Stock has long since admitted (in publication, no less) that she does not read the literature in the broad history of feminism, nor does she read the literature of the scholars she's critiquing. She has also admitted to selectively reading the material that she does engage. (1/n) https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1272976667523219457

Which should have been the moment that the field said "we will not tolerate this grift any longer." Instead, she and her GC ilk were offered even larger platforms and the field rallied to her defense, even when it was made clear that she'd refused to do the reading. (2/n)

In defense of her right to perpetuate the grift, which was really just bigotry masquerading as scholarship, those who critiqued her and the field on its enabling of the grift were positioned as the "problem" in philosophy, and "silencing inquiry fundamental to the field." (3/n)

Now, given that the "inquiry fundamental to the field" was being weaponized to protect bigotry, this should've been a collective moment of self-reflection on behalf of the field. As usual, for a field supposedly predicated on self-reflection, philosophy is BAD at it. (4/n)

So, not only did philosophy miss the ball, but philosophy's continued defense allowed Stock and company's grift to be picked up by a number of right wing political agents who CITED IT IN TEXT as arguments against *checks notes* Trans rights in the US and worldwide. (5/n)

I'm not saying that philosophy could've stopped Stock and the GC folks as philosophy has conceded much of its own power to effect social change through resisting change within it's own corner of the ivory tower.

I am saying that philosophers could have slowed this down. (6/n)

Philosophy (the field) could've followed the lead of its feminist and junior scholars, its marginalized scholars, and said that it would no longer tolerate the bigotry of GC, but it chose to stand in defense of it.

For this, philosophy should be ashamed of itself. (fin)