Various folks have contacted me about the errors in the open letter defaming Kathleen Stock for being awarded an OBE. (I suppose no one should be surprised by this given the involvement of smarmy Jonathan Ichikawa in drafting this.) It might be useful to address the major errors in one place, so here goes:
1. The letter states, falsely, that Professor Stock is "best-known" for her “opposition to the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity.” In fact, Professor Stock supports the UK's Gender Recognition Act (GRA), and it is the letter's signatories who oppose it in its current form. Professor Stock opposed a proposed amendment to the Act that would have changed the legal process for altering one's gender, so that self-identification as a particular gender would trigger a change in one's legal rights. (The letter also adds, misleadingly, that Professor Stock is "best-known" for "advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters,” even though Professor Stock is on record as supporting "the continued function of single-sex spaces as traditionally understood," which already includes trans women (consistent with the GRA). The concern has always been that permitting self-ID to determine legal gender will result in people with obviously male phenotypic features, including genitalia, into these spaces: some women, obviously, might find this unpleasant. She also is on record as supporting current UK law which makes "gender reassignment" a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.)
2. As I mentioned originally, the letter's empirical claims about cause-and-effect are unsupported and, as far as I can see, unsupportable:
Trans people are already deeply marginalized in society, facing well-documented discrimination, ranging from government policy to physical violence. Discourse like that Stock is producing and amplifying contributes to these harms, serving to restrict trans people’s access to life-saving medical treatments, encourage the harassment of gender-non-conforming people, and otherwise reinforce the patriarchal status quo. We are dismayed that the British government has chosen to honour her for this harmful rhetoric.
The reference to "life-saving medical treatments" is particularly mysterious. The recent Kiera Bell decision limits the use of puberty-blockers by teens and pre-teens, but (1) there is no evidence Professor Stock's work had any influence on the decision, and (2) these are not "life-saving" medications. The OBE recognized Professor Stock not for her "harmful [sic] rhetoric" but for her "services to higher education," meaning, as the University of Sussex aptly put it, for having "publicly defended the rights of academics to discuss contentious ideas, including her own current research, which addresses philosophical questions about biological sex and gender."
3. The letter states, falsely, that “some — apparently including the British government — have a tendency to mistake transphobic fearmongering for valuable scholarship.” Putting aside the smear, the award was not given for her scholarship, as just noted. Indeed, the Queen's "honours" have included a number of LGBT activists and leaders (including this year and, including, in past years, Professor Stephen Whittle, a leading trans rights advocate whose views are often opposed to those of Professor Stock).
There is more that could be said. For example, the letter has a paragraph about "academic freedom," which doesn't mention the actual issue. Stonewall's stance is, contrary to the letter's implication, explicit about its opposition to free speech when it conflicts with "inclusion" of trans people (e.g., the "right to free speech" must be balanced against the "duty to create [inclusive] environments," with denial that gender self-ID suffices for gender identity being offered as an example of the speech that fails the balancing test). And so on.
ADDENDUM: Amusingly, Chris "I make things up" Bertram has acknowledged that he signed the letter since he is not "fussy about whether particular details are right." Readers of Professor Bertram, take note.
Recent Comments