by Kathleen Stock and the woke cancel culture that threatens our universities Philosophy professor Kathleen Stock has been actively engaged in ongoing discussions about gender identity and transgender issues for a long time. In these discussions, she has expressed scepticism and concern about certain aspects of transgender ideology, particularly in relation to gender identity and its implications for women’s rights and spaces. Stock has argued that the concept of gender identity erases the significance of biological sex and undermines women’s rights and experiences. She has specifically raised concerns about the potential consequences of self-identification based on gender, particularly in relation to women’s spaces such as shelters and changing rooms.
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Politics & Society
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Ekonomisk politik och finanspolitiska ramverk
Lars Pålsson Syll writes The discontent that gave Trump the victory
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Svensk miljöpolitik år 2024
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Problemen med Riksbankens oberoende
Kathleen Stock and the woke cancel culture that threatens our universities
Philosophy professor Kathleen Stock has been actively engaged in ongoing discussions about gender identity and transgender issues for a long time. In these discussions, she has expressed scepticism and concern about certain aspects of transgender ideology, particularly in relation to gender identity and its implications for women’s rights and spaces.
Stock has argued that the concept of gender identity erases the significance of biological sex and undermines women’s rights and experiences. She has specifically raised concerns about the potential consequences of self-identification based on gender, particularly in relation to women’s spaces such as shelters and changing rooms. Stock suggests that women may be at risk if individuals are allowed access solely based on self-identified gender.
Stock has repeatedly emphasized that she supports the fight for rights and protection from discrimination against transgender individuals and that it is important to respect the rights of both transgender individuals and women.
Despite this, some commentators, such as political theory doctor Clara Sandelind in the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan, choose to describe her views as “transphobic.” Sandelind’s defence of cancel culture concludes that it is completely acceptable to not invite Stock as a speaker at universities because the oppression of transgender individuals would thereby be reduced to an “academic dispute.”
Goodness gracious! And one has to read this in 2023. It leaves one dumbfounded — and for many reasons!
Stock is not alone in facing these types of accusations. Many feminist academics in the UK and elsewhere are denied platforms at universities due to allegations of having “trans-exclusionary feminist” views. This has become a prominent part of the escalating conflicts between transgender individuals and feminists worldwide in recent years. As a result of these heated campaigns and denial of platforms for researchers with “gender-critical” views, questions about academic freedom and political tolerance have also come into focus.
In many ways, the attacks on researchers like Stock are an expression of the wokeness that is spreading across universities worldwide. There is an obvious risk that the type of politicization of academia that Sandelind expresses could undermine what we traditionally perceive as the most important task of universities – to freely seek and disseminate new knowledge.
To uncritically reproduce a “YouTube philosopher’s” defence of silencing opponents, both within and outside academia, as Sandelind does with apparent approval, is quite remarkable, to say the least. As an academic, defending the labelling of dissenting voices as transphobic by more or less militant “trans advocates” and justifying aggressive protests and ruthless campaigns is truly worrisome. Sandelind’s mindset stands in direct contrast to the ideals of free inquiry that should guide those of us who work in our universities and colleges.
It is particularly concerning, especially in the world of academia, when people take it upon themselves to silence dissenting voices simply because they feel “offended” or “discriminated against.” These easily offended individuals silence others in a world where it should be given to embrace and be open to critically discussing and respectfully engaging with others’ opinions and perspectives.
To me, this is a constant source of irritation. Why? Well, primarily because much of today’s discourse around being offended is an insult to those who are genuinely offended in our society. By diluting the concept of being offended into a completely meaningless, psychologizing phrase that essentially means “I find this uncomfortable and don’t like it,” it loses the power and significance it once rightfully held.
My advice to teachers at our universities who are unable to engage with different opinions and perspectives in a scholarly manner is to seriously consider whether the university environment is truly suitable for you. If you are so sensitive that you are afraid to expose yourself to the potential discomfort that scientific examination of ideas and facts can bring, perhaps you should not be working at a university at all.