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!

Maybe a better argument is that rather than live in an echo chamber, Oxbridge students should have the intellectual capacity to expose themselves to a view they may disagree with and take the opportunity at question time afterwards to ask her some difficult questions. They may even learn something. It is so outrageous that these ancient seats of LEARNING are not happy to listen/ debate/ learn.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/253-material-girls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-a-review

Excellent and detailed reveiw

Great thread! I've not read the book but it's on my list to read at some point. So far the only non-child centred book (my main interest in gender identity) is Helen Joyce's "Trans", which I found very informative.

@LoobiJee and @WeeBisom thank you for the summaries. You've piqued my interest in reading the book, as well as helping with an overview of what I'll find when I do.

I'm particularly drawn to the idea that she lays out her thinking respectfully e.g. being OK to use the word transwomen, while also drawing clear boundaries. Hopefully the students can reflect on that when they listen to her speak - I'm optimistic that they will OP. It sounds like you're on the case 🤞🤞

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.

Totally agree. Hod help us all, indeed (😉)

Couldn't agree more!

So true. I don’t believe any of them have read her book, they would view that as a medieval Christian would view reading “how to cast spells and contact the dead”.

@Inamuddle36 you may find this of use https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/doing-better-in-arguments-about-sex-and-gender-3bec3fc4bdb6

Emma Duncan's review of Material Girls might be helpful, OP: https://archive.ph/2gABE

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and links. Lots to read and lots to think! But will have to continue tomorrow.

Anti-trans woman believes we should only acknowledge non-trans people as legitimate.

Using biological reproductive sex as the only criteria.

Ignoring reality and the practicalities of 2023 to write a self-aggrandizing book based in the absurd idea that as a philosopher, she has any kind of insight on any level, of any facet of the discussion, let alone trans experiences and gender identity. (she doesnt)

"Anti-trans woman believes we should only acknowledge non-trans people as legitimate."

I mean, care to evidence this at all? What does "acknowledge as legitimate" mean?

"Using biological reproductive sex as the only criteria." Well, what other criteria would you use to describe or categorise the sex of someone?

"Ignoring reality and the practicalities of 2023 to write a self-aggrandizing book based in the absurd idea that as a philosopher, she has any kind of insight on any level, of any facet of the discussion, let alone trans experiences and gender identity. (she doesnt)" - do you know what philosophy is about? It's about everything. Philosophy gives you the tools to analyse and consider all of human thought. It is perfectly suited to looking into the idea of gender identity. As for "self aggrandising"... well, why on earth does anyone write a book?? Odd to object to one person doing what thousands of others do!

There are tons of KS podcasts and interviews available on YouTube.

I particularly enjoyed this recent one:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=grcKIUrEh0o

Yes, I was going to suggest OP you could watch her interview with Coleman Hughes on YouTube, which I reckon covers her general views. I haven't finished the book yet either (about half-way through), and I agree with howdoesatoaster's description of it!

Sorry, cross-post with Nic!

More context - not to discourage you from reading, understanding and arguing from the primary text, but because many of these protesters are determined NOT to read any part of the book and NOT to listen to or consider Stock’s arguments. Their case rests on an intentional, constructed MISUNDERSTANDING of her work and views. (I'm not claiming that any specific individual is deliberately misleading others, but the repetition of a rumour one hasn't verified IS misleading and is an example of spreading disinformation).

As Stock herself points out, in her recent comments about the objections to her upcoming Oxford talk (linked at the bottom, as I can't get it to link here without deleting part of my text): the crux of the argument against her is that SHE is a bad person, and therefore it would be dangerous and wrong to listen to or consider ANYTHING she has to say - which logically precludes reading even sections of her book or attending or watching any of her lectures or presentations. Here is a current example.

The main complaint about Stock, which precedes the book and is naturally much more important among people who haven’t read the book, is that she signed the 2019 international Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. Her detractors typically openly oppose not only women’s rights in general but (crucially) any opportunity for women to speak freely about those rights. Stock is also vilified for her status as a trustee of the charity LGB Alliance (UK), which is attacked for focusing on sexual orientation rather than gender identity - although the many charities who do the converse are not similarly criticised.

There’s a video from June 2020, before Material Girls came out and when she was quite a bit less well-known/infamous, of Stock in conversation with Siân and Emma, two British transwomen who transitioned in the ‘90s. Unfortunately I don't think the video is available anywhere now, as Emma took a break from social media and her "Brompton Road" channel is deactivated. But it was very interesting to see the view of Stock's work from actual trans people with some experience and perspective over time, in contrast to the vitriol from people who know someone who knows someone who has an opinion about how “trans rights activists” (frequently not themselves trans, and very often themselves misogynistic and homophobic) feel about the current climate and Stock’s views.

If I were speaking face to face with people determined to stop Stock from speaking at Oxford, I'd start by pressing them very specifically about WHY she should not speak, WHAT she has said that is wrong, WHAT she would have to change in order for them to admit that it MIGHT be OK for her to speak (this is critical). To go out and arm yourself against any and all objections so that you might break through using Stock's own ideas and words to is admirable, but it may be pointless when the issue is NOT grounded in or even congruent with her words or her beliefs.

Link to Stock's recent comments via YouTube:

Reading the latter parts of this thread I am reminded of a time, a few years back, when transactivists strayed, inadvertently, a little too close to the truth when they argued that nobody who was an ally should ever read any “terf” materials because “terfs” had a dangerous habit of making their arguments sound like common sense and quite reasonable.

I went to university in the 70s when they were establishments that taught students how to think whereas nowadays they seem to teach students what to think. As for the gender ideology it can be summed up in this poem.
He tells her
by Rachel Irischild. (after Wendy Cope)

He tells her he's a woman too, he has a ladybrain
He tells her his identity and hers; they are the same
He tells her not to talk about her body; it's not fair
Her body is her privilege his own, a cross to bear

He tells her that she cannot talk or otherwise allude
To what her female body does it's nasty to exclude
He says respect diversity except he would prefer
That she not point out all the ways that he's diverse from her

He tells her that biology does not impact her life
She should still bear his children but she must call him 'wife'
He says that words must all evolve she must learn to make do
And now that woman is his word he's taking 'female' too

He tells her that a woman is whatever he decides
He will not put it into words she must not ask, he chides
He tells her he is more oppressed than she has ever been
He says she must agree with him or else she's being mean

She searches for the words she needs to talk about herself
The billions who exist like her, their lives, their rights, their health
Whatever word she chooses now he finds a way to spin it
The conversation carries on...........but she's no longer in it

@Merida46 that's beautiful thanks

Can you explain what you mean by 'anti-trans'? Stock is not anti-trans. Perhaps a different definition? After you've defined it, can you tell us what she said that made you think she's anti-trans?

What do you mean by legitimate in this context?

What reality and practicalities are you referring to?

She obviously does have insight into being a lesbian - something no man can ever have. She has insight into her own gender identity or lack thereof (I don't know if she's one of those people with one or not).

She does have insight into what philosophy is and does so she can look at trans ideology through that lens to a level that most people can't. You're talking about personal experience which is different than philosophical examination.

Woman can not have any insight on any level about being 'trans' yet men can have all the insight into being 'women'...how does that work exactly?

Yep.

And the only successful approach here would be the same as for anyone caught up in a similar highly ingroup mode of thinking, such as for a religion or cult or political craze: they have to come to the conclusions and make the mental connections themselves about the insanity.

So presenting the disconnections, the things which do not add up, the inconsistencies, the deep misogyny, the faulty arguments (Montgomery) in contrast to the reasoned ones (Stock) neutrally, but allowing THEM to draw the conclusion as if they discovered it is the thing that works. That way they “own” their own discovery because they came to it via their own critical thinking.

Also known as “peaking” in this context because most of us, myself included, had to come to our own conclusions based on the jarring contrast between what we were being told by our friends and what we were/are experiencing with our own eyes and experiences of misogyny throughout our lives. But I’m a female, so my social and bodily female experiences come into play here. For men who have peaked, it seems to be one of three triggers, all of which can peak women, too: fairness, free speech, and having female relatives they want to protect and whom they want to thrive. But for both men and women, for most of us we had to figure it out on our own. It’s highly disturbing that Oxbridge students are not able to think critically about this.

So lead the horses to water, sure, OP, but only they can decide to drink or stand there petulant and parched instead. You will not be able to convince their horsey minds unless they self-convince; they have to individuate the reasoning for themselves on their own terms. All you can do is to make sure they have all the information and debate they can get.

Good luck with the good fight, OP.

OP is it alright if we ask you how you have access to these Oxford students? The students don't want to read differing views but if you are one of their professors or in any teaching capacity to them, how is it that you yourself find a study difficult to follow?

What does this mean?

Legitimate as what?

Are trans people legitimate as human beings? Yes of course, as are we all.

Are they legitimate as a member of the opposite sex? No. Because words have meaning.

I don't accept gender identity as a legitimate way of classifying someone as a man or a woman, because many of us don't have gender identities and would be excluded from both groups if gender identity were the relevant factor. Everyone has a sex though. Everyone is either male or female, including trans people. And male and female aren't words for an indefinable, subjective feeling or identity. They are words for biological sex. They mean the same thing in humans as they do in other animals. This is why someone who was born with a penis can never be female, or a woman.

Have a gender identity if you wish. But it has nothing to do with anybody else.

Universities have tons of non-academic staff that are responsible for room bookings etc.

No reason for OP to out herself for the sake of a MN thread (even if the cover story was made up it’s still a good opportunity to discuss Stock’s very measured opinions).

I know that Prof Stock gets shit from GC people at times because of her arguments about transition and its legitimacy and importance. I can't imagine anyone with strong views in this area not benefiting from reading her book. That doesn't mean I think it's perfect or that I agree with it all. I'm also not trained in philosophy, though I don't think you have to be to get something out of it.

My main objection was that I felt it complicated things that could be simpler. But I also think that one of the reasons political debate is so poor now is the need to fit everything into Twitter. The world does not work like twitter, humans don't fit into limited characters or slogans. Stock shows that. As @SunbowRainshine31 amply demonstrated above - try and stick simple labels on people and you inevitably end up with nonsense.