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 have reported this as you seem to be encouraging a hateful pile on. As I say in the article I am against any sort of violence against GC or trans inclusive feminists.

If so devorah can I recommend this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

It’s a distressing but necessary read I think.

If you mean me I am absolutely not encouraging a pile on!

It's generally good forum etiquette to declare if you are the writer of the piece, or at least not try and vaguely pretend that you are... it's not clear.

Please don't further the accusation that all posters on this forum are 'anti-trans'. Many have trans relatives or could be considered trans themselves. It's frustrating to have someone wade in and decide they know enough about us to tell us what we believe.

Because anti-trans folk are also the the anti-feminist Conservative right, doesn't mean we feminists should not also be critical of the call for trans-rights. That is a red herring, specifically the fallacy of guilt by association.

Also, reporting a pile on because your PUBLISHED article targeting an specific person is causing (what you claim is) a "pile on" is beyond hypocritical.

Grow up. If you're an academic, own your "research" and take criticism.

I am the writer and was responding to someone who said Mumsnet readers should flood my Twitter feed. I know the editor of the journal wants to offer a right to reply to an academic who wants to refute my article. I welcome debate on my work, but not insults.

I know the editor of the journal wants to offer a right to reply to an academic who wants to refute my article.

Yes, I hope they do. Also, you should be ashamed of your actions outside FiLiA, and your support of misogynists.

Good to see you herer, devorah. How do you account for deliberately and overtly turning a woman into a 'totemic figure'? This seems dehumanising.

(Not an academic, so presumably I have no 'right to reply' through your suggested channels (and not on Twitter).)

Tbf, they wanted to flood your Twitter feed with evidence that self ID/gender ideology has its issues, not, say, with porn (as happened to JK Rowling).

Fantastic! I'm sure there are a few of us here who would welcome such an opportunity, should we have the time to break from our other research commitments.

To make it easier, June Purvis is the editor and her email address is [email protected].

I'm sure it's already been drawn to Kathleen's attention but perhaps she might wish to refute you herself.

I didn't want to attack Stock personally - as I say in the article I have much sympathy with her on a personal level. I didn't want to dehumanise her, but see how she had been used in the right wing press to attack Universities. That's what I meant by 'totemic' - she became a symbol for an ideological cause.

It's a really poor article, IMO. In this country, where we have freedom of speech, we're allowed to look at things purporting to be research, and criticise them. We don't need to be academics to have a view, because anyone with any critical judgement can see the problems with it. This isn't even your area, you are a film studies lecturer. This is Mumsnet Feminism board where we often talk about research. Think about what you are saying, Deborah.

Okay. So may I suggest that 'I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure' is a poorly phrased sentence, in that case?

So you don’t think the university deserved criticism for allowing a woman to be horrendously bullied until she quit her job, all because she expressed some fairly mild and compassionate opinions?

the theme of the section in the journal is Viewpoint; so it is a space where academics are encouraged to have a view and the work is peer reviewed, so clearly experts in the field didn't think it was a poor article, but, of course, I resepct your view on its quality. As I said, those who want to refute my article can submit an article in the Viewpoint section.

those who want to refute my article can submit an article in the Viewpoint section.

Aye, but only academics, right? And funnily enough I expect many academics would be scared to do so. That's handy!

It's a bit like a boxing match where one opponent has their arms tied behind their back, isn't it?

Discussing an academic who was bullied, victimised and forced out of her job for wrongthink kind of makes that point for you.

so clearly experts in the field didn't think it was a poor article,

Yes, that's how the institutional capture of academia has worked, do you think anyone wants to be treated like Kathleen Stock?

Cross posted with Arabella.

A reminder of the atmosphere for academics who don't kowtow to gender woo-woo.

www.gcacademianetwork.org

I repeat, @devorah, are you familiar with the academic hoax work of Pluckrose, Boghossian and Lindsay? Or do you also deploy the fallacy of guilt by association on those academics too?

I know "expert reviewer" seems like a flattering title if your piece has made it through review, but to those of us who view the ideological capture of academia with some scepticism, it's become a comedy misnomer.

It's a viewpoint article which is, I assume, an unsupported rant. I'm surprised T&F do that as it is a reputable publisher. That said, it's not my area so it may be normal in that field.

Wouldn't be what I would consider research though.

We know what you were trying to do. Every trans oriented writer sooner or later writes the same thing.

You don't want men with an identity to be included from the catch all of toxic masculinity.

It's wishful thinking on your part. You simply can't re-categorise them out of it.

This same wishful thinking is repeated over and over, that an identity changes reality.

Behaviour hasn't changed though, and that's why you and the others who write this same piece are so upset by the evidence and by the people that show it to you.

"Mumsnet folk" know when they are being gaslighted and coercively controlled to accept something not in our best interests. Check out the Relationships board here.

Please can you quote the post you are responding to in future? It does nothing for clarity otherwise. You can use the 'quote' feature or copy and paste the text and put it in bold - you can use the '@' to tag the poster of a specific post if you are responding to them.

Again, it's generally good etiquette to get to know how to post within Talk guidelines and how the forum works.