I can confirm that this person is who they claim to be; some excerpts:
I am a graduate student in Philosophy, and have served as a member of my local MAP chapter more than once and in more than one capacity. I am also non-binary, and a member of other minorities, such as a person of colour and from the global South. From this standpoint I want to say, loud and clear, that this MAP statement does NOT speak for me.
In fact, this statement does not even speak for MAP, as there was no acceptable procedure by which anything like consensus was obtained to publish such a statement using MAP’s name. As a result of this procedural injustice, the head of a MAP chapter in the UK has resigned from her post....
If the group of individuals who wrote and signed the MAP statement had simply made a statement of solidarity with trans students, I would have supported and appreciated it. However, the MAP statement uses purported solidarity with trans students as a pretext for a dangerous authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism, as well as of subtle homophobia. The statement seeks to impose a narrow, problematic ideology upon the entire academic philosophical world, and does so in a way that is particularly dangerous due to weaponizing safety and compassion discourse, which have particular emotional resonance in social justice circles. I urge everyone reading it to resist thinking that supporting trans people in any way implies supporting this MAP statement.
In fact, it is neither compassionate nor just to silence the voices of LGBT philosophers, or indeed any philosophers, when they dissent from an ideology that is neither intellectually nor ethically respectable. This is the philosophically weak and ethically harmful ideology that is evident in the MAP statement, as well as unfortunately increasingly prevalent and dominant in social justice circles. Some elements of this ideology will become clear over the course of my statement....
The important thing that people forming opinions need to know is the thesis of Stock’s paper is that sexual orientation terms (‘gay’, ‘straight’, ‘homosexual’, etc.) ought to continue to be used as they standardly have been, which is in terms of the relative sex of the people one is attracted to (i.e. same or opposite to one’s own)....
The idea that someone ought to be de-platformed, or their platforming ought to be condemned, because they hold a highly plausible and fairly common view on the use of sexual orientation terms is not only absurd, it is frightening. The MAP statement deliberately uses inflammatory language, such as alleging that Stock’s argument is ‘hateful’ toward trans people and describing Stock’s position as ‘attacking’ and ‘anti-trans’, but does not at any point substantiate these claims. No negative attitude toward trans people is expressed in Stock’s article, nor are trans people’s testimonies wrongfully denied, since this is not a question of personal experience and cannot be settled by examining testimonial evidence....
All applied ethical issues are personally and practically relevant, as well as potentially dangerous. The same can be said of political philosophical topics such as democracy, philosophy of religion topics such as the existence of God, and meta-ethical topics such as ethical realism. My friend and colleague, after reading the MAP statement, jokingly said:
“The falsity of moral error theory is not up for debate, for if moral error theory is true, then marginalized groups and individuals have no rights (because no one has rights).
The falsity of mereological nihilism is not up for debate, for if mereological nihilism is true, then there are no marginalized groups (because there are no groups).”
...
Finally, I want to comment on the insidious practice of writing testimonials claiming that views on ontology of gender or sexual orientation have pushed one out of the field. In neither of the testimonials (there were only two) linked to in the MAP statement is any instance of genuine discrimination described, making the decision to leave a free choice. If there is institutional discrimination, it ought to be dealt with in the appropriate institutional ways, instead of being shared on social media in contexts where there is an attempt to undermine free speech and academic freedom. Someone’s membership within natural kinds such as ‘woman’, ‘homosexual’, ‘person of colour’, etc. is very much up for debate, and to debate this, no matter how personal it may be to some, is not dehumanizing. It may be a stressful conversation because of one’s investment is some position being true, just as debates about the existence of God may be for those for whom it is important that God exists (or doesn’t), but it is still not an injustice for people to debate it. What is the alternative? That we accept the views of whoever is most easily emotionally affected by a debate? Are we supposed to consider true whatever is the target of the strongest emotional investment or personal attachment? My suggestion for those who have difficulty dealing with the fact that this is a field where such topics are debated is to remove themselves from the debates as much as possible. But to try to stifle the debate in others, and to claim on top of that that the occurrence of a debate is an injustice, is anti-intellectual and false, and acting upon it would be an injustice in itself.
I urge all reading those testimonials to please not allow yourselves to get manipulated by them. Our sympathy should not be for those who simply feel upset or leave their careers, but for those who feel upset justifiably and leave their careers due to genuine injustice. That is not the case with either of the two testimonials that the statement links to.
(Thanks to Mary Leng for the pointer.)
Recent Comments