Kathleen Stock. Now they are writing academic papers about how terfy she is

However gender critical feminists identify politically, it is clear that their viewpoints are being co-opted by those who do not have feminist interests at heart

That’s actually a very accurate description of tras/trans ideology. It is being co-opted by anti-feminist woman-haters. Many of its sympathisers openly threaten feminists with violence and rape. Have they not noticed?

Of the BBC? I meant to say the BNP!

Much feminism. Or feminisms.

Is this a PhD student?

twitter.com/MisAlchemy/status/1450743767661780995?s=20&t=cO-hx-1pCS4Y9zPzveVO9A

Yet, gender critical feminism does present a cause for concern. In a blog post Alison Phipps notes this concern by the Institute of Race Relations over the links between gender critical feminism and the far right.61 However gender critical feminists identify politically, it is clear that their viewpoints are being co-opted by those who do not have feminist interests at heart. While I am not accusing gender critical feminist of being racists, some of their allies are, and this should worry Universities who claim to prioritise equality, diversity and inclusion.

I wonder if the person who wrote this asks every single person who agrees with her on transwomen are women what their politics are, what their views on abortion and the rights of women are? What religion they are? wether they've been an active member off the BBC at any point etc.

I bet she bloody doesn't. And why the fuck should we? Just because I happen to agree with some far right people and some fundamentalist Christians in some aspects of the trans gender argument doesn't mean I agree or endorse anything else they say. So why the hell should it worry universities?

She writes about the vile misogynistic abuse to other women as if it's completely irrelevant to the protest.

The apparent dangers posed by integrating trans women in women’s spaces is unevidenced with gender critical feminists seeking to create a trend out of very rare exceptions. In a review of Stock’s book, Adam Briggle, academic philosopher and father to a transgender son, points to an evidential flaw in this reasoning: ‘This is a motif for Stock: point to a handful of problematic cases and blend them with sexual dimorphism to derive a sweeping trans-exclusionary policy recommendation’.31

when are they going to get it? Firstly it isn't very rare exceptions, they are coming in thick and fast these days. And even if they are numerically statistically rare exceptions, we still have no way of telling the good guy saying he's a woman from the bad guy who says he's a woman so the only way to be safe is to say no to all men in women's spaces.

I mean it's not fucking rocket science even that badly informed writer should be able to get her head round that.

And it's not Fucking unevidenced she's obviously never read the it never happens thread on here.

Oh dear oh dear

And here is Deborah herself describing attending the protest:

At the event the organisers had chalk for people to use (a mistake in hindsight?) and it appears that there were a few misogynist drawings, and an offensive banner addressed to trans exclusionary feminists. I was there on Saturday morning and did not see them, and a colleague of mine was there all day and also did not see them. That is not to say that they were not there, but they did not capture my experience; I saw people writing “trans rights are human rights”, and banners expressing support for trans rights. Nonetheless, the few offensive images are what gender critical feminists seized on and these drawings flooded my Twitter feed, those of my friends who attended, and their social media posts in an attempt to invalidate those who wanted to express their support for trans rights in a peaceful way.

How dare they!

www.starandcrescent.org.uk/2021/11/08/opinion-why-i-was-at-the-fly-the-flag-event-in-portsmouth/

Friends with the awful Cllr Claire Udy (who participated in the abusive protest at women attending the FiLiA conference in Portsmouth), here asking her advice how to use terfblocker.

twitter.com/topgirls/status/1450751999704715266?s=20&t=cO-hx-1pCS4Y9zPzveVO9A

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/claire-udy-goodbye-and-good-riddance

The trans isomer of sodium hyponitrate is more common than the cis-isomer. And less reactive.

sodium itself can reduce alkynes to trans-alkynes. You’d use a different material
to produce cis-alkynes.

All of which is about as useful to the topic of how poorly kathleen stock has been treated as the neo-concept of transodium.

Honestly, inventing a new bullshit word is not the pinnacle of academic achievement.

"I consider the national platform given to Stock, but not to trans people and trans inclusive feminists.."
Dear God, we're drowning in "trans inclusive" language, policy and practice from every bloody captured police force, institution and government body with women eradicating language & policies everywhere, child safeguarding blown apart, women's sport handed over to mediocre men and vulnerable women sharing prison cells / hospital wards with rapists / sex offenders.

Yet she thinks trans people don't have a national platform? An enraging idiot. 😡

love this!😁

Perfect!

I can only assume that Deborah didn't send Kathleen a copy as a courtesy, as I think Kathleen would have been quite scathing. I wonder if she or any prominent GC feminists have even seen it because there are no critical comments on her thread, as I said, just fawning.

I'm a historian. So embarrassed that this could get into print in my discipline. Was considering publishing in the WHR, but not any more.

the journal information says that all research articles are peer reviewed.

But viewpoints are noted as different in kind. It’s basically like a glorified book review in terms of its academic significance.

“gender critical feminists have disproportionate influence … on government policy”

I mean, this is objectively untrue.

I agree that they bypassed reviewer 2. Probably because it’s a ‘viewpoint’ rather than an article. It was probably just looked at by the viewpoints editor and not peer reviewed at all.

WHR is a completely legit and respected academic journal. I’m surprised to see a piece like this in it. I note though the editorial comment that the piece is the author’s personal views ie nothing to do with us!!

It is a ‘viewpoint’, but a self-indulgent and un-evidenced one at that. I don’t count Grace Lavery’s views on academic freedom as any sort of ‘evidence’.

Here's the academic explaining the depth of her knowledge behind the paper:

twitter.com/devorahshawa/status/1603384546979987456

I read that yesterday. Someone I know shared it on Facebook. As someone said upthread, it's quite something for an 'academic' paper. No evidence, just vague accusation after vague accusation and further claims from people the author agrees with.
Absolutely none of it is backed up by anything and it doesn't address any actual GC arguments. It's quite fascinating really. Real head in the sand stuff

Your post is not getting the love it deserves CuriousEats. I'm going to be smiling about it for days.

I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure

You mean, you want to strip her of her humanity in order that you can turn her into a hate figure?

Unsurprised.

It doesn't actually taste salty but that doesn't matter because it identifies as sodium.