Persecution
Kathleen Stock, at Brian Leiter’s blog, on the latest blacklistings:
I see that the blog of the Institute of Art and Ideas has taken down a piece ( Download The current transgender debate polarizes Western societies like no other) to which Holly Lawford-Smith and I contributed, alongside Julie Bindel, Robin Dembroff, Susan Stryker and Rebecca Kukla. I assume the reason to be the fuss the latter three have been making on social media and letters to the editor since the piece was published.
One complaint I’ve seen from them is that I have no relevant expertise in this area. Yet my contribution links to my forthcoming piece on sexual orientation, sex, and gender, in the Aristotelian Society proceedings. (Moreover this isn’t a criteria I’ve ever seen employed when the contributor agrees with self-ID in law and policy, as we obviously do not. As usual it’s a highly selective use of a norm).
This was the invitation, which went out verbatim to Holly Lawford-Smith and Julie Bindel and I assume to the others. Holly wrote to the editor who commissioned us a few days ago and hasn’t heard back.
“I’m writing on behalf of the Institute of Art and Ideas – we organise the world’s largest music and philosophy festival, HowTheLightGetsIn, and also run an online magazine, IAI News, which receives around 100,000 views per month. Contributors so far have included Rebecca Goldstein, Martha Nussbaum, Anthony Appiah, Elizabeth Anderson, Homi Bhabha and others.
We are currently compiling an article where we ask leading thinkers ‘How can philosophy change the way we understand the transgender experience and identity?’ Given your influential work on the subject, I was wondering whether you would be interested in contributing a 200 word response?
I look forward to hearing from you”
They contributed, and the thanks they get is that the Institute of Art and Ideas takes the collection down.
But wait, there’s more.
A separate incident I’m told of recently involves Professor Sally Haslanger writing to the entire board of the NDPR to complain about my being asked to review Serene Khader’s latest book, and to ask them to review their policies moving forward so that a similar mistake isn’t made again.
And still more!
n the meantime I’m told that a graduate student is compiling a spreadsheet of my past tweets; publicly encouraged by Professor Jonathan Ichikawa, whose only regret is that others aren’t helping
https://mobile.twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1166504879449239552
Sure enough: here’s what Ichikawa said:
Hi Christa, I just wanted to say again, thanks for all the work you are doing staying on top of these conversations. It’s incredibly valuable labour, although I do wish it didn’t fall so heavily in you specifically
He just wanted to say again, thanks for all the creepy stalking and harassment you are doing of feminist philosophers who fail to obey the strict orders to pretend that men are women if they say they are. It’s incredibly valuable labour, this nonstop spying and persecuting.
Back to Kathleen:
These philosophers are happy to use intimidation of editors, and attempted intimidation of gender-critical philosophers, under the guise of moral outrage, to shut us up, rather than intellectual engagement. Perhaps they even believe that we are such harmful individuals that any such tactics are appropriate. Either way, I’m embarrassed for them. Is there any other area of philosophy in which gate-keeping is so intense? Why is that, I wonder?
I wonder too. I’ve been wondering for a long time.
The IAI invited philosophers to contribute 200 words, but Kukla’s submission was 1,230 words. Then she complained that the IAI edited her submission down to 504 words without checking with her, but a newspaper or a magazine can edit a letter to the editor exactly that way.
I wish the IAI stood their ground in this case.
NDPR = ?
NDPR = Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, an electronic journal of book reviews, where Brian Leiter is on the editorial board of 55 members. That’s the context for Lawford-Smith writing:
Khader’s latest book is Decolonizing Universalism: A Transnational Feminist Ethic:
Lawford-Smith looks qualified to review the book, judging from the IAI post (that the IAI took down, and Leiter linked to in his post):
I haven’t seen what Haslanger sent to the board, so this paragraph is just my opinion. It seems to me that Haslanger is gatekeeping “gender” in general, and didn’t like the combination of that book’s contents with Lawford-Smith reviewing it. In other words, if Lawford-Smith wrote a review that gave a fair representation of the book (which she seems qualified to do), I’m guessing Haslanger would not like that.
Oh damn, I made a mess in #3.
Kathleen Stock wrote the statement on Leiter’s blog, not Holly Lawford-Smith.
I’m sorry.
That’s ok, still a good tribute to Holly!
Better refer them to Greta Christina’s piece about how stalkerish it all is. Or will she change her tune to match the new edict?
Oops, forgot to add:
Speaking of which, McKinnon’s qualification is in philosophy. Why then is he considered a leading authority on sexual dimorphism as it relates to sports science?
Because ‘identifying as’ a woman automatically makes you an authority on anything to do with women, transwomen, sexual dimorphism, statistics about violence, and anything else you wish to speak on. Oh, and shut up TERF, that’s why.
Greta Christina’s piece?
Oh, that was a reference to Greta Christina’s post in which she laments the process of snooping in someone’s social media for likes, positive comments and such, and drawing conclusions from them.
https://the-orbit.net/greta/2015/11/10/what-i-would-have-thought-would-be-an-obvious-observation-about-social-media/
Holy shit, I didn’t realise it was four years ago! But I recall marveling at the lack of self scrutiny in that post – that was written mere months after exactly that sort of bullshit was conducted against you.
Ohhhhh yes. Dear god I’d forgotten that.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
I’m pretty sure I made fun of it here at the time, but then promptly forgot about it. I find Greta very worthy of forgetting.
It’s kind of interesting to go back and read DOCTOR Richard Carrier’s first comment applauding Ms. Christina’s post, and then his ultra-snooty “Heed.” after she enjoins her readers not to use the space to address “l’affaire Benson”.
And of course, there was DOCTOR Richard Carrier’s disgusting condescension towards Ms. Benson. Gah, that crowd.
Yes, I took a look at the comments this morning after Holms clarified, and kind of sniggered at Carrier’s lofty rebuke of me, given the state of relations between him and Greta and the rest of them now.
Capital DOCTOR always makes me hear Tommie Lee Jones in my head – “DOCTOR Richard Kimball.”
Ms. Benson @ #14 – I think they must have had so much fun making that movie – and, from what I recall, it’s pretty good.