Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism is a 2021 book by Kathleen Stock which explores issues related to transgender civil rights and feminism. The book reached number 13 on the UK list of bestselling non-fiction charts.[1]
Summary
In this book, Stock critiques the theory that individuals have an inner feeling known as a gender identity that is more socially significant than an individual's biological sex. Stock surveys and critiques the philosophical ideas underpinning this theory and argues that that biological sex performs an important social role in the contexts of exclusive spaces and resources, healthcare, epidemiology, political organization and data collection for biological women.[2][3]
Stock argues that biological sex is material (physical) and has social relevance.[4] She proposes that biological sex is binary in nature,[4] which is in opposition to some scientific perspectives which understand it as a spectrum.[5] Stock argues for a narrower definition of intersex and that it does not negate that sex is binary, as "difficulty about borderline cases is absolutely standard for biological categories".[4] Stock argues that entry to "women's only spaces" (e.g. toilets) ought to be based on the individual's biological sex as opposed to their gender identity, and that they should be provided legal protection on a separate basis.
Reception
Reviewing in The Times, Emma Duncan called the book an easy read and said it helped her understand trans issues better.[6] In The Telegraph, Jane O'Grady describes the book as brave, enligtening and closely argued.[7]
Reviewing in The Philosophers' Magazine, Julian Baggini comments that Stock's work is not the last word on the debate but a legitimate contribution, arguing that it is far from obvious that gender self-identification is the only legitimate criterion for identifying as a sex or gender and that those who do not accept this position should be taken seriously.[4]
Julie Bindel, author of Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation and one of the people thanked by Stock in the book, wrote in The Spectator that Material Girls was meticulously researched and carefully argued.[9] However, Bindel also said that Stock incorrectly conflates feminists with gender critical activists, and that Stock's critique of standpoint epistemology, while valid in Bindel's opinion, does not distinguish the second wave feminist idea of the personal is political which focuses on connecting individual experiences to social forces rather than privileging these experiences epistemically.[9]
Philosopher Adam Briggle, himself the parent of a transgender son in Texas, argued in the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective that Stock's framing choices, policy recommendations, and conclusions are not "logical consequence of her or anyone else’s theory" but her own pre-established positions. Briggle felt that Stock had only considered "the handful" of transgender people who could be used as examples to support these positions, while ignoring the experiences and concerns of transgender people in general.[10]
Professor Alex Sharpe found the book fell short of the claims made on its behalf and contributed to "the toxicity surrounding trans people and they make it more difficult for us to live our lives."[11] as the book contained many errors such as Stock's definition of sex being binary or how individual cases of violence committed by trans women are used to
form spurious conclusions on trans women inclusion in women's prisons despite evidence to the contrary being available.[12]
