I heard Kathleen Stock on the radio saying she had an affinity with the masculine. What did she mean by this?

submitted by theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Stock said she doesn't assume the blank slate, meaning that some of masculinity and femininity can be innate. That might mean she see here own masculine affinity as the same as the affinity in men to masculinity.

That's not the same as trans ideology but I do see it as something different from original gender critical thought and most of radical feminism.

A person can believe gender is essential and that divergent gender forms are essential but oppose trans politics.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Stock said she doesn't assume the blank slate, meaning that some of masculinity and femininity can be innate.

Did she actually say the second part, or did you just infer it?

I don't believe in the blank slate either, but I don't think of the blank slate as referring to "gender identity" the way you seem to. I think of the blank slate in the ways it was originally conceptualized by such thinkers as Locke, Thomas Aquinas and Freud, all whom were speaking about personality and character - not either "identity" or "gender identity" the way those terms are used today.

That might mean she see here own masculine affinity as the same as the affinity in men to masculinity.

Stock is a very precise speaker. I wouldn't put words into her mouth that she didn't say or assume thoughts in her head she hasn't expressed. You should really ask her directly. But read her book first. The answer is probably set forth there quite clearly.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did she actually say the second part, or did you just infer it?

Well I did recently read this from her site.

I don't automatically assume the mind is a blank slate, so that all sex-based social characteristics are wholly acquired. That's an empirical question so let's see what the science eventually shows. I don't think that getting rid of different social stereotypes for males and females altogether is a coherent aim, though altering the highly regressive ones we have, is.

Not your feminist

All sounded good to me. Probably lots of people might agree with that.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Would you say any of her work indicates she’s a gender essentialist? Does an inherent affinity for things that are gendered only mean that gender is the inherent part? Could it also be that inherent traits have been gendered?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

She said she doesn't think getting rid of different gender stereotypes is coherent. That she doesn't believe in the blank slate.

Could it also be that inherent traits have been gendered?

To me this is some of the crucial questions.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well I think we both know I disagree that there’s any such thing as inherent femininity or masculinity as I understand the concepts. No need to rehash that one.

Is gender essentialism the only possibility if she doesn’t believe eliminating sexed stereotypes entirely is coherent? Is there a reason you’re asking other people what she means as though she is some icon of gc?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is gender essentialism the only possibility if she doesn’t believe eliminating sexed stereotypes entirely is coherent?

That's sort of my question.

Is there a reason you’re asking other people what she means as though she is some icon of gc?

Because I thought a gc person is more likely to know the answers for example if they said, "I saw her give an interview and said she was a gender essentialist but not a gender identity essentialist." Or something I don't know.

I think that would be different from seeing gender as personality or gender as form of class hierarchy.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well no. Gender essentialism is not really a coherent answer to anything at all, and is absolutely not the only possibility aside from a blank slate. No one is not a gender essentialist if they recognise that eliminating sexed stereotypes is maybe not 100%possible.

Why on earth would gender essentialism be an option, let alone the only one?

Gc covers a pretty big range of people and ideas but it’s safe to guess that gender essentialism will never be supported or argued by gc parties. To the best of my understanding It’s an inherently sexist belief system that can’t exist in a feminist framework.