She's a very brave woman.

You see what you want to see

She's calling for an end to trans people and you're worried about her security? Have some compassion.

@@jesipohl6717 Really? Produce some evidence to back up your claim.

The challenges are allowed under the specific rules of the house. The speaker is however not obliged to let the challenger speak. Kathleen chose to do so.

@@jesipohl6717 This would be the part where you present credible evidence that Professor Stock has ever suggested that trans people should be "ended." Please proceed.

She did seem quite nervous - more so than I've seen her before. She may have felt limited by the time in which she was allowed to speak. Also, this seems to be not a one-off presentation or speech, but part of a debate run at Cambridge University. In such debates, there are two or more speakers for each side on the debate - the "affirmative side" supporting the proposition and the "negative side" arguing against the proposition. Prof. Stock seems to refer to the other speaker on her side (the affirmative). Especially iff Prof. Stock was the second speaker on her team, her speech would have had to involve rebuttal of previous speaker(s) on the opposing side - which requires a lot of quick thinking on one's feet, without being able to rely on preparation and pre-writing of a speech. In such a debate: A) Each speaker is limited in the time they are allowed to speak. A bell indicates that their time is running out, and would also be used to indicate that the speaker's time had run out if they went on too long. B) Audience members are permitted to interrupt the speaker on the grounds of a "Point of information". These interruptions are essentially allowed for audience members to query any point the speaker has just made, asking for further or deeper information on the point. Basically: what supports the point of information the speaker just said, or here is this point that argues against the point the speaker just made. C) The debate speaker is not obliged to accept "point of information" queries from the audience members. They can just say, "No thanks" and plough on with what they are saying. Prof. Stock here is quite generous in both taking and responding to the points of information audience members interrupt her with. The one she baulks at and then refuses is the one raised by one of the speakers on the oppositing team of the debate itself.

She is a credit to philosophy, to freethought and to Enlightenment values in general.

An absolute legend.

Insolent & petulant children. A growing trend for Gen Z

And typical. We have let the transgender/self-ID religion tyrannize our liberal society.

I wholeheartedly agree, what has offended me listening to this is the total inability to let the invited speaker finish a sentence. I was a punk as a teenager but I still treated others as I would wish to be treated.

The new generation is spoiled and miseducated. You can experiment that everyday everywhere. A selfish and narcissist generation endoctrined by wokism and cancel culture They will pay it very hard in the future. The backlash will be very violent.

I think questions for clarifications are included in the format of this sort of debate.

what happened to her ?

She quit, and the "bullying" she mentioned was actually a seperate lecture about trans lives co-occuring within the same time frame as her lecture.

@@jesipohl6717 Did the bullies tell you that?

@@_Sakidora_ the fact that she quit Was widely reported. And that her bullying claims have often fallen flat is not surprising. How Band people did you know growing up who called people names "masked men, women in dresses" and then went on to claim they were the one being bullied. Stock's "academic freedom" looks an aweful lot like her white cis privilege.

@@jesipohl6717 You are a misinformed troll, you know very well Prof Stock was subject to 3 years of intimidation and death threats which made her tenure... untenable. Your subjective and selective arguments are clear for all to see. Wise up and allow real debate; get out of your echo chamber of ' right-on' nonsense.

Are you screaming in a hallway?

Tell me about it, because I couldn't make out what they were saying without subtitles.

That’s far too much of a mature request!

She was nervous otherwise she could have ignored them. Having said that the chairman should have shut them down, badly chaired by the Cambridge Union.

@@gareth2736 "Madam president" who sat with crossed legs and wearing a bare-shouldered evening gown to the proceedings. Phffft!

She quit her job after calling for an end to trans people. Trans people are not calling fir an end to women. Not so sure you nor Stock understand the word "persecuted". By your definition, Putin could be described as persecuted.

Calling for an end to trans people? Wow that is an hyperbole seen from space,.

@@jesipohl6717 She has never called for the end of trans people, so please provide proof of this allegation. She was forced out of her position by intolerance.

Part of the issue is that she largely holds the majority opinion, yet is being supressed by a smal minority of extremists who are either in positions of power or group together to wield power through disingenuous bully tactics.

Jesi when. Did she ask for an end to grabs people?

Women have been speaking for the last 60 years and look at where it has gotten us.

Exactly, let women speak. Stop trying to drown out women's voices or ignore their concerns. Those people interrupting should've been shut dowwnnnn.

​@@almostafa4725 access to education, rights to vote, childcare, healthcare, rights not to be assaulted, rights to protection.... Yup, that's what it got us. Yay!! 👏

@@almostafa4725 Get back in your time machine and go back to 1723.

@@almostafa4725 right to divorce you lol

Great analogy! 👍

And that the glass of water was part of some genocidal conspiracy

Indeed! This new generation of young people are seriously BAD TO THE CORE!

@Robert Haines Absolutely spot on! Please do not read the following if you are of a sensitive nature. Imagine if Russia had invaded the UK and not Ukraine. Would the Americans have had the resources to supply us with enough comfort blankets? It's so horrid, it doesn't bear thinking about! Here are some comforting images in case you need them. 🐭🐇🌼🌷 🐻 🧸

I do not disagree with your assessment of her at all, she is fabulous. But she is not from the generation which stormed the beaches at Normandy, LOL!! That would be one or two prior.

Agreed with you. Massive intellect, courage, and patience.

@AlexandriaOccasional-Cor-zf7xp now having an opinion makes u bigot? The corners of your neighborhood are too narrow.

@Alexandria Occasional-Cortex how? Explain your point of view

​@Really There Explain his point of view?!!!! Without his comfort blanket?!!!!!! Are you completely without feeling?!!!!!

@@tcrown3333 you do make a good point

@@reallythere I try! 🤣😉

You are correct, I saw it and she is more gracious than I would have been in dealing w/ those quarterwits.

Are there penalties for making personal comments in a debate?

So the people opposing the motion were utilising their right to offend in order to argue that no such right exists?

@@MrSamuelHorton and some people nominally in favour of the motion used their right to offend to declare that their team member Stock was too offensive to be invited to speak.

I’m really surprised this union allows people to stand up and interrupt a speaker. It is vulgar to me

She is remarkably composed despite the hysterical attacks. Why does the Chair do nothing?

She is flustered because there is a massive protest against her outside of the debating chamber.

She's a leftist. She's beholden to the wokies. We need proper reactionaries who will take pride and pleasure in defeating them.

I think the impact of the lengths to which such train of thoughts could lead (ahem, Handmaid's Tale), is very difficult to debate, when she's simply up against "feelings". It is like talking to a brick wall.

If any of them are students they should be sent down.

Yes

Yes there is a protest going on outside

I agree. The other thing that needs changing is what seems to be a growing tendency for people to respond to what they *think* someone's said, rather than what they've actually said. I listened to a podcast called "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling", and in the episode where they spoke to her critics, every single argument, without exception, was the critic's own extrapolation and inference, not what JKR had actually said. The same thing applies to Kathleen and her critics. I find this infuriating and obstructive, because we need debate to move ideas forwards, and we can't have it if people aren't listening and understanding each side properly. Straw men do not make solid foundations for advancement of thoughts, ideas, morals etc.

I believe this debating style permits questions from the floor. It is up to the speaker whether to answer the question, ignore it or postpone it until she finished her current point. It is very similar to the point of information in british parliamentary style debates mimicking the debates in the House of Commons. The protest however was uncalled for and such a disruption to this debate.

Historically, fascists fall on the anti-trans side of things...

Can you share those comments? And don't worry about the future, society wibble-wobbles back and forth in 70-year intervals

Because it’s effectively just a room filled with entitled, insolent children.

It is based on the workings of the House of Commons

The dark ages ended some time ago.

Agreed!!

@@anonnymous4684 we have now entered the Woke LOST Age

The White Ivory towers now collude in Lockstep with NAZISM & EUGENICS MEANING ALL the loud mouthed stupid offended are CHEAP & never about the message. When EUGENICS Comes to suck their blood, brains & organs those OhSo Offended will be screaming - crap, age was right and I contributed to this hell on earth & full on genocide of all humans, starting with my appalling dramatic exclusion of intelligent thought & speech when everyone had a voice in fact, platforms to express their minds. The child pedophilia/Trans movement of 1% lovers pushing us towards full on Eugenics!

Not exactly, this style of debate allows questions during the speech. The speaker can then allow the question to be asked, ignore it or postpone it until you have finished your arguments. It works in a very similar fashion to the point of informations in british parliamentary style debates as seen in the house of commons. So the interruptions are perfectly acceptable and the chair is correct in not doing anything. The protest outside is abhorrent and very disruptive.

Why do you want trans people not to exist, why are you afraid of us? Do you know any trans people? Do you know the definition of persecution. It's not an overprivileged white woman leaving her job after attacking trans existence, hint.

I think it's like the Oxford format where anyone is allowed to voice a challenge but it's up to the speaker if they want to allow or reply.

@@jesipohl6717 I don't, I'm not, I do, I do. Did you watch this video and listen to her arguments? Because the topic up for discussion had nothing to do with trans rights.

@@smoss9813 Ah right. Very distracting. They should let them finish their prepared statements and then maybe do a few minutes of rebuttals or whatever, rather than having random interruptions. Also the fact that the questions couldn't be heard made it sort of pointless for the viewer.

Yes, the President should have shut them up. These interruptions would certainly not have been permitted when I was an undergraduate.

I believe this debating style permits questions from the floor. It is up to the speaker whether to answer the question, ignore it or postpone it until she finished her current point. It is very similar to the point of information in british parliamentary style debates mimicking the debates in the House of Commons. The protest however was uncalled for and such a disruption to this debate.

Not allowed, but rather invited and paid to give a lecture about her genocidal program of ending trans existence. Her ideology fits Lemkin et al.'s definition.

@@jesipohl6717 please provide evidence that she has a "genocidal program of ending trans existance". The only 2 arguments I see are that 1)biological sexes must be recognized, and 2) people should have a right to offend

@@jesipohl6717 it sounds like you haven't actually read book, is that true?

@@jesipohl6717 Not ‘genocide’. You keep using that word while evidently having no idea what it means Trans is not a race or ethnicity. It is a made-up concept with no basis in verifiable fact or biology, to allow people struggling with difficult personal problems a focus for their energy. It’s like saying Emo or Goth should have been a protected category of human. Also, no one is trying to hurt you. You are exaggerating for dramatic effect. Most people would happily go about their business and ignore you dressing however you like - dinosaur, kangaroo, what have you. _Demanding_ that everyone around you go along with your cosplay puts you in the same category as a toddler throwing a tantrum, and should be treated accordingly, with the word ‘No.’ Which is, by the way, a complete sentence.

@@jesipohl6717 " about her genocidal program of ending trans existence" could you explain that program? What exactly is she proposing that will try to "end trans existence"?

So you want freedom of expression or not? I'm confused, because when protesters are outside it's also not ok. When is it OK to protest?

@@jesipohl6717 it's not OK when it prevents people from speaking. Freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to interfere with the expression of others. I didn't say anything about it not being OK to protest outside. I would say if the protest is so threatening that huge security bills get raised and charged to the institution, thereby sometimes shutting down events, that is not ideal.

@@chelseapoet3664 so all the silenced trans people that are never given a chance to speak as cis people choose who speak, what about them? Stock's "academic freedom" looks strangely a lot like her cis whit privilege. As for freedom of speech, if you really cared, you'd be up in arms about the laws silencing trans people and allies from reporting science and administering scientifically proven life-saving care. You're a bigot.

@@chelseapoet3664 I better see you opposing all the proud boys and terfs shutting down drag story hour.

She was probably, understandably afraid of the screaming fascists outside

this style of debate allows questions during the speech. The speaker can then allow the question to be asked, ignore it or postpone it until you have finished your arguments. It works in a very similar fashion to the point of informations in british parliamentary style debates as seen in the house of commons. So the interruptions are perfectly acceptable and the chair is correct in not doing anything. The protest outside is abhorrent and very disruptive.