Here's a remarkable back and forth--remarkable for the hate, the lack of evidence, the irrationality of the exchange. I'm sorry I found it, but having now waded into some of this literature and on-line debates, I realize that contributions like those by Professors Stock, Coleman, and Jensen are the exception, not the norm. Another reason for more philosophers to get involved in discussing these issues.
UPDATE: Remarkably, since yesterday, the first piece linked above has been removed as "hate speech" (!), although the response is no less hateful, but it remains. Without any sense of irony, the censors declare that "silencing" women's voices is wrong. That editorial decision is itself revealing about the state of the on-line discussion of these issues. If anyone finds another copy of the original piece please send it along. (Here's another piece by the same author, that so far seems to have survived the hand of the censors.) (UPDATE: the article came back up, then disappeared again, as did the ironic statement by the censors. Here's a cached version. Thanks to several readers who sent this along.)
ANOTHER: Over at the "safe space" philosophy-related blog, there's now a (non-toxic) response to Professor Stock from philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher (Cal State/Los Angeles), who is also author of the SEP essay on the general subject. The response to Stock, alas, is not very substantive, substituting literature references (not all actually relevant, as I've looked at some of them) and tangential musings for extended, direct engagement (there is some substantive engagement, happily).
Professor Bettcher's SEP essay is more substantive, and recommended, though readers may find that on some of the crucial issues raised by Professor Stock it is not always persuasive. Part of the problem is overplaying the philosophical significance of first-personal phenomenology, when we know quite well that first-personal experience is often shot through with error and illusions, self-serving and otherwise. It is perhaps telling that Professor Bettcher recommends these "rules" for discussing trans gender issues, the first one being: "Approach your topic with a sense of humility: you are not the experts about transsexuals, transsexuality, transsexualism, or trans ____. Transsexuals are." But "transsexuals" are only sources of data about their lived experience; they are not the default experts about the range of philosophical, psychological and other questions about "transsexualism." Professor Bettcher's SEP essay is, however, much better than these absurd "rules" might lead one to expect.
ANOTHER: The smarmy Jonathan Ichikawa showed up in the comments to signal his approval for Professor Bettcher's piece, which is a reliable indicator that it's not very good. Tellingly, the critical comments on her piece are "liked" by readers way more than any of the congratulatory/supportive comments, like Ichikawa's. It's good to know that even if normal philosophers are not as vocal as the swarmy "posturing wankers," they are out there and they can still differentiate the quality of actual arguments. This relatively recent comment is particulary apt.
Recent Comments