth did Steve Zara make such a stupid analogy? Kathleen Stock would never make such an assertion, because she is in a same-sex marriage. The definitions of male and female have nothing whatsoever to do with the social institution of marriage! Honestly, he’s trying to muddy the waters. It was Kathleen Stock’s detractors who were making the false claims, not her. If the only way that people like Mr Zara can consider themselves to be in the right is to lie about what the opposition are saying, then perhaps it is time for them to stop flinging fæces like over-excited monkeys, and sit down to think about the claims of ‘trans’ ideology.
An accurate comparison would have been:
Seems to me that Stock has been very humane and understanding while disagreeing with the claim that trans women are women.
He made the analogy to gay marriage precisely because he knows Dawkins and Stock are in favor of gay marriage and he’s trying to shake some sense into them. It’s one way they view the gender critical, as people who haven’t realized that they’re undermining their own values by suddenly going rogue this way.
But of course it’s a bad analogy. And it’s even worse to put it in front of Dawkins because if a lecturer publicly expressed the view that there could not be same-sex marriage because of the definition of male and female, he would not call that humane or inhumane. He would ask “And why is that?” — and then he would refute it. It’s not at all clear how the definitions of male and female have any relevance at all to same-sex marriage.
Someone expressing the view that transwomen are not female because of the definition of female, however, is in the right ball park.
I don’t have exact quotes from her writing, but my understanding from the Twitter traffic is that Stock made the point that, if sex doesn’t exist, if there is no clear definition of male and female, then there can be no same-sex marriage, and some people are twisting this around into some kind of opposition to same-sex marriage.
As many have said, Zara should just read her book, she’s very clear.
Looks like he’s deleted that tweet. Realized how gob-smackingly idiotic it was, perhaps?
Sackbut #6 – Rowling made that point in her infamous “transphobic” essay. No doubt Stock has made it, too.
You’d think it was obvious. You’d think. But as Jane Clare Jones said, and I quote verbatim, trans ideology eats your fucking brains alive.