“I'm not on board with the argument that all transwomen are AGP or have malicious intentions.”
No one has said they all have AGP, that’s the problem, we are well aware that some are gay. Neither did feminists say all individual AGPs are out to attack women. By saying these things in the book Stock is either deliberately misrepresenting the arguments that radical feminists have been making, or she hasn’t read Sheila Jeffreys’ book and has not listened to the arguments at all.
What feminists are actually saying is fetishising women like AGPs do, because it is sexually exciting to them, is itself misogynistic. It is nothing to do with thinking they all may actually attack us (though some have). Neither do we want to participate in a male’s sexual fetish by validating them as any kind of woman, e.g. by referring to them as any kind of woman etc.
Stock’s counter argument is males are just as much victims of a culture that objectifies women as women are, no acknowledgement by Stock that males created and benefit from a culture that objectifies women though I see. Instead because many women eroticise their own oppression, women shouldn’t criticise males who fetishise women, as that would be mean. Instead of “kink shaming” them we should ‘destigmatise’ AGP apparently, as three male psychologists (one who is a self confessed AGP) think that is beneficial for those males. What is beneficial for females clearly doesn’t enter into it.
I wonder if white people in the US started pretending to be black, putting on blackface, and acting out slavery scenes, because they found black people’s oppression sexually arousing, would Stock also think those white people should be seen as victims of a racist culture as much as black people? Or would she think it reasonable if black people felt disgusted, revolted and extremely offended by it and condemned it? If she thinks it’s ok to condemn fetishisation when it relates to race but not when it relates to the female sex I wonder why that may be?