If you want to make the case for Kathleen Stock, fine, make an honest case.
If you ignore students' actual objections - not least that she signed a Declaration which supports abolishing almost all trans legal rights - that isn't journalism, it's propaganda and lies by omission.
If you ignore students' actual objections - not least that she signed a Declaration which supports abolishing almost all trans legal rights - that isn't journalism, it's propaganda and lies by omission.
Imagine if a university academic signed a declaration calling for the abolition of almost all legal rights for gay people, and that angered their students.
Would media outlets portray the academic as a mere victim, or would they at least try to understand the anger of students?
Would media outlets portray the academic as a mere victim, or would they at least try to understand the anger of students?
What this comes down to, as always, is trans people are not regarded as a legitimate minority according to Britain's media outlets, and therefore the real victims in all of this can never be trans people, but only the privileged people opposed to their fundamental rights.
Here's the WHRC Declaration - which Kathleen Stock signed - explained, including why it "is unambiguously a document for the abolition of trans people’s civil rights".
If you're discussing students' anger without mentioning this, it's not journalism!
chican3ry.medium.com/the-whrc-decla…
If you're discussing students' anger without mentioning this, it's not journalism!
chican3ry.medium.com/the-whrc-decla…
It should be said that Kathleen Stock is on record as supporting the Gender Recognition Act in its current form.
But the WHRC Declaration, which she signed, contradicts the existing rights trans people have under existing legislation. That's what has caused so much anger.
But the WHRC Declaration, which she signed, contradicts the existing rights trans people have under existing legislation. That's what has caused so much anger.
So, for example, why didn't Stock simply unsign the Declaration and declare she supports all existing legal protections for trans people, even if she doesn't support further reform?
Here is another explainer on the Declaration by legal academic @Sandra_NiD, who says it calls for:
"the repeal of gender recognition legislation, the removal of trans persons from politics and sport, a ban on trans women using ‘women’s spaces,"
sandraduffy.wordpress.com/2021/10/26/an-…
"the repeal of gender recognition legislation, the removal of trans persons from politics and sport, a ban on trans women using ‘women’s spaces,"
sandraduffy.wordpress.com/2021/10/26/an-…
Finally, here are the demands of those behind the Declaration, including the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
Given Kathleen Stock says she is opposed to that, why isn't she challenged about why she signed the Declaration and hasn't unsigned?
Given Kathleen Stock says she is opposed to that, why isn't she challenged about why she signed the Declaration and hasn't unsigned?
https://twitter.com/QueerNerdyLefty/status/1456262610957991941
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
