Difficult conversation re Kathleen Stock

[mynameisnotkate]

I was having a conversation with a friend about how I'm a bit fed up with UCU, and one of the reasons I brought up was their total failure to support Kathleen Stock. I'm aware this friend feels very differently on gender topics to me, and we usually avoid talking about it. She immediately said that she and I feel very differently about that issue, implying she didn't think UCU had acted badly. I asked if she'd read her book and she said she had read parts of it (which I must admit, is more than I have ...). I said that I thought that whether or not you agreed with her position, everyone should have the right to feel safe at work and that the union should be supporting people who are under threat, and she said that she felt the way KS had acted was a big part of the problem and she didn't agree with a lot of what she had done.

I didn't know what she was talking about - I'm not aware of KS acting in ways that would increase the problems she was facing - but wasn't really sure how to address this and we agreed not to discuss this then and there. I'd like to talk it through with her though, and feel it would be helpful to be better informed - especially to get a view of the situation from 'the other side' - I've not read much about it that's not from a GC point of view - not because I think this will change my opinion but because I want to understand how this looks to someone who is very empathic and feminist but who sees gender issues completely differently to me.

I find it so difficult to discuss gender issues - it makes me so stressed and anxious! I'm not sure why - I'm usually very confident and don't mind if people disagree with me. Any thoughts about how to discuss this would be very welcome!

she said that she felt the way KS had acted was a big part of the problem and she didn't agree with a lot of what she had done

What were the ways she was acting or what is it she did that your friend didn't agree with?

Its probably worth giving this interview a listen to get the idea of what shes been saying and whats been happening to her at the university:
unherd.com/2021/10/the-hounding-of-kathleen-stock/

If your friend doesn't agree with what KS has done then presumably she can say what it is KS is supposed to have done

Until your friend can tell you what it is that Kathleen Stock has said or done that she disagrees with, you're just dealing with an emotional reaction.

Little wonder that it feels uncomfortable. You're completely in the dark.

I suspect that even if you get to the point where she can tell you what she thinks, it will still be an emotional reaction, not based at all on any evidence.

Which is why it's stressful and anxiety inducing.

It's not based on a to and fro of ideas rooted in evidence.

@Ionlydomassiveones

People are so blinkered about it, I think it’s a form of denial. Surely no one with half a brain thinks people can magically change sex? But the earnestness when they talk about it is utterly terrifying. Especially when you take a long hard look at society and see who the real winners and losers are. It ain’t biological women.

I find it utterly, utterly baffling - maybe that’s one of the reasons it’s hard to talk about it. It’s just so hard to understand where people are coming from.

Re how KS should have behaved - I’ll ask her what she means by this when we discuss it more, but I wondered if anyone knew what she might be referring to so that I could think about why she might take that position.

Thanks for the article link, that’s really helpful.

@WomanStillNotAFeeling

If your friend doesn't agree with what KS has done then presumably she can say what it is KS is supposed to have done

I'm sure KS will be keen to find out what it is she is supposed to have done, the OP's friend could clear up a lot of questions.

OP can you let your friend know I'm here on tenderhooks waiting for this revelation of what KS did. Thanks.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what she is supposed to have done as well. She has behaved far too politely if you ask me, but there has been not even a hint of misconduct at work. (We would all know about it if there had been.) She used preferred pronouns and names without any issue, when defending herself she never actually called out any individuals, there were no reports of anything going on with her teaching.

It'll be her signing the Women's Human Rights Declaration and being a trustee of LGB Alliance. Which is slim pickings if you're justifying someone being harassed at work because of something they've done outside of work. Especially since the latter came long after the harassment started.

Your friend has probably received a very distorted account of the truth. TRAs have accused her of all sorts. I didn't pay attention to it, honestly, so I can't even remember what they were saying, but I think Grace Lavery was one of the people disseminating the TRA version of the story. So if you want to know what your friend thinks she's done, you could hold your nose and Google what Lavery has said about her.

Maybe one of the trolls will even make themselves useful for once and explain the TRA side, though I suspect it might be hard to do that on here because they'll get deleted for libel.

I have no idea what KS has done or said that got her tarred & feathered, as Richard Dawkins put it. Everything I have heard her say has been moderate and measured. I suspect that's been one of the problems as they seem to leave firebrands alone - far too dangerous. So they bully and harass intellectual women.

...another one waiting with baited breath.

@WomanStillNotAFeeling

If your friend doesn't agree with what KS has done then presumably she can say what it is KS is supposed to have done

This reminds me of when it was discussed on Question Time when that one brave soul asked “what exactly is it that she’s done” and the response from the host was an entirely reasonable quote from KS about respecting trans people and some mumbling about tweets.

Ionlydomassiveones

People are so blinkered about it, I think it’s a form of denial. Surely no one with half a brain thinks people can magically change sex? But the earnestness when they talk about it is utterly terrifying. Especially when you take a long hard look at society and see who the real winners and losers are. It ain’t biological women.

^ you’ve only got to look at how many people have been sucked into believing in crystals and law of attraction to contemplate how many brain cells the majority of us can use.

I expect it based on a couple of tra blogs about Kathleen. One by christa peterson who is a postgraduate student in America i think, in philosophy. She's one of a group of postgraduates and academics who have had it in for ks and the other gc philosophers from the beginning.

www.praile.com/post/kathleen-stock-obe

Kathleen's response here
kathleenstock.com/response-to-christa-petersons-blog/

Then there is this by grace lavery who you might of heard of. She seems to have turned herself into a near full time anti stock researcher. They are both absolutely obsessed. For example this nutty thread by lavery analysing stock's twitter interactions with peterson to show how evil stock is.
grace.substack.com/p/the-uk-media-has-seriously-bungled

I don't know if there is a rebuttal of it anywhere.

These blogs and twitter threads based on them have travelled far and wide. I expect your friend has based her opinion on this type of thing. Basically, they can't justify the treatment of stock based on her actual arguments about gender, so they basing it on

• She signed the whrc declaration (with a v warped interpretation of what it says. Imo there are valid criticisms of it even from a gc perspective & it doesn't match ks's own current position, but it doesn't seek to eliminate trans ppl or anything stupid).
• she's a trustee of lgba (and again v warped claims about their intentions)
• She has bullied and silenced some students. This one is completely mad, and relies on the fact that she has countered defamatory claims by some students (who are not her own students).

I hope that might help.

Sorry this was the nutty thread. The link above is the blog.
mobile.twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1451303658554019843

She doesn’t want to discuss it in detail because her beliefs are tribal, not rational. People in the trans-activist camp hide behind phrases like “let’s not argue” or “it’s not my responsibility to educate you.” They don’t want to leave the echo chamber, it’s a lot like trying to talk to a cult member.

I hate the attack on women’s safe spaces, but the attack on civilised and rational free debate is even more scary. And it’s happening at universities, which should be the biggest champions of free debate.

It’s very strange.

If a workers union don’t feel obliged to recognise workplace harassment, sex based discrimination, back up the need for single sex employment, protect sexual orientation (same sex attraction), recognise the part that sex plays in religious beliefs, recognise sex based issues like pregnancy and menopause that can affect employment, recognise the intersectional issues some face (black women) etc. then what is the point in paying your fees. Protected characteristics treated like pick n mix.

If a teachers and academics union can’t see the need to back freedom of speech and the need to back teaching of facts and science...

Also - That a lesbian lecturer can be targeted this way in 2021 is just astonishing.

I think that if your friend believes Kathleen Stock's transgressions were so serious that she forfeited the right trade union support then the onus is entirely on her to explain what she did.

I would also ask her which parts of the book she read.

Then there is this by grace lavery who you might of heard of. She seems to have turned herself into a near full time anti stock researcher. They are both absolutely obsessed. For example this nutty thread by lavery analysing stock's twitter interactions with peterson to show how evil stock is.

I read the article by Lavery referenced above. I read until the bit where she "analyses" section 1c of the Declaration on Women's rights, and manages to waffle on spuriously for a number of paragraphs. The waffle basically cherry picks the juicy bits to make it look like the Declaration wants to "eliminate trans women in law". However, the argument, tenuous at best, only makes sense if you assume there are only two positions possible - first, that trans women are in every respect indistinguishable from non trans women and second, that any attempt to argue that there is a categorical difference (such as suggesting that TW are male and non TW are female) is the same as denying that TW exist at all. Lavery then goes on to argue that to do this is a form of genocide.

It's all a bit weird, and reminds me of a tortuous argument I had when I was 12 with a friend who challenged me to prove, logically, that I existed. That sort of thing is fun when you're twelve.

Anyway, Lavery's article is a fun read and a goldmine for examples of lousy argument - useful when your job is teaching people how to write essays.

we agreed not to discuss this then and there. I'd like to talk it through with her though

Do you mean that your friend shut down the conversation or that it was a mutual decision as you were both getting upset about the disagreement?

Will she be open to discussing it further?

What did she do?

Isn't her crime to not shut up when told to?

Sorry to have disappeared, and thanks for all the comments, they're so useful.. I'll hold my nose and read Lavery - I think it's always important to have an understanding of where dissenting arguments are coming from. I had an interesting discussion with DH about her position - he remind me of the phrase about it being impossible to get someone to believe something if their livelihood requires them not to believe it. She works a lot with young people and I think if her views were the same as mine the dissonance would be so severe it may be very hard / impossible for her to do her work, and probably impossible if anyone she works with knew those were her views. So maybe there's a bit of subconscious determination not to hear the arguments. I'm not sure how much I should push it ...

Anyway, two happy KS things happened to me today. I was on the picket line this morning and had a good chat with another picketer about how many people had left the union because of the political stance taken by UCU, and we both agreed that we were very upset by this and were unsure whether we could remain in the union (currently so divided on this - hate how UCU are behaving and don't want to give them my subs, but believe passionately in the trade union movement ...). Then I went to the bookshop to finally buy my copy of Material Girls and they were sold out, and I had a great chat with the two women at the till about how they can't keep up with demand, and then the new batch was delivered whilst we were chatting and popped up on the online stock system, and they raced round the shop trying to find it for me!

I do think most feminists - including you and KS in this - are just too nice.

I think the best form of defence in this kind of situation is attack. KS has done nothing wrong and nor have you. It's ridiculous that you're spending your free time researching libellous lies about KS on the internet, just because your friend has failed to do due diligence, and fallen for a load of misogynistic, homophobic baloney.

I would ask your friend why she supports violent thugs attacking a widely-respected lesbian academic, who is chiefly famous for standing up for both women's rights and LGB rights.

Why is she a supporter of violent thugs attacking women? Does she not realise that saying 'well, she was asking for it' is not an excuse? That she is doing nothing better than witch-hunting?

I don't care if she works with young people. Young people are not a monolith. Plenty are GC too. And how are they going to learn anything if the adults in their lives fail to role model better behaviour, or show any moral fibre or intellectual curiosity?

Pah.

@xxyzz

I do think most feminists - including you and KS in this - are just too nice.

I think the best form of defence in this kind of situation is attack. KS has done nothing wrong and nor have you. It's ridiculous that you're spending your free time researching libellous lies about KS on the internet, just because your friend has failed to do due diligence, and fallen for a load of misogynistic, homophobic baloney.

I would ask your friend why she supports violent thugs attacking a widely-respected lesbian academic, who is chiefly famous for standing up for both women's rights and LGB rights.

Why is she a supporter of violent thugs attacking women? Does she not realise that saying 'well, she was asking for it' is not an excuse? That she is doing nothing better than witch-hunting?

I don't care if she works with young people. Young people are not a monolith. Plenty are GC too. And how are they going to learn anything if the adults in their lives fail to role model better behaviour, or show any moral fibre or intellectual curiosity?

Pah.

Thanks @xxyzz. I do feel it is a bit on me to do some research, because I actually don't know that much about what KS has said. I definitely have a bias in her favour, and its possible that this clouds my judgement. Having read a lot more on it thanks to the links on this post and having bought the book, I haven't changed my mind but feel I can now justify my opinion properly rather, which is a much stronger position to be in. It's on her to do this too of course!

Re working with young people ... hmm, I do think it depends on the kind of circles you're in. For sure young people are not a monolith and many are GC, but in certain circles I really think you would be hounded out for being GC - KS is a case in point I guess! I do agree that it is so important that adults stand up and hold the line, but at the same time the personal cost can potentially be so huge that I would be cautious about encouraging someone into that role - you have to be very robust to get through that I think. I personally am partially open about my GC beliefs at work and I think there are circumstances in which I would not stand up and defend them publicly. I'm not proud of this and look on it as a moral failing, but I don't have the courage to put my livelihood and well-being on the line. I have huge respect for the women who do this and wish I could be more like them. DH is much more vocal, but also male which helps! And working in an area that makes it much less of an issue.

Sorry, I didn't want you to think I was blaming you for not speaking up at work. Your safety and wellbeing need to take priority, unless you can afford to make that stand. I wasn't trying to victim blame you.

But your friend is going well beyond not speaking up at work through fear. She has chosen to attack you - her friend - and KS, a lesbian feminist, in her free time. I absolutely do blame her for her internalised misogyny and her lesbophobia.

I think all of us need to shift the bloody Overton window back firmly into the realm of reality. We need to stop engaging in pointless discussions about whether X feminist is 'transphobic' and start pointing out that those attacking X feminist are misogynists. That those attacking lesbians are lesbophobic or homophobic.

We need to shout the 'M' word (misogyny) loud and clear. The misogynists (including women with internalised misogyny) need to face up to their hatred of women and desist.