(Éditions H&O, 2024. Translation by Olivier Bosseau)
This book by Kathleen Stock, a British philosopher and feminist, is very original. It addresses in a scientific and documented way a problem that fools have called "controversy". What controversy? On the one hand, there are the ideologues who put their feelings and emotions before any objective knowledge, and on the other, the advocates of authentic knowledge that they want to share with their readers in good faith. In this respect, every book is polemical and this is all to the glory of the Gutenberg galaxy. Books are made to debate ideas, to give food for thought, to shake up received ideas. Balzac is polemical, Voltaire is polemical, Chateaubriand is polemical, and I remain in the field of literature without entering into that of sociology or philosophy! Publishers, since the birth of printing, have played a vital role in supporting thought, in the most general and noblest sense of the term. They must continue this work free from all pressures...
What does Kathleen Stock tell us that brings a new perspective on the interactions between biology and sociology? She first classifies the concepts "male" and "female" into four levels of analysis:
- The most basal level is the cellular level of gametes. There are large receptor cells and small mobile cells: we will have recognized ovules and spermatozoa or pollen. And this exists in all forms of sexual life, plant and animal, from the simplest to the most complex, whether the sexes are separate as in most animals, or united as in flowers. In their book[1], Gross and Levitt had mentioned the existence of a group of American biology professors, the Biology and gender study group, for whom the classic representation of active, motile sperm seeking to penetrate the passive, immobile egg is atrociously derogatory to women[2]. Yet this is very simple biology which does not support discussion.
- The second level is that of chromosomes. In the human species, everyone knows that the existence of a sex chromosome Y characterizes males and its absence females. The most frequent karyotype (limiting ourselves to sex chromosomes) is XX in women and XY in men.[3]. Here again, we are in basic biology! There are a certain number of variants, not very frequent, with X0, XXY, XYY and other anomalies determining disorders of sexual development, but this does not authorize us to speak of the existence of 5 sexes as Anne Fausto-Sterling does, of 48 as Eric Macé says, or of an infinity as Thierry Hoquet affirms.[4]We are swimming in complete delirium, and Kathleen Stock comes to bring a little reason into this mess.
- The third level (or criterion) is that of the "grouping of morphological and functional attributes". By this, the author means the presence of breasts, a vulva, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries in women, a penis and testicles in men, all "primary" sexual characteristics; with in addition numerous differences in laryngeal conformation, in the distribution of abdominal fat, in body hair: all that are called "secondary" sexual characteristics. It is quite incredible that the simple reminder of these obvious facts led to the harassment of Kathleen Stock in the British media and that she had to resign from her post as professor of philosophy! Who is creating and maintaining a controversy?
- The fourth level is that of "gender"; it resides in the perception of oneself, that is to say that it sits at the cerebral level. One can be a man and feel like a woman, or the opposite. Kathleen Stock does not discuss this profound feeling and respects it. She never attacks "transgenders", on the contrary she campaigns for them to be helped, recognized in the sex with which they live, keeping all the dignity of human persons. Yes, the sexes are also socially (and psychologically) constructed, but it is from an indisputable biological basis. The causes of gender dysphoria are not known: early hormonal impregnation of the brain? Particular events in early childhood? No, there is no gene for gender dysphoria, any more than there is a gene for homosexuality or autism, as some have claimed.
But there is much more in Kathleen Stock's book! No, she is not "transphobic"! She simply speaks out against trans activists, against the intrusion of men into spaces reserved for women (dormitories, showers, prisons) because they "feel" like women and take advantage of it to rape their fellow sufferers, against the false "sportswomen" who come to grab the medals. She does not denounce, she explains. She explains why children and adolescents must be protected against the excesses of trans adults who, by reversing the meaning of words and the spirit of the law, facilitate their access to endocrine and surgical conversion therapies, which are nevertheless prohibited in the United Kingdom and in France.
Kathleen Stock dissects the concept of “man” and “woman” in biology and society. She does so not as a sociologist, but as a philosopher. A few key sentences are worth noting: “Concepts [are] cognitive tools or capacities that—at least when they work properly—enable us all to navigate the world around us more effectively. Having concepts helps us notice different kinds of things and distinguish between them based on our interests.” But “concepts also identify real divisions that already exist in the world; […] the ability to name and conceptualize the world in ways that are relevant to our interests has been a feature of humans since the emergence of higher cognitive brain functions. We wouldn’t have gotten very far without it.”
I leave readers to discover in this book how Kathleen Stock brings her practice of philosophy into play to apply it to the concept of "woman" and to the consideration of these concepts in gender identity and the social role of women. Fascinating is the description of the immersion of certain trans people in a TV series. This immersion, whether voluntary or forced, plunges these people out of reality, with all the dangers that such an attitude carries. But many trans people, fortunately, do not rush into such a headlong flight and “exist” with determination in the gender that corresponds to their deepest self, without seeking to draw attention to themselves. What is aberrant is that, in the United Kingdom at least, legal support for this fiction is manifested in the courts: “The stated belief that there are two sexes cannot be considered a protected philosophical belief under the terms of the Equality Act 2010,” ruled a judge. “The judge’s incredible decision,” continues Kathleen Stock, “meant that the refusal to immerse oneself in the fiction of sex change, and, instead, to state facts, was ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’.”
“How did it come to this?” asks Kathleen Stock. “What played a big role […] was the public awareness of a history of prejudice against sexually non-conforming people, which was associated with a respectable desire to be on the right side of history.” She points out that sex between men was punishable by death in England and Wales until 1861: this created a sense of guilt at many levels of society, particularly at the legal level, with judges unwilling to repeat the stigma of the past towards “deviants.” Trans activist propaganda, the biased presentation of suicide statistics or “hate crimes,” have accentuated a trend that, while tinged with empathy for trans people, is cruelly unfair to those who (without being “transphobic,” I repeat) refuse to enter into a morbid fiction.
And to conclude, Kathleen Stock calls for more academic work on the trans phenomenon: "Less (high) academic theory and more academic data" is a subtitle of her conclusion. The unresolved questions are numerous... It is not possible to advance, without objectively established evidence, slogans that are mechanically repeated by activists, and mechanically repeated by judges, journalists and, alas, many academics. "We do not even know," she says, "what is the proportion of trans people undergoing medical transition, with information for each type of surgery (facial, thoracic, genital) and for endocrine therapy." How can we advance on a problem that is not satisfactorily stated? How can we solve an equation that has more unknowns than parameters?
Let's bet that the French version of Kathleen Stock's book will have the same success as the British original!
