Deidre & Kathleen Stock (Part 2)


Q & A

You can read part one here:

Deidre McClosky & Kathleen Stock

For more background on McClosky here is my first post on him.

Deidre McClosky

The second part of the discussion opens the question and answer session. The first one talks about “gender” and how there may be typical things described as feminine and masculine but why can’t you be a girl who likes typical “masculine” things and he wonders why Deidre thinks they are a woman and not a “feminine” man. McClosky talks about how there are overlaps in what constitutes “feminine” and “masculine and how he knows women who are sports fanatics or English men who don’t like cricket. He then segues into something about ice cream which is hard to follow but, I think he is saying we can’t question what he desires. (The marriage ended, by the way).

Next up he talks about his past as a “macho” man and how he is now a “macho” woman, like his mother.

He continues with this statement which he seems to assume will have Kathleen’s agreement.

Kathleen responds with disagreement on this point. She doesn’t see “womanhood” as something akin to training to be a lawyer. She thinks the best definition of a woman is Adult Human Female but she does refer to a chapter in her book which talks about “immersive fictions”. Stock is aware this won’t satisfy Deidre but she is happy to go along with the fiction, in some contexts, for example using preferred pronouns, but she doesn’t think it’s literally true.

[I reviewed Kathleen’s book at the link below]

Material Girls: Review

McClosky finds the concept of “immersive fiction” useful. Deidre counters with recognising they have a philosophical difference because Kathleen still thinks a rock is just a rock.He then states that this belief doesn’t make Kathleen a bad person but it does make her naive.

What makes a woman?

Kathleen goes with Adult Human Female adding that whenever a new definition is tried it tends to be based on sexist stereotypes. Deidre goes with “it’s a social construction” and then confirms Stock’s point by retailing a sexist stereotype.

Kathleen responds, to laughter, that she takes 15 minutes to buy clothing too! (Same here. I rarely buy them, I get hand me ups from baby sister and on rare forays to buy clothes my speed in doing the deed is legendary).

Thoughts on detransitioners?

Deidre: “It’s very very rare” . Kathleen points to the 10,000 on the detrans subreddit. (That group now has over 47,000 members.) She says this is not unsurprising given the social contagion and that there are people emerging age 25 with many of them regretting a medical transition and some being without genitals.

McClosky is again rude and dismissive responding to Kathleen detailing the many medical interventions that are regretted, double mastectomies, ovary removal etc. McClosky says we regret many things in life. Hethen compares it to bringing up your children without books. He thinks this is equivalent to men who lost their penises. He knows lots of “trans” people who are ecstatic about their “transition”; adding “this is what the terfs say”. (I thought he agreed that this was a slur?). Stock makes the point that there are different demographics and someone “transitioning” at 50 has a fully developed prefrontal cortex.

Do you think the state should be involved?

McClosky puts this question to Stock. He’s a libertarian so you can guess his answer. Kathleen references the NHS review that has concluded there is a very low evidence base for gender medicine. The Dutch have changed their mind, Sweden has rowed back from this model of care. The State should be regulating this area of medicine, or if not the state we need some adults in the room. She also makes the point that it depends on the State. Iran, for example, outlaws homosexuality but funds “transition”. McClosky finishes that segment with a statement that he sharply disagrees.

You can’t protect what you can’t define.

Audience members asks a question about the reality of being a female and what happens when we deny our biological reality. She mentions sports, prisons, changing rooms and the erasure of female language. She addresses the question to Deidre.

McClosky is not keen on State involvement but claims not to be worried if he’s excluded from female sorts or even changing rooms but he is very dismissive about the concerns she raises.

Kathleen asks McClosky how he would feel about protecting sex and gender reassignment but not defining the latter as changing sex. McClosky points out that he uses XX and XY which Kathleen acknowledges but points out this is unusual and trans activists would see this as “transphobic”. He then adds “I don’t know why they don’t understand biology” which he then spoils by raising the intersex gambit. Kathleen skilfully bats away the forced teaming of people with disorders of sexual development. He then brings up comparisons to racism and treating black people as “other” and the treatment of male homosexuals. Full bingo card of “trans” talking points.

Kathleen shares the concern that extremist on the far right will run with this issue of the left doesn’t start speaking up and reining in the extremists.

Dysmorphia v Dysphoria

This question asks at what level of discomfort with your sexed body should give rise to medical interventions. What is the cut off for telling /counselling someone they have to reconcile with their biological reality.

McClosky opens by stating that he was never uncomfortable with his body when he was a man. Kathleen points out that lots of women are uncomfortable with their body and indeed our culture encourages this. This is why we should be worried about girls who think they are “trans” because they will use the tools available in their culture to express their distress. Currently the tool is to identify out of your sex in the past it was annorexia and self harm. McClosky concede that this has the ring of truth to him.

Age restrictions on medical interventions

McClosky comes out in favour of puberty blockers, shocker. Kathleen wants more evidence on the medical consequences. McClosky interrupts to point out that he would have loved his growth to be stunted. As I have written before these men are using medical interventions for children as a sort of vicarious, retrospective wish fulfilment. Kathleen points out the consequences for children who start on puberty blockers which, almost invariably, lead to cross sex hormones (98% progress to CSH). The boys will have stunted genitalia and permanent loss of orgasmic potential. Stock is against puberty blockers full stop and no surgeries until age of majority. (Here, I disagree. In the U.K sentencing guidelines allow the judiciary to take into account lack of brain maturation in the under 25’s. We protect convicted criminals better than dysphoric youth).

Next question is in a similar vein about the role of the state to protect children from harm even when perpetrated by their parents. He supports the Texas ban on these treatments for children. McClosky once again disagrees.

He proceeds to compare it to passing on bad dieterary habits of transmitting racist ideas. He also, once again, denies the irreversibility of the treatments. Kathleen says the idea of being born in the wrong body is in our culture which is solidifying playful ideas about self expression and involving gender clinics. MCClosky returns to the homosexual gambit and would Kathleen be in favour of measures to limit the way culture accepts homosexuality. Stock points out that this is an unfair analogy because there is no medical route for when a kid comes out as gay.

Reality versus nominalism.

A more philosophical note to end on. Kathleen answer is grounded in biological reality and the fact of sexual dimorphism. McClosky returns to arguments about scientific racism and his suspicion of the state. Kathleen finds this argument is losing her but she presumes it must be because McClosky sees her as on the opposite side to a libertarian perspective. In that case, she argues, take the state out of the argument let medical authorities step in re medical harms to children, or prison authorities on the harms of mixed sex prisons. The key point is she wants some body to step in and prevent the harmful consequences.

The end.

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. Only give if you can afford to do.

My Substack


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


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.


Deidre McClosky

I decided to do a piece on this interview, mainly because I had come across the name among those “transsexuals” who took part in the hounding of Michael Bailey, the author of The Man Who Would Be Queen. Bailey had committed the unpardonable crime of demonstrating the existence of autogynephilia by undertaking field work on the Chicago “trans” scene. The hounding of Bailey was taken to extreme lengths, here is a flavour:


The hounding of Michael Bailey

I have watched a number of interviews on this channel and the presenter’s (Dan Riley) style of interviewing, to my mind, facilitates a rather revealing exchange. The subject comes across as ultra-reasonable, at the outset. You can watch it here: 👇

Deidre McClosky

The interviewer opens by quoting McClosky’s own words, from their memoir:

Riley then proceeds to comment on how McClosky’s own memoir talks about how he was very much a boy “into boyish things”. This is important because many older “transsexuals” claim they were always “gender non-conforming”, from a young age. After being presented with his own recollections McClosky starts to enumerate all the ways he was not like other boys; using his failure to appreciate the Red Sox, American football team, and his lack of fights with other boys. (Later it turns out he was actually the captain of his high school football team, somewhat undermining this testimony).

McClosky then relates how he began to cross dress “as lots of men do” age 11, in his mother’s clothes.

McClosky then explains that he is heterosexual and married the love of his life, in 1965. He would be married for thirty years and father two children but continued to cross-dress and considered himself a heterosexual cross-dresser. He is keen to emphasise how common the practice is among other men. Later we will learn that he concealed this tendency from his wife until, by his testimony, three months into his marriage. We don’t have his wife’s account as is often the case.

By 1995 he had discovered the internet and made connections with other, cross-dressing, men and began to attend real life events where he could indulge his fetish publicly. By his own account it took less than a year for him to desire this lifestyle on a full-time basis.

At the 10:18 mark McClosky claims there are equal numbers of female cross-dressers to males. Given that the sex of referrals, to gender clinics, has only begun to reveal sizeable numbers of female referrals, in the last decade, I am more than skeptical about this claim.

He also recounts that he has not had any sexual experiences since his “transition”. (This is not unusual for men whose erotic target is inverted such that he has “become the woman he loves” ).

Riley circles back to ask McClosky to elaborate about the disclosure to his wife.

At around the 16:30 point they talk about how difficult it was to be in any way “unusual” in the 1950’s and how inhospitable society was for all different kinds of people including communists, gay people or even women. To transgress, in this way, in the 1950’s the compulsion had to be strong. McClosky talks about the how compulsions are strong when they have you “in their grip”. He then elaborates about how total absorption in anything “whether good or bad for us, or good or bad for other people, that’s happiness”. He ends this segment with a reference to Che Guevara writing to his father about how great he felt after he killed his first person. 😳 McClosky calls this state of being as “the flow” and explains that the cross dressing was arousing right up until he began to identify as full-time, in 1995. He would have been 53 at this point.

Dr Ann Lawrence talks about the decline of an erotic charge once “transition” happens. This could be a self-serving denial, to ensure access to female spaces. It could be a reaction to a decline in libido due to drugs/surgery. It could be a psychological need to transcend the sexual motivation and purify the new self.

Jan Morris

There is some talk of the happy marriage and suppressing the desire to be a woman and an encounter with Jan Morris’s book Conundrum. I have written about that book in this thread. I can see why it resonates. They were both high performing, heterosexual, married fathers who “transitioned” late in life.

Jan Morris: Conundrum

Of his previous life McClosky is keen to dispel the idea that he was unhappy. He was happy, he says but he is happier now even “ecstatic”. He is also keen to reject the idea he made a decision to “transition” ; it was not a choice it was a “realisation”, more of an “epiphany” than a decision. The location of this epiphany may be pertinent

He is keenly aware that the language is akin to talk of religion and, indeed he became an Episcopalian around this time. The reaction of his wife was only sympathetic at first, he describes her attitude as “hardening”. His mother was accepting but his sister was so alarmed she twice had him committed; though they have now reconciled.

The “trans” issue; Culture Wars

On the centrality of “trans” issues in the United States, McClosky ascribes this to the Trump administration and evangelical Christians. Unusually for a North American he recognises that the concern, in the U.K. originates on the left with the “terfs”. McClosky name checks JK Rowling and then tells us he has debated Kathleen Stock; who he stops short of lumping in with “terfs” and describes as a friend.


Riley is quite adept at circling back to issues he clearly doesn’t feel have been explored sufficiently, so we break off talk of culture wars for McClosky to explain, more fully, how the “ecstasy” of “transition” manifests itself. One of the examples is seeing himself in the mirror now that he has had facial feminisation surgery. McClosky dismisses the more romantic notions of becoming your authentic self in favour of the more prosaic “You are what your social role is”.


As a liberal McClosky starts to defend the right of people to do what makes them happy providing you don’t interfere with the rights of others but he soon reconsiders this as placing too much of a limitation. He concedes that he did “interfere” with his wife’s life, who he hurt, but he still had the right to do what he did. As an aside he mentions (wistfully?) that she did not need to divorce him and that Jan Morris’s wife stayed. He seems to imply that his wife was too unsophisticated and small town to accept his new persona.

What do you enjoy about being a “woman”.

There is an interesting digression about the nature (inadequacy) of male friendships; which made me wonder if high achieving, competitive men are somehow closed off from intimate male friendships. Deep friendships involve a degree of exposing weakness and maybe that’s only palatable to do with women and not with men?

Transitioning Children

Deidre says “straight” people don’t understand “transitioning” and then uses Kathleen Stock (a Lesbian) as an example of one of the people who don’t understand. Riley probes the issue of child transition within Deidre. The response is unequivocal:

That’s a silly argument, Here’s why. I can give you ten reasons. Here’s one. It’s not irreversible”. Bizarrely, McClosky gives himself as an argument even though he “transitioned” at 53 and immediately afterwards conceded that yes, indeed, some things about the change are, indeed, irreversible. So, not a convincing argument, in fact this is rather silly. It gets worse.

This is a man who fathered children.

He then uses the example of people who failed to study at school, claiming that is similarly irreversible; except it is clearly not hence mature students! There follow a number of illogical examples, becoming an alcoholic, dangerous driving moving your children around because you are in the army. All will have irreversible effects, says McClosky so why pick on this one thing?

It gets worse. After conceding he didn’t start cross dressing till age 11 he then begins to talk about the kids who “knew” at age two! Something tells me Donald was not a hands on Dad. 👇

In this case, for McClosky not to allow “him to be him” is cruel “it’s child abuse”. For McClosky the fear of regret is based on a “fairy tale” because he has not met anyone who regrets it. He is rather patronising about Dr/Professor Stock. To him she is misguided but the consequence of her mistake is the “arousal of hatred against transgender people”. He then compares it to racism and the fear of the sexual potency of black men, by whites racists; the fear of granting women the vote; and the rise of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany. A transperbole hat-trick.

And the inevitable dismissal. This is how we know you don’t know what a woman is! 👇

Those irrational women!

It’s irrational and based on data that the “terfs” completely make up” He then says the “terfs” have been aroused by dangerous rhetoric; just like Trump voters. There’s some repetition here and he is a bit testerical but he then moves onto State interference in parenting. Naturally his concern is State interference to “stop” childhood “transition” but, in fact, all of the cases of State interference have been taking children into care because the parents wouldn’t medicalise their children. After some more silly arguments about the State not interfering if you fail to read to your child it is clear Deirdre’s patience is wearing thin. He doesn’t believe the onus is on him to rebut the “terfs” arguments.

There is a bit more waffle on “terfs” wanting the State to interfere with parents who think they have “trans kids”. In fact many of us just don’t want the State to use tax payers money to sterilise kids or the take children away from “non-affirming” parents. [This has happened in Canada, Australia and the United States. Even in the U.K we have had Social Workers interfere, with parents trying to protect their kids from the Gender Industrial Complex.

At the end of the interview McClosky talks of their responsibility to be a role model and speak up for “transgender” people. He also brings up Michael Bailey as I mentioned in the first paragraph. So, I had a quick look to see if Bailey had commented on McClosky. I was not disappointed. Here’s a flavour of what McClosky put him through. (Notice that he did not refer to the estrangement from his wife and children in the above interview). 👇

Another admission which puts a different slant on an “innocent” way to pass the time:

Sometimes we learn as much from what is left out as what is kept in….

You can support me with a donation here. All contributions, however small, help me keep my content open.

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.