By coincidence, a very close friend of mine was finishing up his master's in art history at Sussex University the year Stock resigned.

He tells me it's statements like this, as well as the general framing of Stock's work, that set the student body so against her. They saw through her rhetoric. They saw her attempting to make transgender people less safe and less accepted in society. And, in result, they wanted nothing to do with her.

Demand for her classes plummeted. My friend cited one fellow (cis/straight undergrad) student who told him she'd rather change majors than take a class from Stock. Not because she hated Stock's philosophical meanderings, but because she understood the practical effect of hatred and ostracization that Stock was either intentionally or unintentionally encouraging.

And that's the big deal to me too.

Stock is whipping up animosity and disrespect, encouraging an already growing atmosphere of danger and violence in the U.K. and elsewhere.

She's smart enough to do so in a way that looks well educated and considered, but her campaign actually is what it is, and I'm encouraged that university students in the U.K. seem to understand that.

Thanks for wading through this entire book to help all of us understand.