If only the goat would relax
I’m not a big fan of Quillette, but there’s a section of this piece by Spencer Case on philosophy and pressure to shut up about trans issues that I want to share.
He asks whether or not there is any such pressure, and quotes people who say there is not.
A more even-tempered response, another open letter, appeared at the American Philosophical Association blog August 7, 2019. The 33 signatories deny that a climate of fear surrounds the topic of gender identity. They write:
As feminist philosophers who have, variously, argued for, researched, engaged with, and taught these views, we are well-positioned to claim that there is no established orthodoxy about gender in academic philosophy. There continues to be much lively disagreement on matters of gender without accusations of transphobia.
We might fairly ask if feminist philosophers are really in the best position to authoritatively declare that there are no orthodoxies about gender in philosophy. If orthodoxies about gender beset feminist philosophy in particular, then they might be the last to know. What the signatories say next, at the letter’s conclusion, qualifies their commitment to open inquiry almost to the point of nullifying it:
We do, however, think it is important, when exercising our academic freedom, that we consider how our views may impact others. Academic responsibility requires us to consider differences of power and vulnerability in speaking of and to others and the effects of our words in reinforcing structures of oppression. There are many diverse, contentious views about gender and gender identity that can be–and are–engaged with in ways that do not call into question the integrity and sincerity of trans people nor the validity of their own understanding of who they are. We should conduct our research freely and responsibly, without treating other people’s lives as though they are abstract thought experiments. [emphasis added]
The italicized portion gives the game away. The signatories know that the acceptability of views contrary to the self-understandings of trans people is the sole issue that motivated the letter to which they are responding. It’s as if someone said, in response to concerns that Copernican views about the solar system were being suppressed, that there is no orthodoxy in astronomy—after all, you’re free to defend any view consistent with geocentric cosmology.
Any color you want as long as it’s black, as Henry Ford is reputed to have said.
(Case doesn’t address this part, and I think I probably did when the APA letter was published, but I’ll just mention it again: there is no broad rule that we have to accept “the validity of people’s own understanding of who they are.” There can’t be. These days we even have a one-word explanation for why. That word is: Trump. People’s own understandings of who they are can be wildly wrong.)
But this is the bit for which I wanted to share the post:
Mormon Sunday school teachers used to encourage obedience with a parable. Allegedly, a tethered goat will move as far away from the post as it can, so that the rope remains taut and never touches the ground. If only the goat would relax, the story goes, it could be content in the space it was given, which contains all the grass it needs. The moral is supposed to be that you can be happy within the church’s strictures, but the analogy backfires—who wants to be a goat on a rope in the first place?
Or a Mormon. Or a trans-centric feminist-philosopher.
These feminist philosophers are a good deal more like Mormon Sunday school teachers than they realize. They seem to be saying: “We’ve given you enough intellectual space in which to dwell, and plenty of grass to munch on (in the form of trans-inclusive feminist views to consider). Now be a good goat and don’t strain at the end of the rope.”
And we say fuck your rope, we’re off to the brook and the woods and the wild blue yonder.
“The validity of people’s own understanding of who they are” is quite the problem.
You know, I actually do believe in a “gender spectrum” in a sense. I do believe that people’s behaviours can be generally understood to be more masculine or feminine (regardless of the fact that different things can be considered “masculine” and “feminine” at different times and in different places), and on average females skew somewhat more feminine and males more masculine, and everyone’s behaviour falls on a spectrum relative to everyone else’s behaviour. I think it’s actually useful to distinguish between masculine and feminine behaviour, and I think the difference between the two is the underlying justification for for segregating sexes in environments where women can be vulnerable. Sex-segregation is an imperfect solution — #NotAllMen (ha!) are a danger to women, but behaviourally speaking, males far more likely to be, so biological sex segregation is the fairest solution we’ve got.
Gender identity is in a sense just people’s self-declaration of where they believe they lie on a behavioural feminine/masculine spectrum. Setting aside for a moment the stupidity and pointlessness of slicing the spectrum into ever-narrower “gender identities” in the first place, what its advocates can’t acknowledge is that people will inaccurately self-declare where they lie in the “gender spectrum” for any number of reasons: delusion, mistake, sexual fetish, malevolent intent, social pressure, etc. The fact that so many transwomen are retired Navy SEALs and Air Force pilots (and Republican Trump supporters) makes it clear: in what way is it useful or more fair to prioritize people’s self-declared “gender identity” over their sex, when self-declared gender identities are so often completely misaligned with their actual behaviour. Segregation by sex is an imperfect but highly useful way to protect women from the people who would harm them. Self-professed gender identity, on the other hand, is not useful at all to tell you anything about who someone really is or how they’re apt to behave towards women.
How, exactly, does one interact with a person who declares that a penis is a “female organ” without questioning the integrity or sincerity of that person?
@James Garnett;
I don’t see the connection. Why couldn’t someone be both sincere and honest and believe that the penis (can be) a ‘ female organ’ under the circumstances and for the reasons they think are relevant? I suppose you could argue that their reasoning possibly has some intellectual dishonesty somewhere in there, but as long as they think they’re spot on I’d accept that they’re holding their views in good faith.
That makes no sense, Sastra. What do you mean “as long as they think they’re spot on?”
If there is intellectual dishonesty involved, then by definition they are not acting with integrity. If they truly believe that a male organ can be female, then they are mentally disordered. I guarantee you that every single person who makes a claim like that will, at some point in their lives, admit the falseness of the assertion if they are not disordered, and that will usually occur during a medical crisis wherein treatment according to biological sex differs and can be life-threatening if it’s done wrong.
@James Garnett:
They probably believe that a male organ can be female because they’re playing around with the meaning of “male” and “ female” — as well as “man” and “woman” and, for all I know, “penis” and “organ.” As you’re well aware, there are a lot of arguments out there coming from academic, scientific, philosophical, feminist, and social justice corners which sound both persuasive and positive. Even if they’re bad arguments, they’re not so bad that they’d only be accepted by people playing at being perverse trolls.
If the conviction rests on a long-standing line of reasoning, I doubt a crisis would suddenly cause a change of heart. It’s not a pretense; it’s an error.
Sastra, I doubt it’s an error, it’s a necessity. In order to claim that transwomen are really women they have to claim that a penis can be a female appendage or it shatters the entire illusion (delusion?).
@Acolyte of Sagan:
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant that I think they’re in error when they believe that a penis can be a female appendage, but they’re not pretending to believe that.
It’s an ‘honest mistake.’ Not in the sense that any ordinary person outside the ideological system might happen to make it, but in the sense that any ordinary person inside the ideological system probably would.
Sastra, I understood what you meant about error, I just disagree. I don’t think that the vast majority of transwomen (and their allies – mustn’t forget them, must we) genuinely do believe that a penis can be a female appendage, just as I doubt that they genuinely believe that transwomen are actually women. I believe that they genuinely desire to be seen as women and be accepted as women by everybody else, but they have to be aware that unless they can re-brand genitalia as unisex then that acceptance will never be forthcoming.
So, yes, I do think that they’re pretending to believe it, or if not actually pretending, have accepted it without giving it any though because they’re aware that thinking about it can only lead to one conclusion. It’s why any discussion on the subject, if it isn’t 100% in line with current trans ideology, is forbidden. Those who know that theirs is a house built on sand don’t want to hear what they know to be true, and neither do they want to risk that the gullible among them, the ones that have become convinced by the pro-trans propagana, might be caused to start thinking they’ve been duped.
@Acolyte of Sagan;
Could be. Or, split the two and at least some of them believe in believing it. The “girl dick.”
But I still wouldn’t assume they had no integrity or sincerity on that issue. People can systematically think themselves into all sorts of things, and with good intentions the entire way.
Sastra, to totally mangle an old quote, the only thing that saves them from accusations of deliberately deceiving everybody is the idea that they first made sure to thoroughly deceive themselves.