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!

If I remember rightly, she has a good part of the book discussing why we still need the word woman to describe the sex class for adult human females. I found that to be a bit of an ‘aha!’ moment for me.

I am absolutely not surprised they knew nothing of her views but wanted her cancelled.

I met someone from Cambridge yesterday - knew about Judith Butler but nothing about anyone else, her top priorities were not to speak to a TERF or a SWERF. DH suggested she read some Julie Bindel but he is a man and can get away with such provocation

Apart from anything else, why are they assuming that the people they like and respect who disagree with Stock have actually read her books, and that they aren't just playing a big game of Chinese whispers started by some bellend like Katy Montgomerie?

This is absolutely key.

I would ask those students whether they think we need a word to describe all adult human females, regardless of any identity they might have, and if so, what that word should be.

Because all the words we used to have for that have been appropriated by transgender males to describe their identities. And if we invent a new word they will start identifying as that, too.

If they don't think we need a word for that, I'd ask why they think we don't need a word for the biological sex class which bears children and has been exploited for its reproductive labour since the beginning of human history (leading to, among other things, forced marriage, FGM and the raging debate over abortion rights), but that we do need a word for a group of people which includes most adult human females except those who believe they identify as something other than a woman, plus some adult males who believe they identify as women. What does this latter group have in common? What is the point of this group? If the only thing they all have in common is that they call themselves women, but they don't all agree about what a woman is, that is a completely non existent group which does not exist and which does not need its own word, single sex spaces or sporting categories.

Exactly this.
But as an aside, I think the students are being given a bit of a hard time for outsourcing their thinking on this. Surely we all do this on many issues that we don't ourselves know a great deal about.
if you could pique their interest sufficiently that they want to learn more, they might start to form their own opinions...

I doff my hat to Wee Bisom who has condensed the whole book into two paras for you OP. Superb summary.

Sorry but if they are calling for someone not to be hosted by the debating society because they think her views are so terrible but they don't actually know what her views are then they fully deserve to be called out as the intellectual vacuums they are, and I don't care if they did get into Oxford. What a fucking waste of one of the world's most coveted university places.

I mean, if they really don't have time to read her book, they could, you know, actually go to the debate they are trying to have cancelled and find out more about her views that way? And then make their minds up after they have some relevant information, rather than before?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand these students. They are not oriented towards a search for truth and therefore arguments are entirely wasted effort. They are completely absorbed in signalling their in-group credentials to fellow tribe members. I'm not sure what a better approach might be however...

I will add to that, that going along with the notion that men can become women is the ultimate declaration of loyalty to the regime. Precisely because it is such an obvious and absurd lie. We can't discuss our way out of this.

Truth.

It's such a dumb idea that not one of these students would have come up with it on their own, with a bit of rational thinking.

Saying you believe it is signalling that you agree to be part of the religion.

Agree with this, (as the mother of a student there who agrees with Dr Stock).

I was chatting to DH about this last night, because I find it so baffling that this ideology has taken such a grip on academia. He said just what you have said here.

In fact, @Pinesinthedunes, I'd liken it to something like rugby initiation.

Drinking a dirty pint that every member of the senior squad has dipped their penis into is not something anyone in their right mind would do. They come up with these completely crazy things and make people do them to prove their loyalty.

Saying men can become women is the intellectual equivalent of that.

It was my understanding that this had less to do with Kathleen Stock's quite moderate GC beliefs and more to do with jealous colleagues stirring up students. They were particularly infuriated that she was awarded an OBE.

I imagine these are the people the students mean when they refer to people they like and respect. It must difficult for them to consider challenging someone who will be overseeing their work.

Agree with your analysis.

Possible alternative approach: mum could get ahead of the game by campaigning on whatever the next in-tribe credentials thing is going to be for the young folk before they do. My money would be on social mobility as the next moral high ground issue. Together with an outbreak of these privileged middle class young things suddenly discovering working class roots thanks to, say, a grandma who worked as a nurse. And then finding head office (not shop floor, naturally, perish the thought) jobs in the trade union movement. You heard it here first!

Thank you all for very interesting and helpful comments.
I will read carefully and try to craft an argument that at least these students (all family friends) might read, if only out of respect.
As I said st the beginning, many of us form views based on second hand information when we ought to delve more deeply and try to understand arguments and counter-arguments. So I don’t fault the students (all lovely (and bright) young men and women) but hope at least some can emerge from the cult-like ideas that seem to have engulfed them.

BTW to the poster who mentioned these students might become MPs or Guardian writers — no need to worry. Most think they will go on to do further degrees in “Gender Studies” rather than continue in law, medicine, engineering or other disciplines…. 😵‍💫

I agree weebisom's summary is excellent

1. adult human female remains a significant concept which is important in a number of contexts within our society.
2. trans people are immersed in a fiction and may have invested significant time and effort on this fiction. Props costumes lines mannerisms etc. Allies are also immersed in the fiction voluntarily in a somewhat similar way as to the audience at a play.
3. which is why intelligent educated people can simultaneously believe that a comment is true but that the speaker was completely wrong to say it. Where that comment disrupts or challenges the fiction. Effectively if you stand up in the theatre and loudly proclaim that the crown is made of gold paper and the actor isn't the king they know you're right as in factually correct and think you're wrong as in a unsophisticated dolt for proclaiming it out loud.
4. she then explores the difference in how people experience things quite differently between being voluntarily invested in the fiction and being compelled to go along. And the concept of boundaries and consent to participate in this fiction.

And a second hat doff: this time for howdoesatoaster

It’s ridiculous really. it should be parody. But loads of people seem to think it’s perfectly reasonable.

There is a difference between engaging in secondary discussion and debate, and using this to help you form your own views, and just deciding that if X says it’s true, it must be true.

You have been trying to read material girls and are having a discussion to help you engage with it effectively and form your own position. That’s world’s away from ‘someone I respect says she’s awful so I’m adopting that view as fact’.

As my gran would have said: if they told you to jump off a cliff, would you just do it?

Most think they will go on to do further degrees in “Gender Studies” rather than continue in law, medicine, engineering or other disciplines…. Strewth!

Sorry, not the most articulate contribution but all I can muster. If all of these young people do 'Gender Studies' instead of law and medicine, where will we be in ten years time? I dread to think...

Thanks loobi - to be frank the actual book is denser than it needs to be because Professor Stock is exceptionally cautious, kind, polite and considered at every incremental development of her points.

Might be worth searching YouTube for some podcasts she's been on, sometimes easier to grasp the gist of what someone's argument is that way.

She's a very thoughtful and compassionate person, I really enjoyed the way she described the 'immersive fiction' idea and I think it's a helpful way of looking at things.