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!

I've just finished reading this @howdoesatoastermaketoast (and the rest of the really interesting thread), thank you for sharing.

I agree that it could be useful to share this with the students. They may even enjoy thinking about the questions at the end.

Hopefully they'll want to listen, even if it's just to hear first hand the views with which they think they would probably disagree (i.e. to test their assertion that her views must be disagreeable because some people they respect disagree with her views). When I was a student, that alone would make me curious enough to go along.

Obviously there would be a line. Would I want to spend my time listening to something that has been legally classed as hate speech? I'm thinking extreme religious speech that is designed to radicalise. No, it would be a waste of my time because I can already assume I know enough about the content. But there is plenty of precedent in plenty of places (e.g. Maya Forstater's tribunal or the recent Joanna Cherry case where the venue accepted that they were legally in the wrong to exclude her) that makes it clear that it's not hate speech. Therefore, it's surely worth hearing what she says. If they disagree with her views at the end of the talk, that's fine.

And Kathleen Stick is a serious academic with far more chops than Helen Joyce.

I think you may have just highlighted the problem with academia. I can understand every word and concept that comes out of Helen's mouth, and she's able to communicate complex ideas in language that the average person can understand. 'More chops' in academia is not necessarily the badge of honour you seem to think it is.

Sally Hines, Grace Lavery, Judith Butler, EJ Reynold... Have you read about the Grievance Affair? Those people have more chops in academia than HJ too. I think we're long past the situation where being an academic is something to shout about.

PatatiPatatras and NicCageisnotNickCave: The “cover story” is not made up. I am neither faculty nor staff. The students are family friends and friends of theirs who we met on a recent visit (offer a meal to students and quite a few will turn!). Admittedly, it was a small sample size but left me wanting to explore more so I might be able to engage in more detail when I see some of them again.
I hasten to add: Although not an academic, I think I am capable of reading and understanding the book. I was just surprised to find it denser than expected when I started to read so thought I would lob in a question to this group as I know many of you are much more immersed in and knowledge about the subject than I.

I have been listening to her in conversation on Unherd via the link from a pp. She is so reasonable and human. I wish she was one of my daughter’s tutors .

I don't understand the issue with reading the book. It's a short book and perfectly clear. My mum whose only qualifications are O-levels and food hygiene read it and understood it. I am not an academic or philosopher and it read fine to me and it took 2 days to finish. Some of the comments on this thread will only deter potential readers and position 'gender identity' as this incredibly esoteric concept that only Clever People or those with Lived Experience can possibly grasp.

I think there is a concerted attempt by academia to complicate and confuse perfectly simple concepts that everyone understands. It's either elitist grandstanding or a pyramid scheme. Or both.

I haven’t read her book, but I have found her positions on this inconsistent in interviews and articles. Although I like her style, I don’t think she contributes much to ‘feminist discourse’ per se, more that her writings seem to be from a defensive position, so they only make sense if you are familiar with her attacker’s position.

The thing is though, you can't simultaneously posit that everyone has a gender identity, and also that those of us without blue hair and special pronouns don't have the necessary lived experience to opine on it.

Either it is something that only a few special people have, meaning that we cannot possibly organise things like public toilets and sports according to it, or we all have one, in which case we are all equally expert in the subject and perfectly entitled to contradict the woke brigades received wisdom.

Which is it?

I think she’s shifted quite a bit eg re: pronouns.

I prefer Helen Joyce’s clarity, personally, but the idea that Stock is somehow dangerous or extreme Is funny to me.

She’s much nicer than most of us 😂

Do you mean nicer as in “nicer”?

That’s the problem isn’t it?

Nice = logically inconsistent (so as to not offend those offended by what is true).

I think feminists and philosophers should prioritise truthfulness far above niceness… but then again, the crap she has faced has been extraordinary, so it is unfair to hold her to it.

’Survival niceness’ has compromised her intellect, I suppose.

Perhaps!

I hadn’t thought of it that way but you are likely right, many of the women who have the most clarity on this topic, Germaine Greer, Julia Long, Sheila Jeffreys, Kellie-Jay, Lionel Shriver et al don’t seem give a single solitary shit about being liked!

Perhaps Stock is on the way to that stage (the most recent interview I have watched was the Coleman Hughes one and that was filmed a few months ago)?

I do sometimes wonder if it is the desire to remain associated with the left that keeps one stuck in the mists of Be Kind (to everyone except other GC women!) to the point that true clarity is never quite achieved, Jane Clare Jones suffers from this, to my mind, and Julie Bindel too.

I have her book in a stack on my bedside table, along with Victoria Smith’s Hags, I am going to start it later, I had a few other things to finish so hadn’t got round to it.
I have ordered another book of hers that sounds interesting too.

Absolutely THIS!

Perhaps these links will help OP.

This one is a discussion at Uni of Austin with McClusky

This one is a debate at Cambridge. I expect this one may be similar to what Oxford Union is hoping for.

Mind you the one at Cambridge was about the right to offend people. But it does show her mind in how she words things.

And apologies here is the whole Cambridge Union debate

The question isn't whether we have the right to offend, because on this particular issue there is no way of not offending anyone.

I am as offended by trans women's belief that they are women as they are offended by my belief that they are not.

The question is who has the right to have their feelings considered and who just has to suck it up.

Perhaps Stock is on the way to that stage (the most recent interview I have watched was the Coleman Hughes one and that was filmed a few months ago)?

I think she's almost certainly shifted her position a bit. Haven't we all? I can remember when Material Girls first came out and my feminist book group were peeved at how accommodating she was. We'd had the Maria LcLachlan case where Maria was compelled to use female pronouns for her male attacker and we'd read Pronouns are Rohypnol and we weren't prepared to 'do' pronouns to be nice.

One of our number reminded us that she'd effectively been involved in a long abusive relationship in which she'd had to behave very well to survive for years and we were also aware of how difficult at that time it was to get anything GC published. This was before Trans and Irreversible Damage proved that there was a market for GC books.

I cut her more slack when I heard her speak — which I have twice now, including last year at Hay, and when I think of the public and academic support women like Jo Phoenix had. I think we've all grown firmer and more confident about where we stand and I think I see that in her too. I think that KS has actually, by being so reasonable, made it quite difficult for trans ideologists to argue against her. Whereas with KJK, whom I'm not dissing, it's easy to find reasons not to consider her argument if you don't want to.

I think it is simply a matter of Katleen Stock not identifying herself totally via feminism, or as a feminist. She is primarily a philosopher, and doesn't want to get boxed in, or confined by predicatable positions, including left leaning ones such a those ossupied by Bindel and Jane Clare Jones.

Personally thought Helen Joyce's book was far more readable and straightforward, though, for the average lay person.

occupied

I think it is worth investigating all speech for yourself, directly - and certainly if it has been "legally classed as hate speech" ( which of course nothing by any of these authors has). Just the notion of 'hate speech' is itself a reason for further investigation I would have thought. Plus, if you don't understand your 'opponent's ' position, how on earth can you effectively counter it?

Isn't this the sort of stuff that universities are supposed to be engaged in?

@Inamuddle36 In your position I would consider asking questions e.g.

Some people literally believe that people have souls, some people do not. Some of the people who believe in souls believe quite literally that souls can come in women's souls and men's souls and that these souls can be born in the wrong bodies and that that explains homosexuality, gender non-conformity, etc. and that this is what being trans is. Other perfectly progressive people don't believe in that at all, and totally don't think that that is what gender identity is. Clearly people who already don't believe in souls will find it easier to not believe that souls can be literally be inherently feminine or masculine.

What do they believe? Why? Are they the sort of beliefs that are ok to discuss and think about like the pros, cons and appropriate implementations of socialism or are they special like asking what the evidence is for a particular tenet of someone's faith?

It is part of the social contract that we tend to not ask hard or intrusive questions about people's religions. Do they think these ideas and beliefs are like that? That you can't question or discuss or consider implications and side effects because that would be offensive in the same way heresy is?

If the ideas are to be treated as 'special' like religion it is perhaps worth considering that in exchange religious people don't berate people who aren't Christian for being a sinner/ bad Christian. Is there a parallel where it's like people in Christian Soc might not approve of an event but people who aren't believers should be free to participate?

If the ideas are not 'special' and don't need to be treated like a religion should ideas not be thoroughly discussed and considered from all angles before laws are changed or policies are rewritten? What is it that is different about these ideas?

Proceed with caution and good luck

Does anyone know what DocStock is doing on the 30th May? Is it a debate or is it her talking and answering questions? Because I cannot find details about the actual event.

www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,kathleen-stock-i-wont-be-bullied-into-submission-18395

An interesting article from Jan 2022, with a bit more personal background information as well as the evolution of her viewpoint on 'gender identity'.

It would seem to be a talk followed by extended Q&A

Apparently, KS will speak and be questioned by the President of the OU and audience. The full description is on the Oxford Union fb page. I can’t copy and paste so am just typing the first few sentences:
“On the 30th of May, Professor Stock will be interviewed by the president. After this, our members will have the opportunity to question and challenge Professor Stock at our despatch boxes, where any member who asks a question will have an opportunity to ask a follow up question.”