Can anyone summarise main points of Kathleen Stock’s views on gender?

[Inamuddle36]

KS has been invited to speak at the Oxford Union and 5+ colleges have formally complained and there is a growing movement to try to force the Union to disinvite her and/or provide counselling for students who become upset by KS’s comments.
I asked a few Oxford students what they thought about the controversy. None of them knew any details about KS’s views but, as one of them said “people we like and respect disagree with her so we assume we would disagree, too.”
It is, of course, not unreasonable to borrow views from other thoughtful people (I am about to do so myself!). But I was surprised none of them (all very “woke”) had any insight into KS other than that she was someone with whom they should disagree.
So…. I have begun to read “Material Girls” to inform myself so I can attempt to have a further conversation. I am finding it a bit dense and academic — not unintelligible, but harder work than I expected. I will continue to read — but wonder whether anyone else has delved into her work already and could provide the potted (well informed) summary and/or point me to the most relevant chapters or other essays that might be helpful.
I would be grateful for collective wisdom!

She thinks there are 2 sexes - male / female.
She doesn't think you can change from one to the other.

She’s on episode 5 of The Witch Trials of JKR if that helps?

Sorry, unrelated but... 'inform myself'. Thank you: I always knew there must be a non-wanky alternative to 'educate myself'.

And she thinks biological sex is important, because women are oppressed on the basis of their biological sex, not on the basis of a gender they imagine themselves to be.

theTractorFactor: I think “inform” and “educate” have somewhat different meanings, don’t they?

IMO "educate yourself" is used to disparage someone and indicate that they are a thick oik who understands nothing.

"inform yourself" - used by yourself or someone else means that you have the wherewithal to find out information about something and assimilate it.

But it is fairly easy to summarise, as pp have done here, what Stock thinks. It's not complicated, her reasoning can take a bit of untangling from academic language though.

From what I recall

She explains that gender identity is a philosophical concept and therefore should be open to analysis like any other philosophical concept or theory.

She explains that the word “gender” is used to describe four or five different concepts, and that to have a debate / do analysis you need to be clear about which concept you are using the word gender to refer to in that particular discussion.

She theorises that those who support/ promote the concept of gender identity don’t believe that it means a person has actually changed sex, instead they are entering into a state of “immersive belief” a bit like when you go to see a film, and you know it’s not real but you suspend your disbelief.

She analyses the potential / actual disadvantages of prioritising the concept of gender identity over the reality of biological sex.

She also discusses the disadvantages of entering into a state of immersive belief.

But really you should get the oxbridge students you know to do the précis for you.

If they are oxbridge material they should be able to read the whole thing in a weekend and pull out the key points pretty easily. If they’re too lazy to do that then they aren’t entitled to hold an opinion on her views.

Thank you for the very quick replies.
I want to try to understand KS’s reasoning so I can engage (try to engage) in a discussion. I assume many students (at least the ones with whom I was speaking) discount the importance of biological sex so if I simply say “KS believes there are two sexes and one cannot change between them”, they would not be convinced.
in what I have read so far, KS builds an argument refuting “gender identity ideology” but I cannot yet reconstruct her arguments succinctly. (She is not a very concise writer!)

Thank you, LoobiJee, for your helpful summary.
of course most of the students won’t do the reading themselves. They are too busy enjoying student life. Even if they do read, I would want to do so myself.

THIS

Because before you know it they'll be in cabinet and working at the Guardian.

Although.... Respect to OP for trying to engage them.

I didn’t find Material Girls too dense, possibly because I listened to it on Audible?

My intention is to try to understand the arguments myself, highlight a few key passages, and hope at least one has an “ah ha!” Moment and realises there might be more to think about than the college student unions suggest.
(I accept it might be a quixotic endeavour… but at least I will emerge informed, and perhaps even educated!)

She thinks there are two sexes, these are biological and objective scientific facts. You cannot change your sex. Interestingly, she has no problem referring to males who identify as women as “transwomen” because in certain contexts it’s fine to play along with the fiction that they are women. It’s similar to when you go to the theatre and you play along that the actor is hamlet.

The fiction that men are women is benign/ permissible in some contexts, but in others it makes no sense and may be harmful to actual women (like if men are in rape counselling ). So a good compromise for a long time was having boundaries to the fiction, much like when you no longer accept the actor is hamlet when the show is over. The problem is that modern trans activism never wants the show to be over so to speak. Transwomen want to be treated as women for all intents and purposes in every context , and for stock this makes no sense because in some contexts sex must take precedence over gender identity.

You’re very brave OP! Kudos.

My understanding is that the idea that we all have an innate gender identity, that no one can ever prove or question, should be questioned especially if it is used to decide policy and law. It sounds pretty sensible to me.

It's very disappointing. I disliked the OU when I was at Oxford because it was a bit of a Tory playground, and I wasn't a Tory. I remember a similar controversy when they invited some BNP bloke to speak. The big difference was that OUSU made no comment at all, iirc. I don't have to agree with everything, but if debate dies then we might as well be China. And Kathleen Stick is a serious academic with far more chops than Helen Joyce.

Stock even.

“people we like and respect disagree with her so we assume we would disagree, too.

Anyone subcontracting their thinking to others and ‘assuming’ they’ll agree is ridiculous. Especially is they are then going to take action against something on the basis that someone, somewhere disagrees with it and ripples of people have all just assumed that the people they ‘respect’ actually even know what they’re objecting to.

Works the other way round too. Fools blindly following others who are blindly following others and none of them actually know anyone who has engaged with the substance of the issue directly. Or at all.

If you can't parse the words on a page, maybe go into you tube and find one of the videos she has made which explains the basics.

Which is that there are two sexes and nobody can change from one to the other as previously mentioned. And that when sex matters, it matters.

None of them knew any details about KS’s views but, as one of them said “people we like and respect disagree with her so we assume we would disagree, too.”

Outsourcing your thinking like this should be grounds for expulsion from Oxford University.

As should the notion that if you like and respect someone you will automatically agree with them.

I thought the whole point of university was debating ideas in a respectful environment. The suggestion that having different views to someone is incompatible with respecting and liking them is really quite shocking.

I used to think that standards at Oxford couldn't really be all that high if people like Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab went there. But they seem like intellectual heavyweights next to this generation of terrified yes-men/women/non-binary people who need safe spaces to protect them from ideas. Especially if the idea in question is more of a fact, such as humans not being able to change sex.

Ffs, if Oxford students are the brightest in the country, then Hod help us all.

Dr Stock believes there are two sexes, and that humans can't change sex. Her book is really good - well argued, factual, not transphobic in any way.

God! 😂😂