I don't want to make more of this disgraceful statement than it deserves; many MAP chapters are doing constructive work, and they would do well to repudiate this embarrassment from the UK chapter. One can support equal opportunity for and dignified treatment of trans philosophers, as Professor Stock explictly does, and still disagree with how some trans philosophers understand gender.
Note that this statement is the work of a handful of individuals, including the already notorious Keyvan Shafiei and Puck Spicer,* the equally benighted spouse of Nathan Oseroff, among others. It was apparently prompted by the fact that the Aristotelian Society, much to its credit, permitted a professional philosopher, Kathleen Stock, to present a philosophical paper on sex and gender, and even defended her right to do so. For the Red Guard wannabes at MAP UK that was too much to bear, hence the statement, complete with the usual make-believe allegations of "harm" (that someone finds someone else's philosophical views offensive and upsetting isn't a harm: please read John Gardner's earlier comments on this subject).
I'll conclude with the apt comments of a philosophy graduate student in Canada who sent this statement to me (I bold a couple of quite important bits):
I was hoping you'd say something about it on your blog. The statement, and the usual suspects on Twitter, often try to frame things as if most people in the discipline secretly agree with them, but for some reason aren't willing to "speak up and protect its most vulnerable members." Of course, the actual reason people aren't "willing" to speak up is that they don't think that we should ban people from talking at conferences if they have the wrong views on philosophical issues. The statement tries to frame things to sound like any philosophical discussion of issues around sex, gender, and sexual orientation that doesn't toe the party line is an attack on trans people, and that discussing these issues without saying the right things means excluding and marginalizing "vulnerable persons." But that kind of over-exaggerated language is just a transparent attempt to shut down debate -- notice that the statement doesn't include any engagement with the actual content of the talk.
I appreciate you generally drawing attention to these people's silly behavior; most other grad students I talk to think these people mostly embarrass themselves with the things they do online. I think it's important to have a voice in favor of actual academic freedom, as opposed to censoring views that don't fit with the political views of the day.
UPDATE: Ophelia Benson dissects what she aptly describes as the "lying" statement with its "hyperbolic bullshit."
*I have been informed that Mr. Oseroff's spouse wanted to be mentioned by name; I had thought I was doing them a favor by omitting their name, which has never been noted here before, but apparently not!
Recent Comments