So I have now read Kathleen Stock's book "Material Girls". It is thoughtful, but deeply flawed.
The best part of the book is the philosophical analysis in the first two chapters. After that it sadly degenerates into polemic.
It is also unfortunately littered with ad hominem attacks against certain academics with whom Stock disagrees, and there are instances of outright hypocrisy - for example she castigates trans activists for misrepresenting statistics, then misrepresents statistics herself.
She makes repeated assertions that are not supported by evidence and which are open to question. There are also some painful non sequiturs.
For example, she says that some women (and men) are emotionally attached to extreme stereotypes of their own sex. This is true, though probably fairly rare (and I don't see why extreme stereotypes should be called "ideals".) But... 
... she then goes on to assert that because most people don't identify with these extreme stereotypes, therefore most people don't have gender identies. Eh???
I was also pretty horrified by the ableism she displays, particularly towards people on the autistic spectrum. In this excerpt she effectively asserts that children with autism are unable to determine their own gender.
It is a real pity that the clear thinking in the first part of the book did not extend into the second. I think it would have been a much better book if it had been approached more rigorously, with care taken to avoid her personal priors influencing the logic of her argument.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
