Kathleen Stock - "These people are just a bit thick"

[Another2Cats]

So, Kathleen Stock has just made her views on people like Joylon Maugham et al known.

She started off with a tweet that said:

"Never mind the serious reputations, the accents, the swagger, the BBC connections, the Guardian column, the KC status, the rave book reviews, or whatever it is - like no other issue, trans ideology shows up people who are really quite stupid."

Which, not unsurprisingly, got a lot of replies. Some in support and some defending these people.

In reply to those defending these people she then had this to say. It's a different take on how to approach the argument. Don't know if I entirely agree:
.

I never do a long post but first time for everything. Lots of lively comment on my "they are just quite thick" explanation of Establishment transactivism capture (proposed hashtags #itsthestupidstupid #makeidiocymortifyingagain).

Also, some alternative explanations being proposed. I suppose my conclusion is: it doesn't matter if they really ARE thick, or just pretending/left-brained/lost in a cult/cosseted from the consequences/ smart in a way that makes them susceptible to motivated reasoning.

Having spent best part of six years (FML) arguing patiently with these people, a) I am not convinced of the more charitable explanations for notable characters, and b) either way, I don't care any more. If it walks like a moron, talks like a moron, it is – for all relevant purposes– a moron, and we should say so.

So for instance (just a small selection from timeline today):

• if you think transwomen (men) are to women what step-parents are to their children YOU ARE A MORON (think it through to the end: when was the metaphorical marriage? wtf is "womaning" as a verb? Wearing kneesocks?)

• If you think you can't know your own sex because you haven't seen your chromosomes YOU ARE A MORON (if that is the burden of proof, how do you personally know you have a brain?)

• If you think that the Supreme Court should have "consulted trans people" about their "lived experience" while interpreting existing law YOU ARE A MORON, this is not what courts do; and for good reason - how would it be workably scaled up?

• If you base your glowing view of trans ideology on what your daughter at private school and all her mates tell you (it doesn't affect us, Dad, why can't they just be kind?), then YOU ARE A MORON. What kind of general epistemology is that, exactly? You seem to be confusing having 360 degree insight into the intersection of law and social reality with them being able to use the remote better than you can.

I see so many people on here trying to shame the likes of Maugham, Campbell, Stewart, Harman (insert your most annoying establishment shill for transactivism here) on the grounds of their ethical failures and inability to empathise with vulnerable or respect basic fairness norms. It is hopeless. These people are utterly convinced of their moral rectitude, they automatically take disagreement as a sign of the limited mindset of their opposition.

We should forget all that, and hit them where it hurts: in the ego. THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST A BIT THICK. They are promoted way above their station, have blustered through on their accents, educations, and connections, and now the tide is going out, we can truly see who is naked. Let's learn from this, and never trust their so-called expertise on any other matter again.

https://x.com/Docstockk/status/1917165815339589823

does science prove different to what people believe, then if it does then science is correct and what people believe is wrong ?

other wise eg i could suggest or say the sky is pink and its not so basically id be believeing in wrong science

Oh I really do like it!

It does remind me of the number of times posters here have carefully explained to other (let’s say, anti-women) posters the logical fallacy of their argument, only to have them pop up making the same batshit statements on another thread. They aren’t able to provide any rational argument, yet they keep spouting the same views.

We keep on going, for the sake of the lurkers!

Doc Stock is not only a great writer, an exceptionally clear thinker and has ovaries of steel - she's also bloody funny.

She's right, isn't she? She's just right. And I've come to the same conclusion. If you take people like Maugham or Little OJ there is no point trying to argue rationally with them because they just get angry. They are literally incapable of thinking rationally about this issue.

My favourite bit:

If you think you can't know your own sex because you haven't seen your chromosomes YOU ARE A MORON (if that is the burden of proof, how do you personally know you have a brain?)

She's great, and this is very well said. She's obviously sick to the back teeth of the same old endless idiotic arguments and I don't blame her one bit

I love it.

She sounds, like many of us, all out of patience.

I rarely, if ever, refer to people being thick but sometimes they are.

My favourite bit:

Having spent best part of six years (FML) arguing patiently with these people, a) I am not convinced of the more charitable explanations for notable characters, and b) either way, I don't care any more. If it walks like a moron, talks like a moron, it is – for all relevant purposes– a moron, and we should say so.

Just when I thought I couldn't love her anymore after her Times letter she posts this. She is such a brilliant writer.

I do adore that woman. Tell the truth and shame the halfwits. Love it. ❤️

I have to say, I am also increasingly of this opinion. They're just thick. BIL posts this kind of bollocks. But to be honest, he also posts a lot of random shit that he thinks is super super clever and, well, it's not. So. they're dumb. Really really dumb.

But then, that should have become clear when the answer to women questioning this stuff was to start screaming, "suck my lady dick". It's not like comprehensive, nuanced argument and discussion was ever something they were capable of. And whose mother/grandmother hasn't, at some point, reminded us that if you hvae to resort to name calling you clearly don't hav ea decent argument in the first place.

I know KS has had a bellyful of nonsense and I can see why she's at the end of her tether, but unfortunately I can't get past the word 'moron', which is considered pretty offensive now.

I know I'm being naive/Pollyann-ish saying this, but I would tend to take the Michelle Obama tack: 'We go high'.

One by one, even the most reasonable, most patient, most intelligent women eventually reach this point.

I can’t say it should surprise me. The whole argument is so ludicrous once you stop using all the language and start to think clearly. In addition, there’s only so much abuse you can take before starting to retaliate.

I lost the ability to remain polite a while back. It’s a bit of a pain as it opened me up to tone policing and has had some horribly negative side effects, but it’s just so utterly frustrating that I think it’s amazing the likes of Kathleen Stock lasted as long as she did.

We are all abused women in this situation, told off for not being polite enough to our abusers.

TBH I've found the most intractable people on this are the highly educated, in particular the high status educated. In terms of the people I've tried to have conversations with - barristers, journalists, politicians, academics, all with Oxbridge qualifications coming out of their ears.

It's clear that they have some kind of narrow intelligence. But on this, where they've picked a side, they are being wilfully stupid.

She’s right. I would also add that people who think the trans debate is ‘complicated’ are thick. How is it complicated, there are 2 sexes, that’s it!

She's right - I certainly assume anyone with pronouns in their autosignature/on their LinkedIn profile is a moron.

It's a different take on how to approach the argument. Don't know if I entirely agree

Thanks for sharing, OP.

The thing is, you don’t have to agree.

The point of having the protected characteristic of “woman” in the EA is that we women are in the same class when it comes to our biological sex, because that’s the relevant characteristic for the purpose of sex discrimination.

But outside of that, women are obviously all different and have all sorts of opinions and communication styles, etc that we won’t all agree on.

The whole point about women’s rights is that as long as you agree as to what a woman is and that every woman should have sex-based rights and protections, it doesn’t matter whether an individual woman says or does something that makes them appear less deserving of those rights (as I’m sure TRAs will try to argue) - they’re entitled to those rights by virtue of their sex regardless of how they speak, and TRAs can advocate for merit-based or femininity-based rights all they like, but they’re based on biological sex, so tough titties.

I don’t agree with everything I’ve heard from every GC advocate in the media, IRL or on MN, sometimes because of the way they’ve phrased something or because of what they say, but I still agree with them on the central issue of women’s rights. Despite what TRAs try to make out, women’s rights activism isn’t a cult headed by JKR and KS, so it’s absolutely fine to disagree with them!

Forcing people to argue, sorry 'debate' is part of the punishment for having the wrong sorts of views in the first place.
See also Climate Change.

Oh I love you Doc Stock😂

Doc Stock has a point.

I'm disinclined to give some of these people a pass on the grounds of patchiness of their cognitive function. I think they're also fundamentally bad.

Fachidiot, from the German: "Noun. A derogatory term for a one-track specialist who is an expert in his field, but takes a blinkered approach to multi-faceted problems".

Sally Hines is their queen, Jolyon Maugham the king.

I know The Emperor's New Clothes has been mentioned since forever in relation to genderism but it really is so apt - I don't think it's an accident that it's the highest ranking in the land who are pushing the bs of the lovely new clothes but it was an ordinary child who points out the emperor is naked...

She’s not wrong, it’s the only explanation. Never forget that these people are claiming that humans can change sex, or if they’re not they’re claiming we should all pretend they can. It’s straight out of 1984!

Just to add, OP, as a parent of a DC with LD, I can see why people might object to the tone of seemingly ridiculing people for being intellectually impaired.

But in the context of people purporting to be intelligent, professional, competent people on twitter, I think she’s right that they do sound stupid when they make those kinds of arguments.

I don’t think intellectually impaired people should be ridiculed for being stupid, but I think the people she’s talking about should be ridiculed, and I can see why calling them stupid (now we’re allowed to openly discuss gender identity ideology and say that biology exists) is an effective tactic in dismantling the ideology (the whole “women are scared men will kill them, men are scared women will laugh at them” thing).

After all, no-one will want to be associated with a movement that’s subject to derision once people start pointing out that the emperor is naked (which the SC ruling did very clearly).

I do appreciate the issue of comparing them to LD people, but I don’t think she meant it like that, and I would rather have free speech than curb everyday language to that extent (the book Mania by Lionel Shriver gives an interesting view of how that might play out).

There are people of very limited intellect, there are very naive people, there are poorly informed people and there are deeply disingenuous people. They all tend to hang out together quite a lot, so they can't reasonably object to the umbrella term 'thick'.

Breath of fresh air. Much needed. Thank you!

Like so many, I've been horrified since the SC judgment at so many stupid and downright incorrect arguments being given currency by a media in thrall to such stupid people.

KS is spot on. Time to call this for what it is. Intellectually redundant. Promoting predatory values (women & girls have no rights to boundaries from men) and openly abusive of children (a sex change will cure your uncomfortable pubertal adolescent body).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of good than evil. Evil can be protested and potentially countered with force, stupidity is impervious to debate and reasoning. It's also a moral defect, rather than simply an intellectual one - it's a lack of wisdom or discernment, not just a lack of knowledge.

Stupid is as stupid does.....