Review of Trans (Joyce) and Material Girls (Stock)

[MaryMargotMaynard]

I just came across this review which covers Trans by Helen Joyce and Material Girls by Kathleen Stock. Has anyone else read the review? I don't quite know what to think - I'm really concerned about the accusations in it about Joyce's book not actually standing up to fact checking, and the idea that both books are toxic. I'd really appreciate thoughts!

criticallegalthinking.com/2021/10/08/review-of-helen-joyces-trans-when-ideology-meets-reality-london-oneworld-2021-pp-311-rp-16-99-and-kathleen-stocks-material-girls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-london-fle/#_ftn24

I haven't read them yet, I was trying to figure out which (or both) to buy and read so I was looking at reviews when I came across this one. It seemed out of step with the others so I was wondering if there was any truth to it or if it was an outlier for a reason.

Did you not look at the source, ie a blog, and further explore who the reviewer was?

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur I'm really sorry, I'm new to all this and honestly don't know what makes a good or bad or trustworthy reviewer. It's why I came here to ask about it. I really appreciate everyone's input on this.

Like I said, I've been trying to figure out which book to buy because I don't want to read anything that's biased, which is why that review worried me so I figured I'd ask here. I didn't know where else I could go.

Although I agree that it's best to read materials from all sides of the debate, it's worth being in mind that the recommendation for Shon Faye's book by another pp doesn't mention that it's Shon Faye of 'enjoy your erasure' tweet fame and so very unlikely to be a balanced analysis of the debate.

@Waitwhat23 is that related to the New Statesman article/review I posted the link to? The article was shared with me by a gender critical colleague (in advance of our having a meeting to discuss her objections to our organisation’s membership of the Stonewall diversity champions scheme), and I agreed with her that it is one of the most balanced pieces I’ve read on this topic.

@Helen8220 I certainly agree with you that the article you linked is very balanced. My previous point is that Shon Faye's work (as a recommended reading in the article) is less so. Not much evidence and lots of personal feelings.

Thank you for clarifying. What did you think about the reviewer’s assessment of Helen Joyce’s book?

Rather interesting. There's a point made about Joyce labelling transpeople as general narcissists which I can certainly agree with the reviewer that this is an unfair generalisation and certainly doesn't help the debate. On the whole though, the only real criticisms by the reviewer is that Joyce can be 'unkind'. The evidence which Joyce presents is generally viewed by the writer as points with merit.

As I said previously, Faye's book is personal accounts as opposed to Joyce's examination of evidence. It's a strange compare and contrast. A review of two contrasting personal accounts or two contrasting evidence based accounts would have been more successful.

Just read them both and make your own judgment… if you can only afford one, I’ll buy the other for you - or… libraries still exist…

I've been trying to figure out which book to buy because I don't want to read anything that's biased

Pretty much everything you read has a bias. That's true on this topic and it's true of almost all other topics. The thing is to read critically, not to search for some perfect fully objective source, which you will never find.

Having read both, my recommendation would be to read Joyce. I found that it was both clearer written and had a focus I preferred.

Nice try

@Waitwhat23 interesting, thank you. I suppose one reason for reviewing the two books side by side might be to highlight that both perspectives and sources of information are important in this discussion - data and evidence on the one hand, and personal accounts and theoretical analysis of conceptual frameworks on the other.

@PamDenick thank you! Although I did actually join my local library yesterday, the chances of me finding the time to get through either book are sadly pretty slim. My day job is pretty reading-intensive so I don’t do a lot in my own time.

Pretty much everything you read has a bias. That's true on this topic and it's true of almost all other topics. The thing is to read critically, not to search for some perfect fully objective source, which you will never find

Very true

I haven’t read it all but I’ve got far enough to see that the author is either grasping at straws or not intellectually up to the task or both. Eg, when Joyce talks about the difference between the U.K. and the US she is being deliberately speculative, not claiming that her suggestions are hard fact, which is how the reviewer attempts to treat them. I think this is just disingenuous. The reviewer also attempts to suggest that Joyce treats Lili Elbe in her book as though she were an autogynephile. Actually Joyce treats Elbe, quite rightly, as distinct from this category and as an early example of what we used to call transsexuals (mostly homosexual boys/men with gender dysphoric behaviours usually beginning in childhood who really wish to have a woman’s body. I can’t tell if this is spin or misunderstanding. I suspect the rest of the review is similarly poor quality.

@MaryMargotMaynard
Buy and read both. The basic premise in both is arguably that sex/biology is real and to pretend this is not so is to do a disservice (and damage) to women. They are different books and both read-worthy in their own right. Joyce's is possibly a more straight-forward read so maybe it is the one to start with.

Stock's book is referenced so you can double-check any of the sources.
Joyce's isn't and she has explained why (in the Economist they don't reference, they check sources prior to publication and readers rely on that). She has said with the benefit of hindsight she should have but she doesn't come from academia where it is the norm, but from journalism where it isn't.

There are excellent reviews of both books out there. I wouldn't be put off because of one, particularly when it is more axe-to-grind than considered review.

Happy reading!

Went to read the review. Saw it was by Alex Sharpe. Decided to do something else.

Outliers get clicks. If there are 50 sources saying Boris Johnson ate a biscuit and one saying he ate a dogshit sandwich, which one are people going to click on?

in advance of our having a meeting to discuss her objections to our organisation’s membership of the Stonewall diversity champions scheme

Good for her, but you should probably not splash that all over a website read by people who are hostile to that, however anonymous you think you are. Look at what is happening to Kathleen Stock. It's a breach of privacy.