Kathleen Stock

I really enjoyed listening to this conversation.

One and a half hours of calm, relaxing, quiet, slow, careful and nuanced discussion of a topic that almost everywhere else is unpleasantly confrontational and argumentative.

For those still not sure what I'm talking about, it's the issue of trans rights versus women's rights.  And it's a discussion with Kathleen Stock.

In my opinion, this is exactly the way a civilised discussion should go, regardless of one's opinions on the various matters discussed.

I see this as essential viewing, and after watching it I've requested Stock's book, Material Girls, from the library.

There are a few things I'd like to read more details on:

1. Stock's analysis of the various ways that the words "woman" and "man" are defined and used.  I know that the words are ambiguous, and commonly used in several different ways (with people consequently often talking past each other).  So I'm curious why Stock, after analysing the terms, chooses to use the words one way rather than another.

That is, as I understand it, Stock consciously and knowingly chooses to use the words with minimal social/psychological content.  That is, for Stock a woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male.  These particular definitions of the words are both common and useful, as in society it is useful to distinguish between immature and mature people -- boy and man or girl and woman.

Nonetheless, some definitions of the words also include various social or psychological features, such as social norms/roles or self identification.  And in the context of social issues, is it also important to use language (clearly and appropriately, of course) that also includes those features?

I don't know.  So, I want to read more and think more about which definition of the words I should choose to use.

2. I was also interested in Stock's use of fictionalism.  Given the definition of woman/man above, this sort of explanation seems necessary for how to understand the common wider use of the words.  But one downside of this understanding is that it seems to require that some users of the words are perhaps not self-aware that they are engaging in fiction.  And is this a problem?

3. Then beyond language use there's also the practical social implications -- sport, prisons, changing rooms, women's refuges, etc, etc.  As in any social issue it's rare to satisfy all, so it's about balancing out competing rights, harms, preferences, opportunities, etc.  Case by case, what are some compromise practical solutions?