There's a cogent case against permitting use of the word, along with a reply from the editors of Philosophical & Phenomenological Research. I think the PPR editors are wrong on the first point--TERF is obviously now nothing more than a term of abuse, meant as a conversation-stopper and device of exclusion--but are correct on the second. (The factual claim in question in the article may be dubious, but a lot depends on how one interprets "verified reported incident" and "trans woman"; it's not grounds for retraction or correction that others may dispute the claim as false or misleading [it is certainly misleading].) Part of what is ironic is that the person defending the use of "TERF," philosopher Rachel McKinnon (Charleston), uses it continuously on social media as a term of abuse, meant to shut down her opponents.
Think of it this way: when I refer on the blog to anti-gay bigots as "anti-gay bigots" I am not inviting them into a dialogue or presupposing that their views merit discussion. That's great for the blog and real life, but it would be shocking if a scholarly journal discussing, say, the awful arguments against same-sex marriage were to permit a respondent to refer to the authors as "anti-gay bigots." It's no different now for "TERF" and the PPR editors erred in permitting it.
ADDENDUM: I give Justin Weinberg credit for running this essay on his blog, given that he had worked so long to cultivate it as the "safe space" blog for New Infantilists and the proponents of mindless identity politics. Predictably, some of the readers are incensed by his airing forbidden views and criticizing "vunlerable" and "marginal" individuals (i.e., an adult professional whose work appeared in a peer-reviewed journal): see, e.g., John Altmann or (predictably) Rebecca Kukla. I hope he will ignore them, and will continue to exercise intellectual courage on this and similar topics.
ONE MORE: Another commenter, near the end of the thread, says something a lot of folks in the profession are no doubt thinking:
I have for many years advocated for a more prominent place for feminism in philosophy, and I have worked hard, with considerable success, to hire people who work in feminist philosophy in my own department. I consider myself a feminist.
However, reading through this conversation and through similar debates in our discipline over the past couple of years (e.g., stuff on Leiter’s blog, the attacks on and subsequent debates about Tuvel’s article, etc.) and seeing the way at least some of the people involved in them tend to moralize what seem to me to be legitimate points of philosophical disagreement makes me wary of making new hires in my department of people working in any area that even remotely touches on gender. I am sure I am not alone in that wariness.
Recent Comments