That’s becoming the position of more and more people.

timestamp? :)

@@PM-gt9mh 15:40 (clicked randomly, ended up there immediately!)

@@PM-gt9mh 15:35

@@PM-gt9mhapprox 15.40

Probably because she is older and has more experience as well.

Rebecca Tuvel has to retain her job in academia. She’s not well known enough to be able to destroy her academic career by speaking the truth, like Kathleen Stock was able to.

You confuse opinion with truth, but I guess anything that challenges where we stand is not the truth. Quite convenient but not at all valid.

@@goodgrief888 Neither was Kathleen Stock when she spoke up. She was completely unknown.

@@CathyKitson 🤣

By saying the same things us straight men have been saying for years but would called slurs for. How the times have changed. People have joked about things like men being raped in gaol for years now it’s different if men are in women’s prisons?! I don’t think they should be allowed in women’s prisons. Just a double standard.

I totally agree about Bindel and Stock - both are wonderful women. That said, for me it was Kelly Jay Keen (KJK) who gave me the courage to finally speak the truth and aloud. KJK has given ordinary women many of whom are Lesbians like me the courage and platform to speak. Everyone I know was alerted to the consequences of gender madness by KJK. Nobody can cut through the gender insanity BS like KJK can and I admire her for this not to mention her ability to consistently hold the line when it comes to defending not just women's rights which includes Lesbians but also children's rights and welfare and the truth itself. Also, the brilliant Helen Joyce. All these women are marvelous IMO and I'm grateful to them all.

As a second-wave feminist, I don’t recognise those who centre men as feminists. They’ve usurped the name woman to include men, so it’s a short step to say supporting these men is feminism.

Its because those women dismissing usually come from upper class backgrounds (the 1%) and will likely never experience male violence because they can isolate themselves in where they live, work and go to school etc. But their lives aren't a reflection of the reality of the majority of women.

Actual feminists don't centre men in their fight. They can be very aware of men, their needs, and the danger everyone (men and women) faces from toxic masculinity but this new faux feminism is very confused.

She's a fool.

Very well said.

Tuvel speaks like a white privileged academic. How she figures men who think they are women don't pose a threat to actual women is beyond me. She's naive at best, ignorant at worst.

The stats are now being sqeuwed as men are being recorded as women committing violent and sexual crimes

It's as though she has just arrived on the planet and knows nothing about the species living on it. Men are bigger, stronger, and anatomically and hormonally different, which makes them more likely to engage in sexual predation. How a grown woman could be unaware of this is beyond me.

She's a QQ 😮

Great comment. Hopefully she can learn that lesson by other means rather than an unfortunate physical demonstration

But I wouldn't go camping with strangers that's ridiculous! If I was with a group of male friends and family members I'd do that no problem.

Yes one man could devastate the life of hundreds even thousands of women especially if unchecked

Ie one man could damage the partner or future partner of thousands of men. Ruin the life of thousands of couples and individuals

Future archeologists will look @ our pelvises & not be able to determine which men chose to live as women.

@@unowen-nh9ovexcept of course no man can live as a woman

@@unowen-nh9ovwell said 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾, but archaeologists are now being trained to say they make an estimate of the sex of the pelvis. They’re not allowed to express certainty, regarding the sex of the pelvis of the skeleton.

Who was fired for saying there are only two sexes?

​@@nejicollI think there is a list ... Kathleen lost her professorship..

@@helendancelot Your list is quite long. But no she didn't lose it, and even if she did was it because she said there were only two sexes?

@@nejicoll Joe Phoenix, Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey. These are a few I know of in the UK. All later won their cases in the employment tribunal.

Rebecca meant it hasnt hurt her. She has no experience or idea what she is talking about.

And elsewhere! Like the women who have been injured competing in sports against men! I hate that she is basically willing to experiment with real women's safety & bodies while she gets to perform her thought experiments from a comfortable & safe place. THAT'S ACTUAL privilege!

@@DonnaBrooks100% agree, Tuvel is a typical white liberal who feels some kind guilt, which means logical reasoning has been ignored.

​@@DonnaBrooksand rake in the money for her comfortable lifestyle

This is very well put. I've had slightly adjacent issues with fellow... basically gay men (as in males who date males and no one else) in regards to them adopting "queer" as an identity. I argue (only when pressed haha) that it's really just a political statement to call oneself queer as opposed to a sexuality. I guess, historically, people didn't tend to necessarily label sexualities as innate traits so much - it was more about sexual behaviour, but I think the point stands.

I was confused as to why Stock didn’t argue the point more vociferously. There is a biological reality in both cases. If we were so inclined, we could hook up the genitals of all the queer folk to blood flow meters. Instead, we simply take people at their word because there are no medical or political implications.

Important to note tho that women on testosterone still do not have the same strength as the average male tho.

What is CHS?

​@marysalluce9685 cross-sex hormones. It's the correct term rather than the queer preferred hormone replacement therapy ( HRT) all trans people aren't replacing any hormones they produce, they block the hormones they produce and take synthetic hormones of the opposite sex.

@@marysalluce9685cross-sex hormones - the hormones that occur naturally in the opposite sex.

@@marysalluce9685CSH = cross-sex hormones

Absolutely!

She participated in an event with someone whom she disagrees with, respectfully pushed back when she thought it was appropriate to, and emphasized at many points the common ground she shares with her co-panelist... Did we watch the same video?

This purity spiral idea that everyone has to completely agree on every single point is why our entire world is so toxic right now. I, for one, appreciated that they both respectfully spoke to eachother, agreed on some things, disagreed on other things, and neither called for the other to be not allowed to speak. I wish people in the comment sections of social media could behave the same.

Well said! ❤

You are so right.

A willing and/or unwilling blindness to our own susceptibility to confirmation bias and self-deception?

How do you define 'legitimate'? Given how outmatched intellectually Tuvel is, and how determined she is to ignore reality, there is no way that she could win a debate against Stock. Because their ideas are so crazy, there are only 2 ways in which trans ideologues can approach debate: either they deny reality, or they acknowledge reality and say we should ignore it.

Exactly. I suppose she doesn’t have to consider the impact of structural, systemic and institutionalised racism, because she is a beneficiary of w supremacy. She annoys me with her constant comparisons to race. They’re two completely different things.

​@@jaijai5250her comparing the plight of black people to a man in a dress is insulting and offensive. It shows how incompetent she is.

@@9395gbI find it extremely insulting and offensive. Is she suggesting that being black is pathological, hence her perpetual desire to make such comparisons.

OMG. Thank you for naming that awful sound some American women use when talking. It’s dreadful! I often turn the volume down to minimise the assault on my eardrums. In the UK we say they have a creaky, crackly voice. I’ve learned something new today. As always I turned the volume very low when Rebecca spoke.

This doesn't sound cruel - it *is* cruel. And you mentioned no substantive disagreement you have with Dr. Tuvel in this comment - just ad hominem attacks against a clearly intellectually curious woman. This comment gives us no reason to think poorly of Dr. Tuvel, and gives us every reason to think poorly of you

@@connorkianpour1077 Lighten up a little, Connor! I have to confess to a HUGE degree of admiration for K Stock, and generally agree with her ideas on this subj. and am likely a bit biased, but I tried to be objective... I found it fascinating to watch the discussion a SECOND time - for the SOLE purpose of watching R Tuvel's body language and facial expressions throughout. Her obvious and constant self-conscious behaviors betray her lack of confidence, either in herself or her ideas or BOTH. I don't know that I've EVER seen such a telling display, really. Coy, funny faces, eye rolls and a peeking side-eye, hair twirling...juxtaposed against Stock's easy, self-assured demeanor, the contrast was stunning. I wound up feeling bad for her, she was so profoundly outmatched.

@@Ukie1MTMP More ad hominem attacks and bizarre psychologizing

She is an idiot. She's so so afraid of being seen as not nice, that she makes an utter fool of herself, like so many women are doing. The trans narrative is a threat - that's true - so you have to have self-respect and commitment to honesty to not cow to it, but plenty of people are able to do that. I have no respect for those like Tuvel who fail to even recognize the threat and that they are being threatened, and therefore their job is to not cow. That's all it is, is a threat to get us to roll over. Our job is to not roll over.

@@connorkianpour1077Connor, the dude you’re responding to isn’t *debating* Rebecca, so invoking the term ‘ad hominem’ is pointless. He’s just pointing out what is obvious to many of us.

You misunderstood Tuvel's example. The example is meant to challenge the principle Stock is (or seems to be) relying on, which is something like "If members of two groups A and B are housed in the same prison, and members of group A are on average more violent than members of group B, then members of A and B ought to be segregated in that prison (or have completely different prisons)." Stock employs this principle to derive the conclusion that trans women and natal women ought to be segregated in prisons (or have entirely different prisons). Tuvel points out (correctly) that, if Stock is indeed relying on that principle, it would equally justify segregating black and white men in prison (or having separate prisons) since violent crime rates among black men (in the U.S.) are significantly higher than violent crime rates among white men (in the U.S.). But it's silly to suggest that black and white men ought to be segregated in prisons. So, the principle Stock is (or seems to be) relying on is silly. Now, Stock can either argue that she's not relying on that principle or argue that she is but there's a relevant difference between the two cases so the principle doesn't really have the absurd consequences Tuvel suggests. In any case, the philosophical move Tuvel is making is totally standard, and you completely missed it. No doubt this explanation, too, will fly completely over your head, but I'm giving it for the benefit of sharper people scrolling through the comments, not you.

@@esizzle2005 I suspect the black v white male offending difference is considerably less than offending differences between trans identified men v women. As Kathleen Stock pointed out in her 2019 submission to UK Parliament, 60% of UK ‘Trans women’ prisoners are sex offenders Including in 36 x rape; 10 x attempted rape. Since then we’ve learned 50% of US Federal ‘Trans women’ prisoners are sex offenders, and 50% of Canadian ‘Trans women’ prisoners are sex offenders. For male Prisoners generally the percentage is about 18% and women 3% . The risk for women from trans identifying men is greater than the risk for white men from black.

@@esizzle2005 Let's see how far your snide patronizing gets you. If the race analogy held any water and Stock is wrong, Tuvel should be in favor of the reverse of her example - if we don't lock up people by race we shouldn't lock them up by sex or gender either - and gender ID proponents should not want segregated prisons either. But neither Tuvel nor the gender lDs do so which is a huge tell. It's fundamentally silly to suggest race-based segregation in prisons, especially for the 'reason' Tuvel offers (the erroneous equating of race and sex vis-a-vis crime, and the misuse of the notion of statistical rates). It's silly because: 1) The rate of criminality does not mean one group is more violent than the other, it means one group may offend more times than the other. 2) The prison population is like a self-selected sample- they are all convicted criminals, no matter the race, while crime rate stats are on the basis of the whole population including non-offenders. 3) Prisoners are locked up for specific offenses, and along with sex segregation there IS severity of crime segregation (e.g. violent offenders; minimum, medium and max security prisons, etc.). It is a causal error to extrapolate from a statistical rate of criminality that a black male inmate locked *in max security* is much more violent and dangerous for his fellow inmates than any of the non-black inmates there. They are in max security for one reason only - they are all violent dangerous criminals! 4) However, there is consistent evidence that male crime patterns and associated crime and incarceration rates are substantially higher and qualitatively different than the respective female rates. They don't change just because you start playing language gender games. 5) The 'gender self-ID' (sometimes miraculously emerging right at trial!) of a male criminal, especially if convicted of violent crimes, and especially if convicted of violent crimes against women, should have no consequence for the sex segregation rule in prisons. Interestingly, we hear no demands from transmen to be put in male prisons due to their self-ID, wonder why that is - oh wait, who's more likely to be subject of a crime in prison: a male 'woman' in women's prison or a female 'man' in men's prison? Where prisons and I would add sports are concerned, gender self-ID seems to work in mysteriously lopsided ways to the exclusive benefit of transwomen aka males.

But...but the white murderer wears a frock.

@@esizzle2005 "Stock employs this principle to derive the conclusion that trans women and natal women ought to be segregated in prisons" No she does not. She says that men, so called "transwomen" are men, and women ought to be segregated in prisons...something that was not controversial until queer theorists made you believe that subjective self-identifications are more importand than the very reason why women were put in seperate prisons in the first place.

She seems like an idiot. She doesn't understand the issue at all. Just for starters, anyone talking about "transwomen" - a deeply offensive phrase I really try to avoid - is granting the false premise that there is some type of woman who is male.

OMG, I love your nametag user pic!! I saved that image to my computer!

@@DonnaBrooksI love it too.

The conversation took a turn toward the hypothetical for clarity on Stock’s argument. Tuvel was trying to understand if Stock was arguing from a position of pure harm reduction, ie would Stock maintain her stance if we could identify what makes males more aggressive and fix it. So, would she be okay with trans ‘women’ in women’s prisons if you could guarantee no sexual predation, violence, etc.? If not, why not? Stock was arguing, I think, that the mere sight of non-passing trans women would be enough to disturb female inmates. Tuvel counters with the example of male prison guards. Finally, Stock exits the philosophical part of her argument by stating: The question is about today, not some hypothetical future where men’s aggression is successfully controlled.

I agree

Billy Colloney talks about this in his autobiography. That it should never be a joke.

Wouldn't Biophobia be easier to pronounce?

@@jennawikler4987 biophobia is already a word, meaning afraid or averse to animals or other biological stuff.

But earnest, an earnest idiot.

Glad it wasn't just me who thought this😢

Just watched a great video this week analysing the development of female vocal fry in the media, then swiffly all proffessional arenas, that particularly affects American women. Truly a horrible affliction

What is vocal fry?

@@helendancelotI had to Google it, as I wasn’t aware of that term. It’s the awful creaky voice that some American women have. I say some, but it seems proliferate over there.

Very off-putting

people who believe men can be women if they say so do not have “good points”

Testosterone may well have something to do with violent crime and there would need to be a lot more violent women to prove this isn't so. In fact many think there is a link. The problem is that it isn't the only or even primary factor and that reducing it doesn't have any guarantee of preventing violence or even significantly reducing it.

@@ribbonsofnight Fair point I overreached, yes testosterone is a factor in the level of violence and the level of violence corresponds to more men being in prison, but most men [alpha] who have high testosterone levels do not commit violent crime? Psychotic Disorders, personal trauma and other uncontrolled chemical imbalances appear more evident.

@@ribbonsofnight Not to mention females are not in a body that can do as much damage as a male body can inflict, in terms of violence against women and kids and men. Even if she is dosed up on T. The "trans men" in sports situation shows us that disparity clearly. They do not become as strong as men.

@@user-hv5wi6nd4i There is marked difference in crime patterns of men and women, with men consistently responsible for most violent crime, and virtually all (96+%) rape. The share evens out more in categories like 'larceny-theft', 'property crime', 'fraud', 'embezzlement'. The only category where women dominate (60%+) as perpetrators is 'prostitution and commercialized vice'. Looking at victims by sex is also educational. Whatever the reasons, sex differences matter greatly in crime, and should matter in incarceration. No wonder the prison system has two types of segregation, by sex and by severity of crime (level of security prisons).

She appears to be a Canadian living in America. We do not claim her.

She seems to think DEI and academic freedom can peacefully coexist if only people didn't "misguidedly" apply DEI (at ~ 53:11). Despite her own 'lived experience' with the article and mounting evidence from numerous academic and other institutions, she doesn't realize DEI at its core is a rejection of academic freedom. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

What a nasty thing to say about an educator without a shred of actual evidence to substantiate the accusation.

@@connorkianpour1077 What was said that was so nasty?? You make it sound like someone accused her of something heinous.

That's what free speech is, didn'cha know?

​@@SlickSimulacrum yes exactly, free speech is the constitutional right to be paid by universities to launder right wing talking points as intellectual pursuits rather than distractions from class warfare

They asked multiple trans people and trans advocates to participate and they all refused on the grounds that they did not wish to be co-platformed with Kathleen Stock. Rebecca Tuvel was the only one who accepted the invitation and she should be applauded for doing so.

@@meanbugappreciationclub4460 , Well, yeah, that's certainly a strategic reasoning for platforming human garbage.

@@SlickSimulacrum Your side had a choice to defend the claim to the uber right to invalidate the rights of other protected classes They hid. It's not our fault they can't muster a normal debate and instead resort only to invectives as you amply demonstrate.

You sound insane. Her sexuality has nothing to do with using the bathroom and she doesn't take any space that is not already hers.

none of these arguments were ever used against lesbians - after all, 40 years ago precisely everyone understood that a lesbian doesn’t have a penis.

But this is different. Women are not a threat to women the way men are a threat to women. Segregating gay people is like the argument for racial segregation. A black woman has MUCH more in common with a white woman physiologically than she does with a black man (skin color). Men as a class are larger, stronger, faster, and have countless other physical advantages over women & that makes them dangerous! That's why we have sex segregated spaces in the first place! We didn't always have them & women were virtually tied to their homes because they didn't want to use public toilets with men.

Women are not a threat to women the way men are a threat to women. Segregating gay people is like racial segregation. A black woman has MUCH more in common with a white woman physiologically than she does with a black man (skin color). Men as a class are larger, stronger, faster, & have countless other physical advantages over women & that makes them dangerous! Men who care about women know this & are happy to "stay in their lane" & not "colonize" women's spaces. Ironically, the kind of men who would demand access to women's spaces are exactly the kind of men who don't respect women's boundaries & the kind of men that needed to be kept out of women's spaces in the first place! That's why we have sex segregated spaces! We didn't always have them & women were virtually tied to their homes because they didn't want to use public toilets with men. This is entirely different from lesbians & hetero women using the same facilities. Something like 95% of sexual crimes are committed by men & women are the targets of sexual crimes in 90% of cases. That alone tells you that women need protection from biological men, not from biological women (including lesbians). We are dealing in reality, not prejudice against a group of people. All we have to do is look around the world & throughout history to see the pervasiveness of male violence against women. That's why we HAD a "Violence Against Women Act," (although that's been gutted because now men can just say they are women so the world woman is meaningless).

Can you explain what you mean by that specifically?

@@DexterDexter123 he didn't miss it, he purposely ignored it because it doesn't fit the trans cult's narrative

How many feminist lives are regularly being threatened online? terfisaslur

The online environment can be very much like that. I recognise this. However, I don't think Stock is being non-platformed in the least. How is it a witch-hunt? Stock has a huge audience and a lot of support.

She should be. She’s a genius.

Right? I wonder how much more she's paid now relatively to her work as a professor. Nowadays getting canceled just means receiving criticism and then fat paychecks doing press tours about your feelings after receiving criticism.

No, she is pro women and children and if you actually took the time to listen to it you would know that.

"I have not listened to any of this but I can tell that woman in the middle is mega anti trans." No, she's pro-women's rights!

Thanks for letting us know that you're a typical brainwashed wokie who makes conclusions before actually even listening to what a person has to say. Nothing new here. Your statement is literally the caricature of your ideology.😅

She's not anti-trans. She is for biological reality & the protection of women & girls from men who will use self-ID to get access to women & girls. You will even call actual transexuals anti-trans if they disagree with your dogma in any way. You sound like a True Believer in a cult. You haven't listened, but you know someone is "mega anti trans" w/o hearing a word they say. You've been indoctrinated to not listen to anyone who disagrees with you by the cult, who calls dissenters bigots & transphobes so they can dismiss the points they make without even hearing them. Cults don't like people hearing the insights of people outside the cult.

😂😂😂 no, she is pro-women. No need to be paranoid, dear.

Come on, at least she showed up, we gotta give her that.

100%

@@nadinechandler8879 no we don't. we don't have to give a single inch to the trans cult

@@nadinechandler8879yes, but its sad the bar is so so low

well said!!

Well said. Her awful voice matches her views.