Read on Twitter
I often wonder why Helen Joyce is suddenly so HUGELY exercised about trans people existing. https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1346885628634550274
The comment Helen Joyce responds to so appreciativelyâ"God that is good."âis egregious. Let's take a moment to note how egregious. 2/
The first half is a complaint about how criticism of anti-trans positions generally and Kathleen Stock's work specifically is, allegedly, not adhering to "normal standards of rational debate." The writer suggests a "sociological" reading of the situation. 3/
Apparently, "the real problem" with Stock & others is that "if they are right," then that leads to some unhappy conclusions about academic feminism. "If they are right." That's a big conditional. Someone is wading into a discussion with which they're perhaps not familiar. 4/
"If they are right"? I say they have clearly tried to say they are right. Perhaps in full-length published arguments like this one.
Robin Dembroff, "Escaping the Natural Attitude about Gender," *Philosophical Studies,* 2020. 5/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-020-01468-1
Robin Dembroff, "Escaping the Natural Attitude about Gender," *Philosophical Studies,* 2020. 5/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-020-01468-1
Does this count as addressing "if they are right," clearing the foundational uncertainty of the writer's comment?
Aleardo Zanghellini, "Philosophical Problems with the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument against Trans Inclusion," *Sage Open,* 2020. 6/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244020927029
Aleardo Zanghellini, "Philosophical Problems with the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument against Trans Inclusion," *Sage Open,* 2020. 6/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244020927029
However, our comment author does not seem to be able to address his own wobbling around "if they are right." He repeats the move: whether Kathleen Stock & others "are right or wrong, what one is witnessing is simply centres of academic power and prestige defending themselves." 7/
Nah, sorry. If you, an academic philosopher, can't be bothered to investigate whether you think a set of securely (afaik) employed philosophersâStock, Lawford-Smith, Reilly-Cooper, Leiter, Byrne, etc.âis right or wrong about an issue for which they are hotly campaigning... 8/
...then you don't get to retreat to this ridiculous position:
I will reserve judgment on whether Stock et al. are right or wrong, and will instead judge those who object to Stock et al.'s arguments as all-too-established for my taste! Huzzah! 9/
I will reserve judgment on whether Stock et al. are right or wrong, and will instead judge those who object to Stock et al.'s arguments as all-too-established for my taste! Huzzah! 9/
And then it arrives.
A horrible claim.
Issued as if it was oh-so-clever.
Please prepare for the feeling of wanting to throw things. 10/
A horrible claim.
Issued as if it was oh-so-clever.
Please prepare for the feeling of wanting to throw things. 10/
"The trans issue is mostly an abstraction."
Followed by:
The "trans issue" is "a mere signifier of virtue and would-be philosophical insight." 11/
Followed by:
The "trans issue" is "a mere signifier of virtue and would-be philosophical insight." 11/
What the fuck. 12/
And look, our writer is not actually so interested in withholding judgment on whether Kathleen Stock & others are right or wrong, is he? From his convenient position of not engaging with the arguments and the scholarship, he's allowing himself to conclude, nevertheless. 13/
Those who argue against Stock et al. are not "morally serious people" because, to his eyes, they appear to "blithely shove poor, abused, imprisoned women under the bus." Where or how need not be established, after all, he doesn't know whether Stock et al. are right or wrong. 14/
Our white male author ends with how unhappy he is that "hyper-privileged white straight males" argue against Stock's claims (what about Leiter? Byrne?): "For a certain kind of progressive male, if trans people didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them."
Fucking ugh. 15/
Fucking ugh. 15/
So, it's a pretty terrible comment. The argumentation is shit. The claim that trans folk are an abstraction is shocking. The half-feigned, half-correct ignorance of the issues about which he's making big claims is astounding. 16/
The author, John Collins, is a professor of philosophy at University of East Anglia. 17/
https://people.uea.ac.uk/john_collins
https://people.uea.ac.uk/john_collins
The person who thinks, "God this is good.", is Helen Joyce, an executive editor at *The Economist.* 18/ https://mediadirectory.economist.com/people/dr-helen-joyce/
The tweet where I happened upon John Collin's "Great comment" is by Miroslav ImbriĆĄeviÄ, formerly a visiting lecturer at Heythrop College, University of London. 19/ https://miroslavimbrisevic.wordpress.com/
The blog post under which John Collins' comment appeared. 20/ https://dailynous.com/2021/01/05/kathleen-stock-receives-obe-philosophers-opposing-honor/
@threadreaderapp unroll
