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.

Minimise, minimise, minimise!

'It's only a few bad males who'll take advantage of self ID in Scotland, you women should stop blowing it up out of all proportion.'

What everyone seems to forget is that 'just a few' can have a disproportionate effect on many.

One sex offender in a women's prison can impact on many women. I'm not talking assault, even, I'm talking about the mental impact.

Katie Dolatowski assaulted 'just two' young girls, but how many women were afraid or intimidate by this violent male while he was housed in women's accommodations and now in Cornton Vale? Katie is 'just one' person but he has the ability to cause a great deal of harm.

One sex offender in a women's prison can impact on many women. I'm not talking assault, even, I'm talking about the mental impact.

It's been immensely upsetting to read about what's happening in Californian prisons, where violent sex offenders self-identifying as women have been placed in women's jails. These women are already immensely vulnerable - they often have histories of poverty, rape and domestic abuse. They are now being forced to share with men who want to harm them, and they have absolutely no way of escaping. Not only that, but women who complain are punished (reduxx.info/women-being-punished-for-complaining-about-male-transfers-inmate-in-california-womens-prison/). It's one of the most distressing things I can imagine.

I can only assume that @devorah doesn't care about vulnerable women because for her, as for so many other liberal feminists, feminism is only about helping middle-class women to get better jobs. Still, @devorah, you're more than welcome to come and explain yourself if I've got it wrong. It's odd how you've suddenly gone silent when challenged on your views.

It’s remarkable how often these activist ‘authors’ turn up to admonish women. I won’t write the name of the barrister who turns up to razz us but they also wrote a book that was hardly balanced and pretty much out of date at release.

Mumsnet, all at once diminished in power as ‘just mums’ yet so fucking powerful that authors come and admonish us for poor reviews while we are dissecting their work.

Also this minimisation would not be tolerated in other comparable situations. Who says "well it's only a few of them" about women being raped and murdered by strangers, as long as those strangers are male and "identify as" male it's rightly horror and condemnation all round. Who says "well it was only a few racist jokes". Or "well it was only a few attacks on trans people so it's fine". No one thinks that's acceptable. Because it's not. Anyone suffering persecution or attacks is important and the situation needs to be addressed, not just brushed off and the persecution made easier. Yes even if it is just boring old women who are suffering.

As the current self-id issue allows any number of males to take advantage, because it does not distinguish in any way between the personalities of the TW affected - personalities being the main argument because "TW wouldn't do that" - why don't we explicitly put a limit on, to reduce it to the acceptable level implied by the TRAs?

"If you are going to commit any assault or crime against female under self-id, you can self-id as long as only 25 men in any calendar year have already done so. Once this quota has been reached you will need to wait until the next calendar year. "

If they just simply put in the criteria they use to distinguish actual "women" from males who just say they are, we could use this to reduce the number of bad actors to "just a few".

Obviously, we have been asking for years for this criteria to be put in place to prevent it altogether, but there is little-to-no appetite from TRAs to do this.

Yes. So 'just a few' aggressive, violent, misogynist signs at a feminist conference are enough to upset and intimidate women.

Women who were at FILIA to talk about FGM, as I recall, had their testimony interrupted by the chants of transactivists, who just could not let women have something for themselves, not even the opportunity for an hour or two to discuss an issue that does not have ANYTHING to do with transwomen.

I find that morally repugnant, to be honest.

Didn’t SG Chappell, another academic, write last year:

“On this particular issue of safety concerns raised when gender recognition acts are introduced, so a lot of this looks much more to me like anecdotes than data. It’s not like there’s a body of hard evidence that lots and lots of stuff is happening which is really bad. There’s the odd anecdote.”

and

“Suppose people were saying ‘Well you know if you make it easier for gay people to be themselves in society there’s going to be a crime wave or dreadful homosexual murders are going to happen, it’s going to be awful if we do that’, I think we’d rightly dismiss that as scaremongering and we’d say ‘No it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter’. It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics because this isn’t about that kind of issue.”

just to pull out the minimisation:

It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics because this isn’t about that kind of issue.”

It wouldn’t matter in a slight spike of sex crimes or murder against women???

and there are lots of anecdotes but no ‘evidence’??? Written last year, in a political climate of women not bothering to report their rapes and assaults because either they will be ignored or have their attacks minimised.

Honestly, do these activist academics actually read what they write?

I guess the more they write it, the more people will understand that these academics only demand empathy, they certainly don’t seem to have any to give.

I don't understand why any male guilty of any specifically male sexual offence (i.e. involving male genitals) can possibly be considered a TW, it makes no sense at all. If you identify as a woman then doing stuff that no woman can do and using your penis to do it makes you clearly not serious about "being a woman".

not like there’s a body of hard evidence that lots and lots of stuff is happening which is really bad

Because that would require being able to collect data on someone's actual sex and gender identity, which as we all know is (all together now!) TRANSPHOBIC

Crimes by transwomen - really horrible ones - are recorded as being by women, because the TRAs spent a lot of energy specifically trying to make this happen.

Also this minimisation would not be tolerated in other comparable situations. Who says "well it's only a few of them" about women being raped and murdered by strangers

Potential terrorists make up a teeny tiny percentage of world airport users, for example. But, since risk assessment considers the potential impact as well as the likelihood of something happening, we all go through a huge amount of security theatre if we want to fly anywhere.

I guess the difference is that the impact here is only on women and girls. So that’s not worth worrying about.

And, for liberal-style feminists, they’re still not worth worrying about because their focus is on centring the group that seems most worthy based on their position in the oppression Olympics. Those women and girls are hideous oppressors who must check their privilege. 🙄

The whole anecdotes vs. data thing is a great academic gotcha. If they don't look for or record whatever it is some luckless layman's 'anecdotes' relate to, or they say they've looked for it but not found it (because they looked in the wrong population), the anecdotes are dismissed out of hand as being, well, anecdotes. Rather than as bell-wethers that should make them stop and think about the shortcomings in their data.

When you point this out to them, they accuse you of making up all your 'anecdotes'.

They go backwards from 'it doesn't matter' to 'it never happened'.

“Suppose people were saying ‘Well you know if you make it easier for gay people to be themselves in society there’s going to be a crime wave or dreadful homosexual murders are going to happen, it’s going to be awful if we do that’, I think we’d rightly dismiss that as scaremongering and we’d say ‘No it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter’. It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics because this isn’t about that kind of issue.

what is most interesting about that example is how much it DARVOs the women’s rights issues.

that is an example where gay people would be denied basic rights in the basis that more people would want to murder gay people. The problem there is the homophobic people who would choose to murder gay people. The beneficiaries of the change are the same people who would bear the increased risks (gay people).

That example is being used to dismiss concerns that giving massively enhanced rights to some biological males will diminish the rights of women and may increase violence against them by the biological males who are being given the enhanced rights. The potential victims are being dismissed because the potential perpetrators (and beneficiaries of the change) matter more.

Indeed, the TRA debate frames the victims (the women and girls who are at greater risk of violence and who are excluded from
spaces) as the problem.

It’s incredible that basic logic seems to be thrown out the window in all this.

And yet, the reverse also happens. Such as that Trevor Project and other suicide ideation ‘studies’ that seem to be loosely controlled quantative ‘studies’ being amplified and used to prop up the ‘most vulnerable’ narrative.

This is despite gender clinicians reporting these statistics are not being seen in the clinical work.

And that the mental health issues left untreated in the poor quality affirming only approach often mean such suicidal ideation is still there in patients after transition or that it develops due to treatment issues such as failed surgeries or that transitioning has not helped the patient as desired.

Apropos of nothing, and just as a matter of general interest, what is the difference between "anecdotes" and "lived experience"?

Worthiness and whether they are convenient to the preferred narrative.

@TheYummyPatler - thank you.

"Can we keep an eye on any crude drawings /dick pics as they are seizing on them to discredit the protest and one I saw was pretty offensive"

Remarkable hypocrisy.

Plus ca change.

Potential terrorists make up a teeny tiny percentage of world airport users, for example. But, since risk assessment considers the potential impact as well as the likelihood of something happening, we all go through a huge amount of security theatre if we want to fly anywhere.

I guess the difference is that the impact here is only on women and girls. So that’s not worth worrying about.

Absolutely this!

Ah. yes. Because pointing out differences in thinking and straight out hypocrisy is now 'so much abuse'.

This also seems to be an attempt to distract from the fact an author of an academic article came into a thread about them to what? To engage positively where we may have misinterpreted something?

OR

To razz us? To let us know that they are watching?

There is another impact of the visit, of course.

Did the arrival of this author bring to light just how much ignorance seems to be displayed by activist authors when it comes to the very chilling effect of a) the very article they authored and b) that that article contributes to the pressure on academics to fall into alignment and to not actively debate this issue.

devorahshawa 8:27 AM · Dec 19, 2022

"I've gone back in and there's so much abuse of me on the platform that it's not the right tone for me to respond. Now I understand why my trans inclusive mum friends felt compelled to leave Mumsnet. The editor of WHR is happy to give a GC academic the right to respond".

twitter.com/devorahshawa/status/1604755180670619648?s=20&t=P4WhG11taTCMdzfISMacDQ

I just want to point out to @devorah that posting this:

twitter.com/devorahshawa/status/1604400415914700801?s=20&t=P4WhG11taTCMdzfISMacDQ

"I've made it to Mumsnet (!) and they seem to hate my article. So sad that this site that I turned to for breastfeeding advice when I was a new mum is targeting trans people:"

on twitter to your followers, if we followed not only your own logic, but those of other activists who then claim 'pile ons', is hypocritically 'encouraging a pile on'.

How bizarre that you don't see that very hypocrisy......

Wow. How cowardly. Giving it the big "I just want to engage logically" and then smearing an entire group of people because they criticised your shoddy article.

Academic these days giving us all a bad name.

I feel weird. I started this whole malarkey because Deb's article, while no doubt well intentioned, seemed full of holes to me.

That assessment was confirmed by several contributing mumsnetters, many much wiser than me.

The author poles up, doesn't address the holes but goes away cross about our "tone"?

Many of the points raised are about the hypocrisy this writer has shown. She knows there is a gulf between the reasoned rebuttal of Stock's views and the actions of the angry, virulent, holier-than-thou students.

But she won't condemn these students, instead blaming the Telegraph, and indeed, people like us

I'm afraid by running away Deb it just looks like you know you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Personally, I'd be happy to welcome you and your views and debate them properly.

You know eventually the TRA scorpion will sting you too. Its in their nature; you will never be pure enough.

"I've gone back in and there's so much abuse of me on the platform that it's not the right tone for me to respond

Oh my god - where is this? Have MN removed it?
Or is it this thread where questioning = abuse?

The fact they don't even believe it strongly enough to say it on here is disappointing.

It's dishonest. I know that sounds mean, but it is dishonest. As I have been saying for years, dishonesty is a central theme. She didn't 'go back in' -
she didn't take the time to learn how posting here works - e.g. by responding to a specific post in a way that looked like it was to a whole thread - then complains when this is seen as hostile.

I'd be happy to have a respectful conversation with her if she felt able to be honest.

Silence when challenged. Another running theme.
Still, it's another data point to support my view. Ironically I originally came to this forum looking to support the opposite viewpoint.

I'd be happy to have a respectful conversation with her if she felt able to be honest.

I think we all would. Considering just how many academics we also have posting amongst the FWR regulars, Devorah may find that very stimulating if they were actually interested in debate. However, it seems that only the heavily moderated 'paper' debate at a very real distance and confined within a journal is the acceptable way. Everything else is abuse it seems.

‘Targeting trans people’?

This is a thread criticising a poor piece of published academic work.

That the work (which is overtly about a single, named woman) is done in the name of trans-related activism doesn’t mean MN is ‘targeting trans people’.

Discussion of anything even vaguely related is apparently abuse of trans people. But, weirdly, actual abuse of women (death threats, suck my lady duck placards) is not.