Deidre McClosky & Kathleen Stock

Part One of Two.

This was a debate between a late-“transitioning” heterosexual, father who I covered in an earlier piece which you can read here: 👇

Deidre McClosky

The debate opens with Kathleen outlining her position in her usual calm terms after she has paid respect to McClosky’s willingness to share a platform with her.

Stock begins by outlining the debate in Anglo-American culture over the definition of woman and man and male and female. Biology is being disputed and this has profoundly practical consequences; it’s not just an abstract debate. This has profound, practical, consequences on how we organise social spaces, prisons, changing rooms and also it has a significant impact for sexual orientation if we deny sex is real. Stock then makes a distinction between “trans” people and “trans” activists. She continues by outlining how far the arguments have shifted to deny sex is real and prioritise a claimed inner sense of whether one is a woman or a man. She concluded with why this issue is concerning; because it is a belief in a subjective identity is being enacted in policy and law.

I would just add a clarification about the U.K law. It’s true that “trans” activism has only latterly started demanding that men, with penises, can be women and invade women’s spaces but, even at its inception, the Gender Recognition Act allowed fully intact males to be legally recorded as women. Most people are unaware of this fact. (This is not a criticism, Kathleen was speaking to a U.S audience).

Kathleen then proceeds to outline the implications for prison policy and the fact that these (penis-wielding) men, even when convicted of sexual offences against women, are in female prisons.

Finally Kathleen covers the issues affecting children, labelled as “trans”, who, in contrast to the ideological approach to adults, are being medicated. Puberty blockers and surgeries are being done to teenagers and, in the U.S. the ages for surgeries are much younger. She then covers the cohort affected, who can be gay males /Lesbians, autistic or have a history of trauma. All groups over represented at gender clinics. Below are the statistics for the U.K. and a Professor explaining that, left alone, many would simply be gay.

Deidre opens with a comment on the BBC, who approached him to do a conversation with Stock but, eventually decided to go ahead with a different person because McClosky didn’t disagree with Kathleen to a sufficient degree. That’s the BBC who wonder why the world is so polarised on this issue.

McClosky introduces himself as a “trans woman” though he adds that he would prefer to be just called woman, adding “but that’s O.Kas long as people are courteous and treat me as they would their grandmother”. He then plugs his book “Crossing” and talks of a time in his life when he didn’t “pass” as he says he does now. He then outlines some of his secondary sexual characteristics, height and voice, that have not changed and then said men, who want to be seen as men in dresses should be free to do so, but he wants to be seen as a woman.

He then talks about the philosophy and reasons and nominalism and something about rocks with different uses.

[Nominalism= There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time.]

He continues and this raised a chuckle.

He speculates that maybe in the future we will be able to edit our genes but as long as he can be in the world as a woman…but, he adds, I am not a woman.

McClosky believes social roles are flexible and, in a free society, they should be. (He’s a libertarian). He then proceeds to declare that violence in politics comes from the left and transactivism in the U.K. also comes from the left but, in the U.K the “terfs” also think of themselves as the “left”. Stock interjects to point out “that depends” and that “terf” is a contested term. He agrees “sure it is, it’s a term of insult”. He then moves onto the Michigan women’s festival.

[The Michigan women’s festival ran for over forty years and it’s founder intended it to be female only. Trans-identified males ran a concerted campaign to gain entry setting up an adjacent “Camp Trans” and an organisation called “Trans women belong her”. One of these men would go on to murder two lesbians and their son, the trial did not happen for years and he is still awaiting sentencing]. It officially ended in 2015.

McClosky outlines the difference in the United States where the right wing see this as a weapon in a culture war and a way to attack Democrats.

On the sports issue McClosky agrees that trans-identified males don’t belong in women’s sports, though he adds a caveat about meaning only those who have gone through male puberty. Then he segues into a comment (presumably he means the Williams twins) who have large muscles and are we going to handicap female athletes with advantages? Stock interjects to counter with statistics that show the Williams sisters would lose against very low ranking males.

We then proceed to hear about McClosky’s own “transition” , at 53, and his claim that it’s not irreversible. I think he is claiming that, because he went through a male puberty, and is now a “woman” in his eyes that makes procedures reversible. This is risible logic.

Childhood “transition”

Mclosky takes the view that is described as “persistent, insistent and consistent” by gender ideologues.

If this is the case then McClsocky advocates for puberty blocking at age 9 or 10. After being contradicted by Stock, who argues this is in fact controversial, he concedes that it is controversial but he is offering an an alternative argument. He then claims “if you don’t do it there’s a high risk of suicide” . Stock interjects to dispute this claim. He responds thus 👇

Kathleen responds, calmy, “So, shall we talk about evidence then?” . McClosky claims it’s a little bit hard to talk about evidence. Stock retorts that it is not hard, she has some evidence. I though the way he replied to this showed he was rattled. (I am assuming that is as patronising across the pond as it is presumed to be in the U.K.)

Kathleen comes back with a few points. She doesn’t use “trans” child because it solidifies the narrative too early, she explains the suicide myth and that these statistics need to take into account competing co-morbidities. There is, she says, evidence of an elevated risk but the risk for anorexia is much higher. She also points out this narrative is used, by trans activists, to frighten parents into “affirming” their child. She also raises the huge statistical spike in referrals to the Tavistock which is over 5000% in girls and 2000% in boys. She also takes issue with the mythical two year old “knowing” she is a boy. She also takes issue with the idea it is progressive to affirm this and refers to the DSM (diagnostic tool) that claims wanting “boys” toys may be a sign of a “trans child”. “Why can’t we just have girls, who like boys toys, who fancy girls and break all the gender stereotypes?”.

McClosky comes back with the notion that society is just more accepting which could explain the rise in statistics for those claiming a “trans” identity. He uses evidence of homosexuality rising over the last century. Kathleen agrees that increased prevalence could be more social acceptance but also points to an element of social contagion. McClosky agrees that social contagion is also likely to be a factor.

I will leave it there and come back to the questions from the audience in part 2.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


One thought on “Deidre McClosky & Kathleen Stock

Leave a Reply