Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Can anyone summarise main points of Kathleen Stock’s views on gender?

114 replies

Inamuddle36 · 13/05/2023 15:50

KS has been invited to speak at the Oxford Union and 5+ colleges have formally complained and there is a growing movement to try to force the Union to disinvite her and/or provide counselling for students who become upset by KS’s comments.
I asked a few Oxford students what they thought about the controversy. None of them knew any details about KS’s views but, as one of them said “people we like and respect disagree with her so we assume we would disagree, too.”
It is, of course, not unreasonable to borrow views from other thoughtful people (I am about to do so myself!). But I was surprised none of them (all very “woke”) had any insight into KS other than that she was someone with whom they should disagree.
So…. I have begun to read “Material Girls” to inform myself so I can attempt to have a further conversation. I am finding it a bit dense and academic — not unintelligible, but harder work than I expected. I will continue to read — but wonder whether anyone else has delved into her work already and could provide the potted (well informed) summary and/or point me to the most relevant chapters or other essays that might be helpful.
I would be grateful for collective wisdom!

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
WarriorN · 15/05/2023 21:44

This is quite a good summary of her views - responding to the report that 1 in 10 children have or want to "change gender." On times radio.

zibzibara · 15/05/2023 18:38

@Inamuddle36 maybe could quote the first couple of paragraphs of Chapter 8 at them and see how they take that?

howdoesatoastermaketoast · 15/05/2023 15:49

@Inamuddle36 cool, do also feel free to come here for a bit of rant too. Asking the questions and sharing the 'is this person really actually saying this?' face that we can't necessarily share in day to day life is a common phenomenon.

Original poster
Inamuddle36 · 15/05/2023 13:00

Thanks, Amaryllis. Have bought the HJ book to add to my reading list. Following today’s news reports that more than 50% of teens know at least one person who is changing or wishes to change gender, I feel a need to understand the subject (phenomenon?) much better than I do. Will report back if I have any great insights.

OP posts:
AmaryllisNightAndDay · 15/05/2023 09:35

I am an academic myself, and I found "Material Girls" a little academic and dense. She does need careful reading rather than skimming. I still can't really figure out the difference between two of her four meanings of "gender" Smile But her reasoning is carefully explained, step by step and considering counter-arguments along the way. And her point is well made that people take an argument that could reasonably apply to one meaning of "gender" and then sneakily shift to using the same argument but with a different meaning of the same word.

Now if you want the short sharp shock version, that's Helen Joyce "Trans". Joyce is a journalist/editor and a very good one - she takes a story, fillets out the essential points and slaps them down in front of you, with no ifs, buts or maybes. I like her writing too, she has the evidence, she is factual and a sharp thinker. But she's not for the fainthearted!

Helleofabore · 15/05/2023 09:18

I have also found this recent Twitter conversation interesting too.

https://twitter.com/docstockk/status/1652971362519068673?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

I think Dr Stock tries to be fair and to listen to all opinions. Hence, her attending this event would be a great opportunity for those wishing to convince others. She will respectfully listen and interact.

She also seems to be less inclined to do ‘guilt by association’ even when being pressed to do so.

https://twitter.com/docstockk/status/1652971362519068673?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

NotHavingIt · 15/05/2023 09:16

BonfireLady · 14/05/2023 21:49

True. Perhaps I would benefit from hearing the "reasonable"/palatable sounding end of their argument so that I could hear for myself how they might crank that in to something more acceptable without public opinion realising what is happening. Like how Hitler hopped his way along from saying what the public could endorse in a "reasonable way" at the start (off the back of the economic crash) all the way to the Holocaust. He carefully crafted public opinion of a significant enough portion of the population along the way.

Show quote history

I'm unclear what sort of texts you are referring to here?

But whatever the case - your students? must have been exposed to and reading all sorts of queer theory texts and trans affirmative ones and the Hitler analogies could just as well work for them, too. Especially the Nazi ideas around eugenics ( manipulation of human form and biology in pursuit of an ideal)

TheBiologyStupid · 14/05/2023 23:45

howdoesatoastermaketoast · 13/05/2023 19:45

@Inamuddle36 you may find this of use https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/doing-better-in-arguments-about-sex-and-gender-3bec3fc4bdb6

Thanks for the link. I'm presuming (can't imagine why...) that the questions posed at the end by the authors never got answered?

Original poster
Inamuddle36 · 14/05/2023 23:09

FKAT: By saying I found Material Girls “dense”, I didn’t mean to suggest I couldn’t or wouldn’t read it. As I realised it would be a “quick skim and catch all the nuances of the argument”, I thought so would simultaneously ask for summaries and/or views from others who had read the book or otherwise were familiar with KS’s arguments and the wider arguments, as well. I have now been distracted by all the helpful links so haven’t got back to the book but will try to do so tomorrow.

OP posts:
FKATondelayo · 14/05/2023 22:38

MargotBamborough · 14/05/2023 14:56

The thing is though, you can't simultaneously posit that everyone has a gender identity, and also that those of us without blue hair and special pronouns don't have the necessary lived experience to opine on it.

Either it is something that only a few special people have, meaning that we cannot possibly organise things like public toilets and sports according to it, or we all have one, in which case we are all equally expert in the subject and perfectly entitled to contradict the woke brigades received wisdom.

Which is it?

Show quote history

I'm not sure why you quoted me here. I agree with you.

My post was taking issue with those on here who claim Material Girls is academic and dense.

TheBiologyStupid · 14/05/2023 21:52

Helleofabore · 14/05/2023 20:32

Thanks muddle.

Seems like an ideal scenario for respectful interrogation of the opinions she holds then.

Absolutely. I'm trying to imagine who on the other side of the issue would be willing to do the same, but coming up empty. No wonder they so actively promoted "No Debate!"

BonfireLady · 14/05/2023 21:49

NotHavingIt · 14/05/2023 18:37

I think it is worth investigating all speech for yourself, directly - and certainly if it has been "legally classed as hate speech" ( which of course nothing by any of these authors has). Just the notion of 'hate speech' is itself a reason for further investigation I would have thought. Plus, if you don't understand your 'opponent's ' position, how on earth can you effectively counter it?

Isn't this the sort of stuff that universities are supposed to be engaged in?

Show quote history

True. Perhaps I would benefit from hearing the "reasonable"/palatable sounding end of their argument so that I could hear for myself how they might crank that in to something more acceptable without public opinion realising what is happening. Like how Hitler hopped his way along from saying what the public could endorse in a "reasonable way" at the start (off the back of the economic crash) all the way to the Holocaust. He carefully crafted public opinion of a significant enough portion of the population along the way.

howdoesatoastermaketoast · 14/05/2023 21:09

I agree that she has become more robust in how she phrases things since Material girls came out.

Helleofabore · 14/05/2023 20:32

Thanks muddle.

Seems like an ideal scenario for respectful interrogation of the opinions she holds then.

Original poster
Inamuddle36 · 14/05/2023 20:15

Helleofabore · 14/05/2023 19:13

Does anyone know what DocStock is doing on the 30th May? Is it a debate or is it her talking and answering questions? Because I cannot find details about the actual event.

Apparently, KS will speak and be questioned by the President of the OU and audience. The full description is on the Oxford Union fb page. I can’t copy and paste so am just typing the first few sentences:
“On the 30th of May, Professor Stock will be interviewed by the president. After this, our members will have the opportunity to question and challenge Professor Stock at our despatch boxes, where any member who asks a question will have an opportunity to ask a follow up question.”

OP posts:
howdoesatoastermaketoast · 14/05/2023 20:13

Helleofabore · 14/05/2023 19:13

Does anyone know what DocStock is doing on the 30th May? Is it a debate or is it her talking and answering questions? Because I cannot find details about the actual event.

It would seem to be a talk followed by extended Q&A

HBGKC · 14/05/2023 19:41

www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,kathleen-stock-i-wont-be-bullied-into-submission-18395

An interesting article from Jan 2022, with a bit more personal background information as well as the evolution of her viewpoint on 'gender identity'.

Helleofabore · 14/05/2023 19:13

Does anyone know what DocStock is doing on the 30th May? Is it a debate or is it her talking and answering questions? Because I cannot find details about the actual event.

howdoesatoastermaketoast · 14/05/2023 18:45

@Inamuddle36 In your position I would consider asking questions e.g.

Some people literally believe that people have souls, some people do not. Some of the people who believe in souls believe quite literally that souls can come in women's souls and men's souls and that these souls can be born in the wrong bodies and that that explains homosexuality, gender non-conformity, etc. and that this is what being trans is. Other perfectly progressive people don't believe in that at all, and totally don't think that that is what gender identity is. Clearly people who already don't believe in souls will find it easier to not believe that souls can be literally be inherently feminine or masculine.

What do they believe? Why? Are they the sort of beliefs that are ok to discuss and think about like the pros, cons and appropriate implementations of socialism or are they special like asking what the evidence is for a particular tenet of someone's faith?

It is part of the social contract that we tend to not ask hard or intrusive questions about people's religions. Do they think these ideas and beliefs are like that? That you can't question or discuss or consider implications and side effects because that would be offensive in the same way heresy is?

If the ideas are to be treated as 'special' like religion it is perhaps worth considering that in exchange religious people don't berate people who aren't Christian for being a sinner/ bad Christian. Is there a parallel where it's like people in Christian Soc might not approve of an event but people who aren't believers should be free to participate?

If the ideas are not 'special' and don't need to be treated like a religion should ideas not be thoroughly discussed and considered from all angles before laws are changed or policies are rewritten? What is it that is different about these ideas?

Proceed with caution and good luck

NotHavingIt · 14/05/2023 18:37

BonfireLady · 14/05/2023 09:44

I've just finished reading this @howdoesatoastermaketoast (and the rest of the really interesting thread), thank you for sharing.

I agree that it could be useful to share this with the students. They may even enjoy thinking about the questions at the end.

Hopefully they'll want to listen, even if it's just to hear first hand the views with which they think they would probably disagree (i.e. to test their assertion that her views must be disagreeable because some people they respect disagree with her views). When I was a student, that alone would make me curious enough to go along.

Obviously there would be a line. Would I want to spend my time listening to something that has been legally classed as hate speech? I'm thinking extreme religious speech that is designed to radicalise. No, it would be a waste of my time because I can already assume I know enough about the content. But there is plenty of precedent in plenty of places (e.g. Maya Forstater's tribunal or the recent Joanna Cherry case where the venue accepted that they were legally in the wrong to exclude her) that makes it clear that it's not hate speech. Therefore, it's surely worth hearing what she says. If they disagree with her views at the end of the talk, that's fine.

Show quote history

I think it is worth investigating all speech for yourself, directly - and certainly if it has been "legally classed as hate speech" ( which of course nothing by any of these authors has). Just the notion of 'hate speech' is itself a reason for further investigation I would have thought. Plus, if you don't understand your 'opponent's ' position, how on earth can you effectively counter it?

Isn't this the sort of stuff that universities are supposed to be engaged in?

NotHavingIt · 14/05/2023 18:30

occupied

NotHavingIt · 14/05/2023 18:30

NicCageisnotNickCave · 14/05/2023 15:54

Perhaps!

I hadn’t thought of it that way but you are likely right, many of the women who have the most clarity on this topic, Germaine Greer, Julia Long, Sheila Jeffreys, Kellie-Jay, Lionel Shriver et al don’t seem give a single solitary shit about being liked!

Perhaps Stock is on the way to that stage (the most recent interview I have watched was the Coleman Hughes one and that was filmed a few months ago)?

I do sometimes wonder if it is the desire to remain associated with the left that keeps one stuck in the mists of Be Kind (to everyone except other GC women!) to the point that true clarity is never quite achieved, Jane Clare Jones suffers from this, to my mind, and Julie Bindel too.

Show quote history

I think it is simply a matter of Katleen Stock not identifying herself totally via feminism, or as a feminist. She is primarily a philosopher, and doesn't want to get boxed in, or confined by predicatable positions, including left leaning ones such a those ossupied by Bindel and Jane Clare Jones.

Personally thought Helen Joyce's book was far more readable and straightforward, though, for the average lay person.

Pluvia · 14/05/2023 18:23

Perhaps Stock is on the way to that stage (the most recent interview I have watched was the Coleman Hughes one and that was filmed a few months ago)?

I think she's almost certainly shifted her position a bit. Haven't we all? I can remember when Material Girls first came out and my feminist book group were peeved at how accommodating she was. We'd had the Maria LcLachlan case where Maria was compelled to use female pronouns for her male attacker and we'd read Pronouns are Rohypnol and we weren't prepared to 'do' pronouns to be nice.

One of our number reminded us that she'd effectively been involved in a long abusive relationship in which she'd had to behave very well to survive for years and we were also aware of how difficult at that time it was to get anything GC published. This was before Trans and Irreversible Damage proved that there was a market for GC books.

I cut her more slack when I heard her speak — which I have twice now, including last year at Hay, and when I think of the public and academic support women like Jo Phoenix had. I think we've all grown firmer and more confident about where we stand and I think I see that in her too. I think that KS has actually, by being so reasonable, made it quite difficult for trans ideologists to argue against her. Whereas with KJK, whom I'm not dissing, it's easy to find reasons not to consider her argument if you don't want to.

MargotBamborough · 14/05/2023 18:18

The question isn't whether we have the right to offend, because on this particular issue there is no way of not offending anyone.

I am as offended by trans women's belief that they are women as they are offended by my belief that they are not.

The question is who has the right to have their feelings considered and who just has to suck it up.