Difficult conversation re Kathleen Stock

“It may be the case that she hasn’t read much of material girls (I don’t believe that she hasn’t read any as I don’t think she’s outright lie) - but then until today neither had I! I’m hoping to get through it all this weekend and be able to argue from a much more informed position. I’m anticipating a lot of UCU conversations coming up with the inevitable strikes next semester and want to know what I’m talking about. I’m really questioning whether I can stay in the union.“

Yeah I’ve only read the introduction thus far, no judgement here I just think people are naturally disinclined to look for things that might undermine their world view, particularly when their view is on shaky foundations and changing their mind might lead to horrendous bullying.

This, from a parent, I found to resonate with some of the things I have been thinking about in relation to working with young (often very TWAW) people. This is from the parental perspective obviously but raises all kinds of questions about the learning environment that we all contribute to if we are involved in Universities.

pitt.substack.com/p/university?r=n5nv9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter

'We left our kind, funny, shy and self-effacing son with you on a late summer evening. His initial impression of university was that everyone else was taking it in stride, having the experience he had been hoping for, and fitting in… and that he wasn’t. This intimidating start was followed by a relentless march of exhausting days, where each seemed harder than the one before. Eventually he withdrew. He was tired of being different, tired of being alone. He went online.

And there he found someone who told him that medicalizing to look female would help him, that all he needed was drugs and surgery. That he was really a woman. This was the answer. The reason he felt different.

All of this is, in some sense, an old, old story. A young person goes to university, feels alone, finds some people who say they understand him. In this case, people who would let him join their club if he took drugs, did drastic things to his body. People who told him lies,1 either out of malice or out of ignorance. It is not the first time in history this has happened. '

Bollocks has your friend read any of Material Girls. Unless they are incredibly intellectually curious/ an academic in the field I find this unlikely. I think there is a strong tendency on the other side to avoid reading anything that might challenge their position (because their position is built on sand).

Admittedly I wouldn’t want to wade through the new Shon Faye book, but I think that’s for different reasons.

Can you text your friend "Hi, after our discussion today I've been thinking about what you said. Can you send me some articles about what KS has done wrong as I want to learn more and can't find anything."

This has a few things going for it - it shows you are listening to her and are open to what she says; it makes it more of a discussion than an argument. It will tell you what she has found out so you can counter it (please share here!). When she tries to find something solid to back up what she has been told she will discover an empty space- that may convince her far better than a discussion with you ever could that this is all made up of lies and insinuations.

"I said that I thought that whether or not you agreed with her position, everyone should have the right to feel safe at work and that the union should be supporting people who are under threat, and she said that she felt the way KS had acted was a big part of the problem and she didn't agree with a lot of what she had done."

To paraphrase your friend - 'she was asking for it'. How very feminist of her.

And more than that, they need to be told to stop bullying and attacking others.

I don't care if a misogynistic bully suffers from cognitive dissonance when they realise they were being a misogynistic bully.

They shouldn't have done it in the first place.

The person whose feelings I care about in this exchange is KS, who attacked precisely noone but was made to leave her job and relentlessly bullied.

I tend to agree with xxyzz about changing how we think. It’s fine for each individual woman to consider how much they want to say in public, but the idea that we should not discuss or persuade intelligent women to think about these matters, lest they can’t cope with the cognitive dissonance, or might be faced with difficult decisions is massively overthinking it. We cannot hold back to spare others’ feelings. That’s infantalising women. They should be given the information we have, and challenged in any illogical thinking we see, and from there, they should be allowed to make their own minds up.

Sorry, I didn't want you to think I was blaming you for not speaking up at work. Your safety and wellbeing need to take priority, unless you can afford to make that stand. I wasn't trying to victim blame you.

But your friend is going well beyond not speaking up at work through fear. She has chosen to attack you - her friend - and KS, a lesbian feminist, in her free time. I absolutely do blame her for her internalised misogyny and her lesbophobia.

I think all of us need to shift the bloody Overton window back firmly into the realm of reality. We need to stop engaging in pointless discussions about whether X feminist is 'transphobic' and start pointing out that those attacking X feminist are misogynists. That those attacking lesbians are lesbophobic or homophobic.

We need to shout the 'M' word (misogyny) loud and clear. The misogynists (including women with internalised misogyny) need to face up to their hatred of women and desist.

I do think most feminists - including you and KS in this - are just too nice.

I think the best form of defence in this kind of situation is attack. KS has done nothing wrong and nor have you. It's ridiculous that you're spending your free time researching libellous lies about KS on the internet, just because your friend has failed to do due diligence, and fallen for a load of misogynistic, homophobic baloney.

I would ask your friend why she supports violent thugs attacking a widely-respected lesbian academic, who is chiefly famous for standing up for both women's rights and LGB rights.

Why is she a supporter of violent thugs attacking women? Does she not realise that saying 'well, she was asking for it' is not an excuse? That she is doing nothing better than witch-hunting?

I don't care if she works with young people. Young people are not a monolith. Plenty are GC too. And how are they going to learn anything if the adults in their lives fail to role model better behaviour, or show any moral fibre or intellectual curiosity?

Pah.

What did she do?

Isn't her crime to not shut up when told to?

we agreed not to discuss this then and there. I'd like to talk it through with her though

Do you mean that your friend shut down the conversation or that it was a mutual decision as you were both getting upset about the disagreement?

Will she be open to discussing it further?

Then there is this by grace lavery who you might of heard of. She seems to have turned herself into a near full time anti stock researcher. They are both absolutely obsessed. For example this nutty thread by lavery analysing stock's twitter interactions with peterson to show how evil stock is.

I read the article by Lavery referenced above. I read until the bit where she "analyses" section 1c of the Declaration on Women's rights, and manages to waffle on spuriously for a number of paragraphs. The waffle basically cherry picks the juicy bits to make it look like the Declaration wants to "eliminate trans women in law". However, the argument, tenuous at best, only makes sense if you assume there are only two positions possible - first, that trans women are in every respect indistinguishable from non trans women and second, that any attempt to argue that there is a categorical difference (such as suggesting that TW are male and non TW are female) is the same as denying that TW exist at all. Lavery then goes on to argue that to do this is a form of genocide.

It's all a bit weird, and reminds me of a tortuous argument I had when I was 12 with a friend who challenged me to prove, logically, that I existed. That sort of thing is fun when you're twelve.

Anyway, Lavery's article is a fun read and a goldmine for examples of lousy argument - useful when your job is teaching people how to write essays.

I think that if your friend believes Kathleen Stock's transgressions were so serious that she forfeited the right trade union support then the onus is entirely on her to explain what she did.

I would also ask her which parts of the book she read.

If a workers union don’t feel obliged to recognise workplace harassment, sex based discrimination, back up the need for single sex employment, protect sexual orientation (same sex attraction), recognise the part that sex plays in religious beliefs, recognise sex based issues like pregnancy and menopause that can affect employment, recognise the intersectional issues some face (black women) etc. then what is the point in paying your fees. Protected characteristics treated like pick n mix.

If a teachers and academics union can’t see the need to back freedom of speech and the need to back teaching of facts and science...

Also - That a lesbian lecturer can be targeted this way in 2021 is just astonishing.

She doesn’t want to discuss it in detail because her beliefs are tribal, not rational. People in the trans-activist camp hide behind phrases like “let’s not argue” or “it’s not my responsibility to educate you.” They don’t want to leave the echo chamber, it’s a lot like trying to talk to a cult member.

I hate the attack on women’s safe spaces, but the attack on civilised and rational free debate is even more scary. And it’s happening at universities, which should be the biggest champions of free debate.

It’s very strange.

Sorry this was the nutty thread. The link above is the blog.
mobile.twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1451303658554019843

I expect it based on a couple of tra blogs about Kathleen. One by christa peterson who is a postgraduate student in America i think, in philosophy. She's one of a group of postgraduates and academics who have had it in for ks and the other gc philosophers from the beginning.

www.praile.com/post/kathleen-stock-obe

Kathleen's response here
kathleenstock.com/response-to-christa-petersons-blog/

Then there is this by grace lavery who you might of heard of. She seems to have turned herself into a near full time anti stock researcher. They are both absolutely obsessed. For example this nutty thread by lavery analysing stock's twitter interactions with peterson to show how evil stock is.
grace.substack.com/p/the-uk-media-has-seriously-bungled

I don't know if there is a rebuttal of it anywhere.

These blogs and twitter threads based on them have travelled far and wide. I expect your friend has based her opinion on this type of thing. Basically, they can't justify the treatment of stock based on her actual arguments about gender, so they basing it on

• She signed the whrc declaration (with a v warped interpretation of what it says. Imo there are valid criticisms of it even from a gc perspective & it doesn't match ks's own current position, but it doesn't seek to eliminate trans ppl or anything stupid).
• she's a trustee of lgba (and again v warped claims about their intentions)
• She has bullied and silenced some students. This one is completely mad, and relies on the fact that she has countered defamatory claims by some students (who are not her own students).

I hope that might help.

Ionlydomassiveones

People are so blinkered about it, I think it’s a form of denial. Surely no one with half a brain thinks people can magically change sex? But the earnestness when they talk about it is utterly terrifying. Especially when you take a long hard look at society and see who the real winners and losers are. It ain’t biological women.

^ you’ve only got to look at how many people have been sucked into believing in crystals and law of attraction to contemplate how many brain cells the majority of us can use.

...another one waiting with baited breath.

I have no idea what KS has done or said that got her tarred & feathered, as Richard Dawkins put it. Everything I have heard her say has been moderate and measured. I suspect that's been one of the problems as they seem to leave firebrands alone - far too dangerous. So they bully and harass intellectual women.