“We welcome genuine dialogue”
The Institute of Arts and Ideas have now published a Retraction Statement by philosophers Robin Dembroff, Rebecca Kukla and Susan Stryker, explaining why they didn’t want to be part of a debate with philosophers they consider not just wrong but worse than wrong on the questions around trans gender identity. That’s ok, but some of the content of what they say is not.
We welcome genuine dialogue and mutually respectful exploration of the complex and contentious social realities that characterize contemporary transgender issues. We devote a large part of our working lives to these issues, and we have much at stake in them, personally and politically. We object, however, to any “debate” that questions transgender people’s fundamental legitimacy as people who are entitled to the same respect as any other person.
Does that describe the other participants in the discussion, Holly Lawford-Smith, Kathleen Stock, and Julie Bindel? Do those three question “transgender people’s fundamental legitimacy as people who are entitled to the same respect as any other person”? No. Of course not. But it makes them sound evil, so I guess that’s a good-enough reason for saying it?
We reject as a starting place presuppositions held by some voices included in the IAI forum that transgender people are by definition mentally ill or delusional, and that respecting transgender people irreparably conflicts with the interests of cisgender women.
More subtle, but still dishonest. They don’t presuppose that transgender people are by definition mentally ill or delusional, they argue that it’s not the case that people can change their sex. That doesn’t translate to: trans people are delusional.
These presuppositions are uniformed, and fly in the face of evidence as well as years of feminist thought and activism. They preemptively delegitimate transgender people as speaking subjects.
The presuppositions aren’t what Dembroff, Kukla and Stryker say they are, and if they were they wouldn’t necessarily “preemptively delegitimate transgender people as speaking subjects.” That’s just a kind of rabble-rousing meant to make The Enemy look bad. We’re supposed to think they’re bad people who want to harm the helpless transgender people, like mean bullies in the playground.
We consider the right to occupy spaces in which our basic safety is not at risk to be a right that should not be up for debate.
But what about women’s safety?
We refuse on principle to engage in any discussion that treats such positions as up for abstract intellectual debate, in the same way that we would refuse to participate in a conversation that debated whether the Holocaust actually happened, or whether corrective rape should be used to cure lesbianism, or whether or not the white race is superior to all others.
Dirty dirty pool. Gender-skeptical feminists are not comparable to Holocaust deniers or advocates of corrective rape or white supremacists. Filthy pool. They should be embarrassed.
There are limits to civil and intellectual discourse beyond which speech acts are simply acts of violence.
We believe that the discourse of some invited participants in the original IAI forum goes beyond those limits. We refuse on principle to “co-platform” with those who seek, under the guise of “debate” with us, to persuade an audience that it should partner with them in advocating harm to us.
Filthy pool. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.
No, they don’t. They want to establish ground rules that establish the unquestioned acceptance of trans ideology as a starting point. They only want to have discussions with people who agree with and concede their position.
If they’re going to make charges like that, they should be obligated to provide examples of the actual positions from the works of those they are opposing. If they are as evil as is claimed, that should be easy. If it was true they would do exctly that. What better way to deal with an opponent than by using their own words against them? Their are few moves in debate more effective than this. My bet is that they can’t. This is just for show, as Ophelia put it “rabble-rousing meant to make The Enemy look bad. We’re supposed to think they’re bad people who want to harm the helpless transgender people, like mean bullies in the playground.” That’s all they can do, because that’s all they’ve got.
Dr. Stock is so used to being misrepresented that she has a pinned tweet that deals with this very problem: https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1156239380379525125
Time for some “acts of violence.” WARNING: CLEAR STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL REALITY AHEAD> PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK.
With the waivers and legalities out of the way, here goes.
Woman = Adult, human female.
Men are not Women.
Sex is binary and immutable.
Lesbian = female homosexual. Homosexuality is same sex attraction.
Of course, they would probably tell you that the reason they don’t use their opponents words against them is that they don’t want to harm trans people more by repeating such awful things. Convenient, no?
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Sorry couldn’t resist, also an excuse to repeat what needs repeating.
I get the feeling many of the trans lobby are avoiding dialogue because they know how hard their arguments are to defend. I get the feeling many are too emotionally invested now to step back from the brink.
Refuse on principle to argue about corrective rape as a cure for lesbianism . . . Really? When “trans women can be lesbians” is used as a bludgeon for correctively raping actual lesbians to cure them of “transphobia”?
“I think you’re mistaken” is not the same thing as “I don’t think you are entitled to respect.”
“I think you’re mistaken about yourself” is not the same thing as “I think you are delusional.”
Fascinating how the doublespeak can be twisted to mean the exact opposite of what it says.
“They preemptively delegitimate transgender people as speaking subjects.”
means
“We preemptively delegitimate gender critical people as speaking subjects.”
“Goes beyond those limits” in what f*ing way?
The other participants in no way “advocated harm” to trans people or trans advocates. What “violence”? What f*king “harm”? They never say, because they can’t.
Trans people’s personal safety is not up for discussion? Neither is WOMEN’S safety. Yet that’s precisely what you are demanding: sacrificing WOMEN’S safety.
It all sounds suspiciously like presuppositional apologetics. We do not draw conclusions; we make commitments.
People know their gender the same way people know God. There is no debate, on that issue or anything touching it. God is foundational to reality. Atheists are defined/ described as Anti-God rebels. All true discussion can only take place using this vocabulary. An unrepentant Rebel, however, would only engage with those who accept God in order to attack the natural order in general and harm people in particular. Now throw in poisonous analogies, that the Rebels may understand we’re on to them.
Yes, Sastra, transgenderism has a lot in common with religion.
From my perspective as a lifelong atheist, I find the doctrine of transgenderism to be similar to religious doctrine. We can observe certain material things about people: people come in male and female (plus a tiny percentage of intersex). In addition to these material things, we are asked to believe in a non-material thing, “gender,” which is like a soul or spirit that inhabits people, but cannot be defined or measured. And then we are further asked to believe that this immaterial “gender” is more important than the material sex. This reminds me of the idea that there is a “soul” which can be saved, and the assertion that the “salvation” of this “soul” is more important in determining the goodness of a person than whether the person’s visible, material acts promote goodness in the world. This is plainly the language of religious doctrine, similar to Maya or Gnosticism: there is an apparent reality, which is an illusion, and then there is a secret reality, which is the true reality, and only a true believer can find it. This imaginary “gender” becomes the most important thing about a person; the reality of physical sex is mere illusion. Furthermore, people can achieve transcendence and clearer vision of the “gender” through bodily mortification. Then they can better express this “gender.” Those who say otherwise are evil and repressive.
From this kernel of pseudo-religious principle, a pseudo-religion has been built with many of the trappings of a cult. Transgenderism has no tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. It promulgates an unreasonable fear about persecution, and threatens the lives of apostates (with imminent suicide). It indoctrinates a system of “correct thought,” seen as absolute truth, and disparages common observations as “hate speech.” Those in possession of the correct thought see those who think differently as committing rhetorical violence against them, and are thus deserving of real, physical violence. The cult encourages its followers to rename themselves, and refer to their old names as “dead names.” It encourages children to cut themselves off from their parents, and disparage their parents as oppressors. Only other true believers can be their true family. It supports mind-altering practices, such as heavy hormone use. It encourages mortification of the flesh as a repeated dedication ritual (e.g. binding), building to larger (e.g. mastectomy) and even larger (e.g. genital mutilation) levels of mortification. It encourages followers to flock together to reinforce each other’s beliefs.
In terms of the characteristics of a cult, transgenderism has everything except a centralized financial structure with self-appointed sovereign leadership. The financial structure seems to be managed by “gender centers,” pharma companies, and hospitals, which are making huge money off transgenderism.
And this is part of the appeal, because it makes you (the believer) more than ordinary, boring, regular, like other people. You are Special®. You matter. All the millions who do not believe (god – gender) are less aware, less enlightened, less soulful, less in every way.
Because the millions who do not believe often have material reality and reason on their side, because the universe refuses to conform to the view of the believers, it becomes necessary to couch the non-believers as dangerous to protect your special status by ensuring that other people, those who don’t care one way or the other, from listening to the arguments that stack up against your belief.
At that point, the belief itself becomes self-perpetuating.
YNnB @ 1 – “That’s all they can do, because that’s all they’ve got.”
That. I was thinking about it this morning: about what a tell it is that their arguments are SO hyperbolic and dishonest. “Why do you tell such blatant whoppers? Oh, of course, it’s because you don’t have anything else.”
It’s a tell, and yet so many people still just refuse to see it.
H. L. Smith’s Twitter account was suspended earlier today and I can’t help but think that it was done not because she violated any of their rules but because someone with Twitter wants to silence gender-critical radfems like her, while allowing her critics free reign to attack her there. Personally, I’ve never liked Twitter as a platform but obviously it has great reach and influence and it’s dismaying to see how they abuse it.
@Ophelia;
Of course, to be fair, the Trans Rights Activists say — and from what I can tell — sincerely believe the same about the Gender Critical Feminists. “You’re blatantly unscientific… you’re making dishonest arguments… it’s like a religion with you people… your motivations are wicked … there’s no way you can’t be aware of this … that’s why you’re so shrill and angry.”
From my point of view, it comes down to who has the better arguments, from my point of view. Which is partly why I’m appalled that philosophers are calling for an end to debate, using language which reeks of presuppositional apologetics.
Then you are very poor philosophers. Debating root beliefs and values is at the core of philosophy. The more uncomfortable the question, the more important it is to debate that question. Failing to do so is to fail in your obligations as philosophers.
For shame. Whatever institutions awarded you degrees should apologize.
But “whether the Holocaust actually happened” is not a philosophical question, it’s a historical, evidentiary one. It’s akin to climate change denial as opposed to discussion of free will or other minds or identity. There really are such things as bogus empirical claims, and “the Holocaust didn’t happen” is one of them. It’s not the case that philosophers must agree to discuss all subjects or they’re not real philosophers. Life is short, nobody has time to debate every single thing there is.
@Ophelia:
It’s not the refusal to discuss “every single thing there is” that gets my goat. It’s the refusal to debate things because of how one views the opposing perspective. I’m willing to debate the proposition that we should harvest children for food despite the fact that I think it obviously evil. That’s the sort of discussion we have in philosophy all the time. It seems like these people would not engage in such a debate, because they view harvesting children for food to be evil.
@Nullius;
Ah, but would you philosophically debate the proposition that we should harvest children for food in front of actual children?? Children are too little to understand, too vulnerable to be brave, too simple to be rational, too apt to become worried or frightened when their imaginations become stoked.
Perhaps that’s how the Institute of Arts and Ideas is approaching this.
@Sastra
That sort of paternalistic condescension bugs me, but you may be right.
As for the hypothetical, I think there might be a lower bound. We debated Swift’s proposal in fifth grade, though.
But a discussion in philosophy is not always the same thing as a discussion for a general audience.
In philosophy such a discussion can be for the sake of argument, in the most literal sense. Discussions for a general audience don’t function that way.
And because the rhetorical violence is an Offence against the very Special Essence, which is deemed more grievously injurious to their response of mere physical violence against the verbal aggressor, no holds are barred.
This perspective, for me, highlights the disparate camps that huddle under the very wide and nebulous “trans” umbrella. I think girls wishing to escape the limits imposed by patriarchal gender stereotypes via surgery and hormones have quite different issues and needs than the adult male autogynophiles who are pushing for self ID which would mean no requirement of hormones, surgery or even counselling before claiming the title of “woman.” Most of the militancy and extremism seems to be coming from the latter group, which makes sense as they are coming from male socialization and used to male privilege. They latter also don’t really seem to be all that concerned with the needs of disphoric or dismorphic girls except insofar as they are useful for the extreme TIM agenda, rather than the needs of everyone under the “trans” banner.
It does not help that the militant activists (and allegedly responsible academics) refuse to acknowledge the actual and potential harm to women and girls that male predators and opportunists have already inflicted, and will inflict with even greater ease under self ID. Not hypothetical. Not thought experiments. Not maybe. Have and will.
A “genuine dialogue” which presupposes that one side is correct, cannot be questioned, and all who disagree are bigoted… isn’t.
Bruce, you’ve correctly sussed out my perspective on the trans-cult phenomenon. I agree that middle-aged extremist TIMs are leading the cult, but it seems to me that the followers (or victims) are mostly young women. The surge of trans-identification among minors is gobsmacking, and these kids would mostly grow out of it if they were left alone, but are instead pushed by the trans-cult to do permanent harm to their bodies, egged on by doctors, gender centers, and misleading school-based propaganda. I say this as the parent of a child who was drawn in by the trans-cult but has since recovered: the victims of the trans-cult are not just women but children.
I’m glad your child dodged the bullet. The numbers of girls going down this path is alarming. One of the most heartbreaking sentences in a story a linked to in the Miscellany Room (https://nationalpost.com/news/b-c-s-top-court-to-hear-fathers-case-against-totalitarian-interference-in-childs-gender-transition) was this: “The clinic concluded it was in the child’s best interests to proceed with hormone therapy to transition from a female body to a male one. ” That child will never have a male body, only a mutilated, permanently debilitated, and sterile female body. These girls are the canon fodder of TIMs pushing for self ID without themselves committing to anything more medically dangerous or demanding than buying a few new outfits or filling out some paperwork for their birth certificates.
I don’t know if this was a typo or an intentional pun, but I like it. It is highly appropriate, considering the dogmatic nature of trans beliefs.
HA! I missed that. Completely unintentional. I work in a camera store, so I’m surrounded by products labeled “Canon” all day long. So now “cannon” with just a single ‘n’ now looks strange. I’m afraid it must have leaked into my internal dictionary and corrupted it. No clever reference to “canon”, “canonical” or canonization” being attempted!