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

Mind you the one at Cambridge was about the right to offend people. But it does show her mind in how she words things.

Perhaps these links will help OP.

This one is a discussion at Uni of Austin with McClusky

This one is a debate at Cambridge. I expect this one may be similar to what Oxford Union is hoping for.

Absolutely THIS!

I have her book in a stack on my bedside table, along with Victoria Smith’s Hags, I am going to start it later, I had a few other things to finish so hadn’t got round to it.
I have ordered another book of hers that sounds interesting too.

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.

Do you mean nicer as in “nicer”?

That’s the problem isn’t it?

Nice = logically inconsistent (so as to not offend those offended by what is true).

I think feminists and philosophers should prioritise truthfulness far above niceness… but then again, the crap she has faced has been extraordinary, so it is unfair to hold her to it.

’Survival niceness’ has compromised her intellect, I suppose.

I think she’s shifted quite a bit eg re: pronouns.

I prefer Helen Joyce’s clarity, personally, but the idea that Stock is somehow dangerous or extreme Is funny to me.

She’s much nicer than most of us 😂

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?

I haven’t read her book, but I have found her positions on this inconsistent in interviews and articles. Although I like her style, I don’t think she contributes much to ‘feminist discourse’ per se, more that her writings seem to be from a defensive position, so they only make sense if you are familiar with her attacker’s position.

I don't understand the issue with reading the book. It's a short book and perfectly clear. My mum whose only qualifications are O-levels and food hygiene read it and understood it. I am not an academic or philosopher and it read fine to me and it took 2 days to finish. Some of the comments on this thread will only deter potential readers and position 'gender identity' as this incredibly esoteric concept that only Clever People or those with Lived Experience can possibly grasp.

I think there is a concerted attempt by academia to complicate and confuse perfectly simple concepts that everyone understands. It's either elitist grandstanding or a pyramid scheme. Or both.

I have been listening to her in conversation on Unherd via the link from a pp. She is so reasonable and human. I wish she was one of my daughter’s tutors .

And Kathleen Stick is a serious academic with far more chops than Helen Joyce.

I think you may have just highlighted the problem with academia. I can understand every word and concept that comes out of Helen's mouth, and she's able to communicate complex ideas in language that the average person can understand. 'More chops' in academia is not necessarily the badge of honour you seem to think it is.

Sally Hines, Grace Lavery, Judith Butler, EJ Reynold... Have you read about the Grievance Affair? Those people have more chops in academia than HJ too. I think we're long past the situation where being an academic is something to shout about.

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.

I know that Prof Stock gets shit from GC people at times because of her arguments about transition and its legitimacy and importance. I can't imagine anyone with strong views in this area not benefiting from reading her book. That doesn't mean I think it's perfect or that I agree with it all. I'm also not trained in philosophy, though I don't think you have to be to get something out of it.

My main objection was that I felt it complicated things that could be simpler. But I also think that one of the reasons political debate is so poor now is the need to fit everything into Twitter. The world does not work like twitter, humans don't fit into limited characters or slogans. Stock shows that. As @SunbowRainshine31 amply demonstrated above - try and stick simple labels on people and you inevitably end up with nonsense.

Universities have tons of non-academic staff that are responsible for room bookings etc.

No reason for OP to out herself for the sake of a MN thread (even if the cover story was made up it’s still a good opportunity to discuss Stock’s very measured opinions).

What does this mean?

Legitimate as what?

Are trans people legitimate as human beings? Yes of course, as are we all.

Are they legitimate as a member of the opposite sex? No. Because words have meaning.

I don't accept gender identity as a legitimate way of classifying someone as a man or a woman, because many of us don't have gender identities and would be excluded from both groups if gender identity were the relevant factor. Everyone has a sex though. Everyone is either male or female, including trans people. And male and female aren't words for an indefinable, subjective feeling or identity. They are words for biological sex. They mean the same thing in humans as they do in other animals. This is why someone who was born with a penis can never be female, or a woman.

Have a gender identity if you wish. But it has nothing to do with anybody else.

OP is it alright if we ask you how you have access to these Oxford students? The students don't want to read differing views but if you are one of their professors or in any teaching capacity to them, how is it that you yourself find a study difficult to follow?

Yep.

And the only successful approach here would be the same as for anyone caught up in a similar highly ingroup mode of thinking, such as for a religion or cult or political craze: they have to come to the conclusions and make the mental connections themselves about the insanity.

So presenting the disconnections, the things which do not add up, the inconsistencies, the deep misogyny, the faulty arguments (Montgomery) in contrast to the reasoned ones (Stock) neutrally, but allowing THEM to draw the conclusion as if they discovered it is the thing that works. That way they “own” their own discovery because they came to it via their own critical thinking.

Also known as “peaking” in this context because most of us, myself included, had to come to our own conclusions based on the jarring contrast between what we were being told by our friends and what we were/are experiencing with our own eyes and experiences of misogyny throughout our lives. But I’m a female, so my social and bodily female experiences come into play here. For men who have peaked, it seems to be one of three triggers, all of which can peak women, too: fairness, free speech, and having female relatives they want to protect and whom they want to thrive. But for both men and women, for most of us we had to figure it out on our own. It’s highly disturbing that Oxbridge students are not able to think critically about this.

So lead the horses to water, sure, OP, but only they can decide to drink or stand there petulant and parched instead. You will not be able to convince their horsey minds unless they self-convince; they have to individuate the reasoning for themselves on their own terms. All you can do is to make sure they have all the information and debate they can get.

Good luck with the good fight, OP.

Woman can not have any insight on any level about being 'trans' yet men can have all the insight into being 'women'...how does that work exactly?

Can you explain what you mean by 'anti-trans'? Stock is not anti-trans. Perhaps a different definition? After you've defined it, can you tell us what she said that made you think she's anti-trans?

What do you mean by legitimate in this context?

What reality and practicalities are you referring to?

She obviously does have insight into being a lesbian - something no man can ever have. She has insight into her own gender identity or lack thereof (I don't know if she's one of those people with one or not).

She does have insight into what philosophy is and does so she can look at trans ideology through that lens to a level that most people can't. You're talking about personal experience which is different than philosophical examination.

@Merida46 that's beautiful thanks

I went to university in the 70s when they were establishments that taught students how to think whereas nowadays they seem to teach students what to think. As for the gender ideology it can be summed up in this poem.
He tells her
by Rachel Irischild. (after Wendy Cope)

He tells her he's a woman too, he has a ladybrain
He tells her his identity and hers; they are the same
He tells her not to talk about her body; it's not fair
Her body is her privilege his own, a cross to bear

He tells her that she cannot talk or otherwise allude
To what her female body does it's nasty to exclude
He says respect diversity except he would prefer
That she not point out all the ways that he's diverse from her

He tells her that biology does not impact her life
She should still bear his children but she must call him 'wife'
He says that words must all evolve she must learn to make do
And now that woman is his word he's taking 'female' too

He tells her that a woman is whatever he decides
He will not put it into words she must not ask, he chides
He tells her he is more oppressed than she has ever been
He says she must agree with him or else she's being mean

She searches for the words she needs to talk about herself
The billions who exist like her, their lives, their rights, their health
Whatever word she chooses now he finds a way to spin it
The conversation carries on...........but she's no longer in it

Reading the latter parts of this thread I am reminded of a time, a few years back, when transactivists strayed, inadvertently, a little too close to the truth when they argued that nobody who was an ally should ever read any “terf” materials because “terfs” had a dangerous habit of making their arguments sound like common sense and quite reasonable.

More context - not to discourage you from reading, understanding and arguing from the primary text, but because many of these protesters are determined NOT to read any part of the book and NOT to listen to or consider Stock’s arguments. Their case rests on an intentional, constructed MISUNDERSTANDING of her work and views. (I'm not claiming that any specific individual is deliberately misleading others, but the repetition of a rumour one hasn't verified IS misleading and is an example of spreading disinformation).

As Stock herself points out, in her recent comments about the objections to her upcoming Oxford talk (linked at the bottom, as I can't get it to link here without deleting part of my text): the crux of the argument against her is that SHE is a bad person, and therefore it would be dangerous and wrong to listen to or consider ANYTHING she has to say - which logically precludes reading even sections of her book or attending or watching any of her lectures or presentations. Here is a current example.

The main complaint about Stock, which precedes the book and is naturally much more important among people who haven’t read the book, is that she signed the 2019 international Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. Her detractors typically openly oppose not only women’s rights in general but (crucially) any opportunity for women to speak freely about those rights. Stock is also vilified for her status as a trustee of the charity LGB Alliance (UK), which is attacked for focusing on sexual orientation rather than gender identity - although the many charities who do the converse are not similarly criticised.

There’s a video from June 2020, before Material Girls came out and when she was quite a bit less well-known/infamous, of Stock in conversation with Siân and Emma, two British transwomen who transitioned in the ‘90s. Unfortunately I don't think the video is available anywhere now, as Emma took a break from social media and her "Brompton Road" channel is deactivated. But it was very interesting to see the view of Stock's work from actual trans people with some experience and perspective over time, in contrast to the vitriol from people who know someone who knows someone who has an opinion about how “trans rights activists” (frequently not themselves trans, and very often themselves misogynistic and homophobic) feel about the current climate and Stock’s views.

If I were speaking face to face with people determined to stop Stock from speaking at Oxford, I'd start by pressing them very specifically about WHY she should not speak, WHAT she has said that is wrong, WHAT she would have to change in order for them to admit that it MIGHT be OK for her to speak (this is critical). To go out and arm yourself against any and all objections so that you might break through using Stock's own ideas and words to is admirable, but it may be pointless when the issue is NOT grounded in or even congruent with her words or her beliefs.

Link to Stock's recent comments via YouTube: