Kathleen Stock. Now they are writing academic papers about how terfy she is

[Birdsweepsin]

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09612025.2022.2147915

In this article I write on the feminist rift within University culture and the wider impact it has had in the British media landscape. I will chronicle the case of Kathleen Stock and its reporting in the media principally through a focus on a selection of particularly relevant articles in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph as a newspaper closely aligned with gender critical and UK Conservative government thinking.

OK, no worries. So a dispassionate look at both sides, considering media bias goes both ways, hey?

I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure for a trans-hostile media, and discuss the way her case has been used to spread misinformation around universities, and trans people. My focus here is on trans women as those on the receiving end of most gender critical hostility.

Oh. Sigh.

I consider the national platform given to Stock, but not to trans people and trans inclusive feminists

This woman clearly inhabits a parallel universe.

The fact they think the telegraph is closely aligned with gender critical thinking shows they haven't got a clue what being critical of gender actually bloody well means. Twits.

demonstrate a form of transodium, that is, a hatred of trans people

Goodness, that's a new one.

I'm going through it all a second time and it's really weird how blinkered she is for an academic.

Like this: The apparent dangers posed by integrating trans women in women’s spaces is unevidenced with gender critical feminists seeking to create a trend out of very rare exceptions.

1. its not unevidenced, there is evidence everywhere

And

1. It's not GC people seeking to create a trend. The trend is happening. We are screaming 'be careful'!

very rare exceptions
A single exception is one exception too many.

While trans people are at risk of violence, there is no evidence that trans women pose a risk to cis women, and to expect trans women to debate on their terms with a group that casts them as predators or fantasists is offensive.

I guess we're just supposed to shut up then. Sorry to disappoint you, Deborah, but no.

No citations for that paragraph. No evidence for her statements.

Absent proof that "trans women" are in some way demonstrably less risk to women than other members of their sex, which the onus is on you to prove, Deborah, I don't see any reason why they are any different, and in fact the limited evidence which exists supports a male pattern of violence and sexual violence. Which isn't particularly remarkable.

Has anyone come across Women's History Review before? It's a new one on me, but looks legit.

I wouldn't call this an :academic paper." No discernible research question. No clear structure. No clear argument. Just a meandering and vague narrative. What an embarrassment.

Well they certainly didn't recruit Reviewer 2 to assess this. This isn't even a revise and resubmit, it's just a messy pile of nothing.

Has Kathleen Stock made any response to this?

I think it was only published yesterday, Eresh

twitter.com/devorahshawa/status/1603308770184105984?s=20&t=XPX8TUMjT6VIH4pw3C78Cg

Am I missing something? Wall to wall fawning, but she didn't actually say much of substance?

Transodium
She's got the wrong definition. Its actually pepper in a salt shaker.

literal violence

A film studies professor. Nasty.

a form of transodium
Salty.

It doesn't actually taste salty but that doesn't matter because it identifies as sodium.

I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure

You mean, you want to strip her of her humanity in order that you can turn her into a hate figure?

Unsurprised.

Your post is not getting the love it deserves CuriousEats. I'm going to be smiling about it for days.

I read that yesterday. Someone I know shared it on Facebook. As someone said upthread, it's quite something for an 'academic' paper. No evidence, just vague accusation after vague accusation and further claims from people the author agrees with.
Absolutely none of it is backed up by anything and it doesn't address any actual GC arguments. It's quite fascinating really. Real head in the sand stuff

Here's the academic explaining the depth of her knowledge behind the paper:

twitter.com/devorahshawa/status/1603384546979987456

WHR is a completely legit and respected academic journal. I’m surprised to see a piece like this in it. I note though the editorial comment that the piece is the author’s personal views ie nothing to do with us!!

It is a ‘viewpoint’, but a self-indulgent and un-evidenced one at that. I don’t count Grace Lavery’s views on academic freedom as any sort of ‘evidence’.

“gender critical feminists have disproportionate influence … on government policy”

I mean, this is objectively untrue.

I agree that they bypassed reviewer 2. Probably because it’s a ‘viewpoint’ rather than an article. It was probably just looked at by the viewpoints editor and not peer reviewed at all.