"At one point, questioned on how the presence of males who looked like males but were categorised as “women” might affect discrimination claims by fellow women in the workplace"
So, according to Stock, discrimination claims should be based on looks, how well someone "womans"? Such feminism, Much wow
So, according to Stock, discrimination claims should be based on looks, how well someone "womans"? Such feminism, Much wow
Reposted from
Lee Hurley
This is Kathleen Stock's version of what happened in court this week, as printed by the Sunday Times.
Screenshot of article in the paper in post above
Screenshot of article in the paper in post above
Comments
She is, of course, entitled to her opinion. But leaning on your academic credentials doesn't make bigotry any more palatable.
Doctors Stock and Joyce published their books to a general audience for a reason: they *know* they'd get panned with academic peer review.
It's all very well claiming to be heretics upending the established order, but to do so from a position of ignorance will (rightly) invite ridicule from people who aren't ignorant.
I don’t understand where her bigotry comes from. When I knew her she seemed more liberal.
Anyone has the right to think or say anything, but spoken words and/or actions may have consequences.
"males but categorized as women" parses like they're talking about trans men who haven't gotten their paperwork changed.