As the person who spent the past year documenting it, & also someone @johnschwenkler has decided to entirely ignore, his claim that people are calling Stock “not a serious scholar *of gender*” on the basis of an “uncharitable reading” of a single tweet has me frustrated to tears. 
@johnschwenkler (Shortening "not a serious scholar of gender" to "not a serious scholar" generally is completely misleading as well.)
https://twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1154230431446736896
@johnschwenkler I OF COURSE initially assumed these professors had done a minimal amount of reading in feminist theory. (That's what we're talking about, to be clear: not a high level of expertise, passing familiarity. In many cases, stuff students should get from women's & gender studies 101.)
@johnschwenkler There were some odd things from the beginning! In her since deleted post where she defends trans-exclusionary positions, it was striking to me that Stock cited people she had been "reading online" instead of any actual trans exclusionary radfem theory.
archive.is/F3QM0
archive.is/F3QM0
@johnschwenkler The whole premise of her first post was odd, given the actual history of these positions: it's surely not actually very surprising that there aren't philosophers currently defending a strain of radical politics that peaked in the 70s and 80s.
medium.com/@kathleenstock…
medium.com/@kathleenstock…
@johnschwenkler Lawford-Smith et al.'s Daily Nous letter was also odd: they suggested McKinnon had invented TERF claims that are immediately recognizable from the big OG TERF theorists. From my reply:
praile.net/blog/reply-to-…
praile.net/blog/reply-to-…
@johnschwenkler At first I assumed they wanted to memory hole these theorists because their work is pretty clearly hateful. But it gradually became clear that they were just not actually familiar with them.
@johnschwenkler First, though, another obvious literature you would need to look into to do serious scholarship on this stuff is of course trans theory! Stock has *explicitly* and *repeatedly* mocked suggestions that she do this. From her reply to Talia Bettcher:
medium.com/@kathleenstock…
medium.com/@kathleenstock…
@johnschwenkler Anyway: *the argument* in OG trans-exclusionary theory to deny trans woman womenhood, the tradition "gender critical" philosophers appeal to portray trans exclusion as a preexisting feminist commitment, is that womanhood is a matter of belonging to a
political "sex class" that is subordinated on the basis of being female. Shelia Jefferys, the most recent of these theorists, started using the term "sex caste" instead because irl classes often *are* things people can move between.
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1112864875821203456
If you are familiar with this actual tradition *at all* you are familiar with this. But they're not.
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1112858138506481665
Another example:
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1046912813493407745
I also noted that this view JCJ is attributing to Frye is not at all Frye's. They got very mad at me about this and did a cool group gaslighting thing
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1046921761306988544
Frye's oppression paper is one of the most famous second wave feminist papers.
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1047542020137410570
I realized later that they actually also attribute this random view to Frye in a paper that SEVEN of them cowrote.
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1131707311674675200
Another example of an astonishing bit of ignorance is Stock responding to someone talking about trans lesbians being left out of historical narratives by claiming trans lesbians "self-defined into existence" IN THE PAST 10 YEARS
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1153812646388305922
This is of course obviously false if you have any familiarity with trans theory, OR trans-exclusionary radfem theory. Schwenkler has claimed that the idea that she said what she said is an "uncharitable reading," but it is the only reading.
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1153813093270482957
Professor Schwenkler "expects" that the charge that these people have not done any of the reading lacks merit. Obviously I initially expected basic fluency as well. Then I read literally thousands of their posts, and I realized that was false.
https://twitter.com/johnschwenkler/status/1155291922237448192
I have been saying this for a year. They have NEVER responded with anything that suggests actual familiarity. Instead they just insult me and try to shame me. Or they pretend I'm talking about not having read enough trans theory. (Also bad, but not what I'm talking about here.)
Or, like Professor Schwenkler most recently has, someone diverts it onto a long thread of nonsense about "gatekeeping." This is not serious scholarship. Look at it.
I assume Schwenkler has muted me, so I would appreciate it if someone else would tag him in.
In Stock's AS talk she decides there is no coherent notion of "gender" that is independent of "sex"—bad news for decades of feminist thought—on the basis of rejecting 3 supposed definitions, none of which are how the term is normally used in feminist lit.
https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1121235302377377792
Her first supposed definition of "gender" is "gender expression," the second "definition of gender" is "sex is also socially constructed," the third is "gender identity." She does not consider the possibility that gender is... being a woman or a man.
Stock via Hitchens on the defining second wave feminist slogan, which she appears to think is a trans conspiracy or something
update: this is all just angry muttering because these examples are merely from months and months after they started publicly representing themselves as radical feminist scholars and the only true feminists left standing and not from like yesterday
If they finally decided to read a book I'm very happy for them but I'm pretty sure finally getting a general idea what you're talking about like a year into your relentless campaign would not retroactively transform any of that into serious scholarship.
A more recent example at Holly's request: here she is 2 days ago telling @MarkarianTheda that calling her the Betty Friedan of 2019 when analogizing trans exclusion to lesbian exclusion is a compliment
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
