Mick Hartley

Kathleen Stock spoke at the Cambride Union last week. As a renowned gender-critical thinker, forced out of Sussex University by trans activists, it was a brave move – especially after the Helen Joyce business at Gonville and Caius, with Pippa and Andrew. How did it go? As well as can be expected. At least she won the debate:

Noisy protests were held outside a Cambridge Union debate as an academic abused for her views on gender told students they were terrified of causing offence.

Students angered by the presence of Professor Kathleen Stock banged drums and chanted slogans outside the chamber during the event, even though the philosophy professor was not speaking about transgender rights.

Stock was forced out of her job at Sussex University because of her beliefs that people cannot change biological sex. Academics at Cambridge were among those who protested outside the debate on Thursday night — one wrote on Twitter: “Cambridge Union Society is hosting noted transphobe Kathleen Stock to debate the principle that ‘This house has the right to offend’. If you want to remind her that being offensive isn’t aspirational, grab a sign and come along.”

One of the students due to speak in favour of the motion instead argued at length that Stock should not have been invited. Kass Caldicott from Trinity College said: “The environment for trans people in particular in the UK at present, is abhorrent and the hatred perpetuated by certain people in this room should be a damning indictment…I do not believe trans rights are up for debate and I believe the union was wrong to invite Dr Stock,” Varsity student newspaper reported.

Any evidence that the environment for trans people in the UK at present is abhorrent? Of course not – because it isn't. Nor, by arguing that biological sex is real, is Kathleen Stock guilty of perpetuating hatred. But that's where the argument is at the moment: talking about science and biology is actual violence against trans people. 

Stock, who won the debate, said during her speech that she was not going to address personal accusations by previous speakers.

Afterwards on social media, Stock said: “Thanks to all who were positive about my speech in Cambridge debate tonight. Can’t say I had the most fun evening but I respect the free speech of protestors and those defaming me in the chamber. Interesting points made on both sides. Also, we won.

“I would urge anyone listening to the debate and who was tempted to take at face value the ludicrous statements made about me, and what I think, to read my book.”

Stock and Professor Arif Ahmed, a philosophy professor who also spoke at last night’s debate, were invited by Lara Brown, president of the union. Prof Ahmed said: “The opposition has spent a lot of time arguing against things that nobody defended and have made up some sort of fairytale castle which they then proceeded to demolish.”

More detail on that strangely confused first speaker Kass Caldicott, from Naï Zakharia at UnHerd:

An impassioned undergraduate student gave the opening argument by the proposition. But it was immediately obvious that he had chosen instead to argue for the other side.

He began by invoking his own non-binary identity and his motivating support for transgender people, whom he described as “those who offend by their identity […] The mere fact of their existence is the tool by which they offend, through choice or through not”. Refusing all points of information from the audience, he insisted that “the hatred perpetuated by certain people in this room should be a damning indictment on them”. In conclusion, he proclaimed his disgust for Stock. Many booed as he ceded the floor.

Unruffled, Stock stated that what is considered offensive is dependent on individual circumstances and social context. Not everything that is offensive is wrong, she argued, and many shared social attitudes we now recognise as wrong were, historically, considered acceptable – racism, sexism and anti-Semitism, for instance….

Protesters shouted into their bullhorns, at times making it difficult to hear the speakers. But ultimately, it was the speakers in favour of the motion who won, with Stock and Ahmed securing a 247-72 victory. Free speech may not be flourishing on university campuses, but there was at least a glimmer of hope at last night’s debate.

Most of the protestors, as we've come to expect, seem to have been wearing balaclavas over their faces. So brave…