Read on Twitter
(i) P'raps I'll spell out the dialectic here. In the letter, @jichikawa elides 'trans-exclusive' and 'transphobic'. I'm coming up with a counter-example to that elision. My (philosophical) view is that trans-women should be excluded from women's rugby. Of course, I don't think https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1346460338602926083
(ii) that trans-women should be excluded from rugby as such, but that they should play in the category of their birth sex (it's slightly more complicated than that, but I'll stick the paper at the end.)
(iii) On most normal understandings, this is a trans-exclusive (no scare quotes) view, in philosophy, which I argue for quite explicitly. I argue for it, because of the difference in bodies between males and females, which, I think, has ethical consequences.
(iv) So my question is: is this explicitly trans-exclusive view, also transphobic? Obviously, I think it isn't.
What does @jichikawa think? Here are some candidate responses for him:
What does @jichikawa think? Here are some candidate responses for him:
(v) 1) Yes, Jon, it's a transphobic view. All trans-exclusive views are, thereby, transphobic. TWAW, and bodies are ethically irrelevant.
(you've clearly fallen into bad company)
(you've clearly fallen into bad company)
(vi) 2) No, it's not (necessarily) a transphobic view, Jon. You have legitimate concerns about the inclusion of transwomen in women's collision sport that arise from the sex differences in bodies. Not all trans-exclusive views are transphobic....
(vii) 2) cont. In particular, when you are talking bodies, sex dimorphism matters (a bit, sometimes, a lot, in some spheres but not others, etc.)
(viii) If he goes for 1) then there's not much more to say. I think if that's the case, then @jichikawa is just pushing dogma/ideology and his view is basically religious.
ix) But he's a bright guy, and in favour of open debate, so it seems he would go for (2). But notice the consequences: if it's fine to debate trans-exclusive views in philosophy, especially where bodies, (& private space, and intimate relations etc.) are concerned, and it's
x) fine to debate self ID for the same reasons (because trans-exclusion conflicts with self ID) then there's not much point to the letter at all, since this is exactly what KS is doing. So @jichikawa which is it?
xi) Reflection: sport ethics is at the 'soft' end of this debate (thankfully for me) but people need to test their slogans against sport examples. Once you do that, you start to realise that bodies (rather than identities) are sometimes important, ethically and politically.
xii) and once you accept *that*, the floodgates open.
