They would do well to repudiate this embarrassment from the UK chapter
Yet another lying bullying “statement,” this one from Minorities and Philosophy UK. Brian Leiter flags it up:
I don’t want to make more of this disgraceful statement than it deserves; many MAP chapters are doing constructive work, and they would do well to repudiate this embarrassment from the UK chapter. One can support equal opportunity for and dignified treatment of trans philosophers, as Professor Stock explicitly does, and still disagree with how some trans philosophers understand gender.
Note that this statement is the work of a handful of individuals, including the already notorious Keyvan Shafei and the equally benighted spouse of Nathan Oseroff, among others. It was apparently prompted by the fact that the Aristotelian Society, much to its credit, permitted a professional philosopher, Kathleen Stock, to present a philosophical paper on sex and gender, and even defended her right to do so. For the Red Guard wannabes at MAP UK that was too much to bear, hence the statement, complete with the usual make-believe allegations of “harm” (that someone finds someone else’s philosophical views offensive and upsetting isn’t a harm: please read John Gardner’s earlier comments on this subject).
So let’s read the statement.
In line with the missions of Minorities and Philosophy (MAP), MAP UK aims to support and celebrate the work of members of under-represented and marginalised groups in philosophy. This includes, for example, (but is not limited to) women, trans and non-binary people, people of colour, disabled people, LGBTQ+ people, working class people, immigrants, and practitioners for whom English is not a first language, among other historically underrepresented groups.
The presence of these voices in academic philosophy improves academic philosophy for everyone. Not only do members of these communities make our discipline fairer, but their contributions also make ongoing conversations richer and better.
Fine so far; no problem.
The discipline of philosophy, as it stands, has much work to do for each of these groups. But one particular area that we must focus on is the increasing professional hostility towards trans people, with trans women and trans feminine philosophers regularly experiencing intensified and aggravated forms of hostility and abuse. In recent years and months, attacks on the trans community have been led by a number of prominent philosophers and are made to seem legitimate due to the unwillingness of the wider community to speak up and protect its most vulnerable members.
Bzzzzzzzt. No. The lies have begun.
- increasing professional hostility towards trans people
- with trans women and trans feminine philosophers regularly experiencing intensified and aggravated forms of hostility and abuse
- attacks on the trans community have been led by a number of prominent philosophers
They’re calling disagreement over the ontological status of the trans version of gender “hostility”, “abuse”, and “attacks”. That’s not legitimate. They’re interpreting analysis of trans ideology and activism as “attacks on the trans community.” How can anybody ever get at the truth about anything if all attempts are translated into “attacks on the ____ community”?
A number of trans people have spoken out about their experiences in philosophy, especially on the painful topic of how recent events in philosophy have impacted (and continue to seriously threaten) their wellbeing, their professional careers, and their personal lives. We list some of these invaluable and heartbreaking testimonies below.
At the top of the list of those “invaluable and heartbreaking testimonies” is of course the one we read last week, by “t philosopher” – the one that I couldn’t be sure wasn’t a parody. How can these philosophers be so sure that anonymous post is both sincere and truthful? How is it that they can’t take even a single step back to ask a question or two? How is it that the stunningly banal formulaic prose of that post doesn’t pip their radar? Why are philosophers, of all people, rushing to embrace this kind of maudlin self-obsessed whine-accusation, and using it to justify vilifying a thoughtful philosopher like Kathleen Stock? What was in that Kool-aid?
Back to the MAP denunciation.
In continuation of such harmful trends, today (3rd June 2019) the Aristotelian Society hosted a talk by Professor Kathleen Stock, entitled ‘What is Sexual Orientation?’. We have composed this statement for two reasons: firstly, we are disappointed that a prominent philosophical organisation has hosted a talk by someone who has so aggressively and routinely spoken out against the trans community.
Another lie, a worse lie, a venomous malicious personal lie. Stock doesn’t “speak out against the trans community.” Stock presents arguments about the ontological status of women and lesbians. Philosophers of all people really ought to know the difference.
We have composed this statement for two reasons: firstly, we are disappointed that a prominent philosophical organisation has hosted a talk by someone who has so aggressively and routinely spoken out against the trans community. Secondly, we are deeply concerned by the fact that the Aristotelian Society is offering its valued intellectual platform to a paper that, itself, targets the trans community. We believe this talk brings into stark relief the current situation for trans and non-binary people in philosophy.
Two more lies marked.
In defence of their decision, the Aristotelian Society recently released a statement of support for Professor Stock’s right to engage in philosophical debate. We believe a right to engage in legitimate philosophical debate does not absolve a person of responsibility for the harms they inflict on vulnerable persons, nor should philosophical institutions encourage such forms of moral evasion.
Hyperbolic bullshit marked. Trans people aren’t the only vulnerable persons in the world. What about the harms these fools are inflicting on feminist women who don’t agree that men can be women, and who by the way also don’t think men are “vulnerable” in the same sense that women are, much less more so than women are?
We believe that by remaining ‘neutral’ and referring to ‘philosophical debates’ in this way, the Aristotelian Society has demonstrated its detachment from trans and non-binary people and their embodied and continually endangered lives.
Hyperbolic bullshit marked. Since when are men more endangered than women? The violence stats for trans people are lower than those for women, not higher.
In effect, their statement of ‘neutrality’ amounts to an explicit indifference to the harassment of trans people and their allies.
Stock’s paper is not harassment of trans people, or their sanctimonious “allies.”
In this context, we have to tell it like it is and acknowledge that purported neutrality in the face of bigotry is complicity.
It’s not “bigotry.”
We believe that by hosting this talk, and also by not issuing a clear and unequivocal statement of support for trans people within the profession and outside, the Aristotelian Society has contributed to the wider harms being done against trans people.
What wider harms?
Unlike the Aristotelian Society, we want our trans colleagues to know that we are here for them, and that we stand wholeheartedly with our trans and non-binary siblings everywhere.
They sound like some bozo at Everyday Feminism, not grown-up philosophers.
Unlike the Aristotelian Society, we refuse to be ‘neutral’. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Oh just stop with that shit. This isn’t Mississippi 1964.
Unlike our colleagues at the Aristotelian Society, we refuse to remain silent in the face of injustices inside and outside the academe.
What injustices? How is it that these goons even have colleagues? They should be in a sandbox with Trump.
The right to promote hateful ideas is not covered under the right to free speech.
Saying men are not women is not “promoting hateful ideas.”
Thus, we resist the charge that this is simply an attempt to silence and stifle philosophical debate. Nobody is entitled to unlimited and unopposed speech in academic philosophy – and we need to identify and call out forms of speech that target, oppress, and silence marginalised groups.
They say, proudly and boastfully (they are Martin Luther King!) trying to silence feminist women and lesbians.
Not every item of personal and ideological obsession is worthy of philosophical debate. In particular, scepticism about the rights of marginalised groups and individuals, where issues of life and death are at stake, are not up for debate. The existence and validity of transgender and non-binary people, and the right of trans and non-binary people to identify their own genders and sexualities, fall within the range of such indisputable topics.
Why? Why is it “indisputable” that there is a “right” for trans and non-binary people to identify their own genders (which in this context clearly includes sexes)? There is no general right for people to “identify” their own ______, so why is there such a right when it comes to what gender and sex one is? Why is there a “right” for a person with a penis to insist that he is a woman and that the entire world has to agree and act accordingly? Why is such a right indisputable? It seems to me there’s a lot to dispute, and by way of reminder let me say yet again that women are marginalized too.
The thing is signed by eight people.
Does it not bother them that being an anonymous account, it is impossible to verify? No? Silly question, I forgot a hallmark of trans theory is complete an uncritical acceptance of every account of personal experience (except from those that disagree).
TRAs can’t afford to let reasonable questioning take place, or be seen as reasonable. The smearing of critics helps to keep the critics’S views from a wider audience, which would be disasterous for the TRA cause. If it turns into a numbers game, they’re toast, because I think most people, exposed to trans ideology AND the questioning and crtique thereof would say “Hang on a minute; what is this bullshit you’re trying to pull?” There’s a relaively short window of time in which the extremists can bully there way into getting their agenda enacted before too many people are Peak Transed and wake up to the threat to the safety of women and girls this represents.
Actually, it is. Otherwise, speech is anything but free. When Eugene Debs was jailed for speaking against the war, he was promoting “hateful” ideas. When Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated, he was promoting “hateful” ideas. When Giordano Bruno was burned, he was promoting “hateful” ideas. When the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they were promoting “hateful” ideas. When the abolitionists spoke out against slavery, they were promoting “hateful” ideas. When the NAACP spoke out in favor of civil rights, they were promoting “hateful” ideas. When women demanded the vote, they were promoting “hateful” ideas.
The thing is, sooner or later you will probably say something that another person will not like or agree with. Many people even find these ideas “hateful”. No God? Hateful idea…if you believe in one. Women shouldn’t be put in sacks before they can go outdoors? Hateful idea…to many Muslims, and a lot of ‘woke’ people. Global warming? Hateful idea…if you are a business person who makes oodles of money pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
The idea of free speech works only if it supports “hateful” ideas, because otherwise, some individual or group gets to determine what constitutes a “hateful” idea and shut down all speech they don’t like. The idea of freedom of speech was not put into place to promote popular ideas; it is not needed for that.
For too many, however, the idea of free speech means “I get to say whatever I want because free speech; you get to say whatever I want, because free speech”. It means we get to call women horrible names, we get to shut women out of the discussion, we get to tell women to STFU, we get to tell women to make us a sandwich. Women aren’t supposed to answer, because if they tell us they don’t like or agree with what we are saying, that is a violation of our free speech. This last, totally illogical argument, seems to be the standard tactic – ‘my speech, and that of those who agree with me, are protected as free speech, neener neener. Your free speech is an attack on my free speech, because I don’t like it, so it isn’t covered under free speech”.
I agree with Ophelia that the ideas are not “hateful” ideas, they are discussions that are reasoned, rational, logical, and considered. It appears to me that the only answer the TRAs have is “shut up, that’s why” and whining that free speech means shutting down speech they find unpleasant. Shutting down the speech of another happens when you are unable to argue with them rationally.
A mob mentality has taken hold of those attacking gender-critical feminists, aided by the fact that social media allows for anonymous bullshit to be spread at the speed of light. If those academics who value reasoned and precise discourse don’t stand up for those gender-critical feminists now, they will be failing to live up to their calling.
What strikes me overall is how heavily this kind of thing depends on a few stale, endlessly repeated catchphrases and mix & match words:
hostility and abuse; attacks on the trans community; most vulnerable members; harmful trends; vulnerable persons; endangered lives; bigotry; call out; target, oppress, and silence; marginalised groups; not up for debate; existence and validity; right to identify their own genders and sexualities.
All present in this pathetic “statement” and all as stale as last year’s bread. It’s so formulaic…which all by itself is a sign that they’re refusing to think, let alone question.
Something that just occurred to me (yeah, sometimes I’m a slow learner), TRAs can’t/won’t address GC feminist arguments because that lets others see what those arguments actually are. By just saying they’re horribleawefulgenocidal, rather than quote or repeat them, it keeps the GC view hidden from view. TRA allies are expected to accept their characterization and nod in agreement.
It reminds me of how the writings of some early Christians later judged as heretical are only preserved as fragments quoted in the works of church fathers arguing against them, the originals having been rooted out and destroyed, or otherwise lost over time. TRAs have learned the lesson of not quoting the arguments of your opponents in the first place.
YNNB, it’s also a problem that they can get people to accept that, because then people who have never heard the gender critical arguments will not read/listen to/engage with those arguments because they are afraid they will be bigoted. So they nod sagely when a TRA says “Don’t listen to Ophelia, she’s a transphobe”, and are unwilling to ask why she is a transphobe. They assume the trans community is the best judge of transphobes, so they don’t want to read/hear/engage with anything ugly and bigoted.
Again, a lot like the Christians who never engaged with the arguments of those who are not Christian. There are a lot of people in this world with fingers stuck tightly in ears.
So many times I have said “Give me an example, just one example,” and no example was forthcoming.
iknklast, I just want to say I really enjoyed your comment about free speech. It was very well-written.
Ah, Skeletor, I’m blushing.
[…] a comment by iknklast on They would do well to repudiate this embarrassment from the UK […]
And those thoughts, ideas and arguments are only a few keystrokes away, not locked in some monastic library or burning on a pyre. But for some people, it would seem might as well be.
ARGH!! I couldn’t continue reading. I’ll have to try again tomorrow.
That’s a damned important bit of fact there. Although the stats in question might be vague and ill-gathered, it would be awfully nice to source them.
You’re absolutely right that these folks need to do a lot more by way of specifying the harms and injustices here. Vague, formulaic references to harms aren’t enough, and this debate badly needs less posturing and more reality. Yet, I do take issue with your phrasing, here: “men can’t be women” is both needlessly provocative and inaccurate as a way of describing Stock’s views. Strictly speaking her message is that *males* shouldn’t automatically be granted access to protections afforded biological females. Surely if we are going to speak up in favor of Stock we shouldn’t mischaracterize or oversimplify her views. Moreover, if we are going to create anything like a shared consensus on this issue we shouldn’t be using formulations which are custom tailored to hurt trans people, not when more accurate alternatives are available.
What do you mean, my phrasing here? Where? The phrase you put in quotation marks is your own phrase; it doesn’t appear elsewhere. I don’t do anything like describing Stock’s views with that phrase.
Also, what do you mean “we shouldn’t be using formulations which are custom tailored to hurt trans people”? What formulations do you have in mind?
Sorry, I was referring to your defense of “feminist women who don’t agree that men can be women”. I assumed from the context (a discussion of Stock) that Stock and Gender Critical feminists were being described here, but of course if that wasn’t the intention then I apologize. That said, I do think it’s important to point out that this formulation doesn’t capture the nuance in the Gender Critical position more generally, and I think that if there are more nuanced and less obviously hurtful ways of stating a position then we should generally prefer those usages. I believe my trans friends who say that aside from philosophical debates about the truth-value of such statements, they are deeply painful to hear and read, and I think that ought to count for something.
All of this aside, I understand that these comments can read like another Philosophy Dude policing your language, and I’m sorry if that’s the impression I am creating. I am no friend of those you are attacking in this post, I think they are playing an oppressive dominance-game of their own devising.
Something I came across recently (but I don’t recall where) is that transwomen are not (or should not be)redefining womanhood, but extending what it means to be a man. The latter route is the way of breaking down harmful, restrictive stereotypes, which I think would be of benefit to everyone, men and women, however they want to dress or present themselves. It is not hurtful in and of itself to say that men are not women and that men cannot be women. If we eliminated the narrow repertoire of behaviour which is considered proper for a man, that would solve the problem. Trans rights activists, from what I can tell, don’t seem to be interested in that project at all. They seem to be much more keen on redefining womanhood to center themselves than smashing the gendered prisons. They are fine with gendered roles; they’re only interested in switching cells within the prison, so long as they can rule their newly acquired cellblock.
Avalonian @ 18 – Ah, ok, I see. No, I wasn’t specifically talking about Stock there. The whole sentence is:
I intended it as a rough summary of the gender critical position, not an account of what any particular gc feminist thinks.
I’m not sure what you mean by “this formulation doesn’t capture the nuance in the Gender Critical position more generally.” I know some gc feminists wouldn’t put it that way, but others would. I don’t think there’s one official version that “captures the nuance.”
As for preferring “more nuanced and less obviously hurtful ways of stating a position”…I tried that. It was never enough. It never will be enough. I got tired of trying. I also think that more nuanced and less obviously hurtful ways of saying it palter with the truth, and I think that’s a mistake.
What do your trans friends want us to do, exactly?
Or to put that last question another way…I don’t actually agree that not agreeing that men can be women is “obviously hurtful.” It’s just a banal statement of fact. Some such banal statements are obviously hurtful, of course – the kind Trump goes in for, for instance. But saying men can’t be women isn’t of that type. There’s a move to force us to agree that it is, but I don’t. Not agreeing that men can be women is not the same as saying men can’t wear “women’s” clothes or do their best to present as women or perform womanhood or any of that, it’s just not agreeing that they can be what they are not. I think it’s a political choice to call that “hurtful” and it’s one I resist making.
Hear, hear. I remember when you tried that, Ophelia, and the responses. And I see how genderists talk about Stock, and Jesse Singal (who isn’t even gender critical, fergodssake), and even the relentlessly trans-friendly New York Times (for publishing a piece pointing out the incontrovertible fact that wearing a binder has some bad physical side effects). Any contrary viewpoint, any criticism at all, is transphobic transphobia.
And I applaud you.
I agree that it’s a political choice. Of course it may also be true. I’m sorry, but so what? Many religious people are genuinely hurt by criticism of religion. That’s unfortunate, but it’s not a reason for religion’s critics to remain silent.
People who want to participate in the proverbial marketplace of ideas need to learn to distinguish personal feelings from ideas–to the extent humanly possible–and foreground the latter when arguing. Otherwise everything devolves into a shouting match, with the winners being those who shout the loudest.
And furthermore–let’s face it, a great deal of the “hurt” experienced by trans people confronted by a refusal to accept them as the sex they’d like to be but aren’t, is narcissistic rage. People who’ve built a persona based more on wishful feelings and compassionate indulgence than reality hate anyone who doesn’t play along. (Obligatory Not All Trans People here.)
Another question occurs to me.
Do your trans friends have any thoughts about women who may find it painful to hear and read claims about how wicked they are for having their own views on gender, shaped by years of being treated the way female people are treated? Do they stop to think that they might not be the only people who find claims about themselves “deeply painful”? Do they think they feel the pain “deeply” while everyone else feels pain shallowly?
You can see what I’m getting at, I’m sure. My experience over the past few years has been that the vocal social media trans activists tend to treat their own pain as the only pain that counts, and they also tend to use a lot of emotion-pumping language like “deeply painful.” I’m curious about what prompted you to add the “deeply.” Is it because that’s literally what they tell you? Is it because they’ve somehow convinced you that they feel this kind of pain more deeply than anyone else? If so have you ever paused to wonder about it? If it’s true, and why they feel the need to convince everyone it’s true?
See, this is a big part of what I object to – this inflated rhetoric that implies or outright says that trans pain dwarfs everyone else’s pain, that trans rights are the most urgent rights of all, that trans vulnerability is the most vulnerable vulnerability there’s ever been. I’ve had a bucketload of that kind of thing and I’m sick of it. (I’ve had one lunatic claim that I have blood on my hands because I won’t agree that men can be women.) I do not buy this sacred belief that we can’t talk about sex and gender without risking causing “deep pain” to trans people. I think that belief needs to be driven out of the conversation.
But, Ophelia, everybody knows that men don’t do emotions, so feeling ‘deep pain’ is proof positive that transwomen are women, end of, shut up etc.
Ugh. That’s probably true, sarcasm or not. It’s of a piece with the idea that woman=skirts. “Woman=constant histrionic emoting – I can do that!”