Read on Twitter
1/5 'trans-exclusionary' is a loaded term. Philosopher Justin Weinberg @DailyNousEditor adopts it without the necessary philosophical scrutiny - this is actually our job. His reasoning is that he rejects the term 'gender-critical'...
@Docstockk https://dailynous.com/2020/12/11/conference-series-oppressive-speech-disinvites-trans-exclusionary-philosopher/
@Docstockk https://dailynous.com/2020/12/11/conference-series-oppressive-speech-disinvites-trans-exclusionary-philosopher/
2/5 because most feminist are 'gender-critical'. Apparently there are only two options on the table: 'trans-exclusive' or 'gender-critical'. I am not impressed with this kind of reasoning. He actually declared, in the above post, any questioning of this issue 'verboten'. Because
3/5 he has dealt with it before [see section III: https://dailynous.com/2019/06/05/trans-women-philosophy-learning-recent-events/]. So I can't respond to him on Daily Nous. By Justin's reasoning the Suffragettes were 'male-exclusionary'. But their aim was to fight for women's rights and the same goes for the majority of feminists whom
4/5 he terms 'trans-exclusionary'. Exclusion of trans-people [in sport, prisons, women's shelters] can sometimes be the consequence of fighting for women's rights, but it isn't the aim. So what Justin is doing is to adopt the loaded language of one side in this debate, because
he can't think of a better word. When we philosophers find that we lack the language to to name something, then we simply coin a new term, rather than adopting the rhetoric of one side in the debate.
