Stone the witch
Another one of these – a public grovel and shunning over someone – a woman, naturally – saying Wrong Things about transracialism and transgenderism. The CHE reports:
The feminist philosophy journal Hypatia has apologized for publishing an article comparing transracialism with transgenderism.
In a post on the journal’s Facebook page on Monday, “a majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associated Editors” signed a lengthy and “profound apology” in which they said that “clearly, the article should not have been published.”
The article, ”In Defense of Transracialism,” by Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College, drew a significant backlash following its publication, in late March. The article discusses public perceptions of racial and gender transitions by comparing the former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s desire to be seen as black with the celebrity Caitlyn Jenner’s public transition from male to female.
It’s nice that Hypatia hung her up for the crows to peck – and by “nice” I mean “profoundly loathsome.”
Since a backlash erupted on social media, more than 400 academics have signed an open letter to the editor of Hypatia calling for the article to be retracted. “Our concerns reach beyond mere scholarly disagreement; we can only conclude that there has been a failure in the review process, and one that painfully reflects a lack of engagement beyond white and cisgender privilege,” the letter says.
There’s no such thing as “cisgender privilege.” The claim that there is is exactly as stupid as claiming there’s such a thing as “cisracial privilege.”
Ms. Tuvel, the article’s author, wrote in a statement to The Chronicle (quoted in full on the website of the Daily Nous) that she welcomed the opportunity to respond to the controversy that her article had caused. She said that she had written the article “from a place of support for those with non-normative identities, and frustration about the ways individuals who inhabit them are so often excoriated, body-shamed, and silenced.”
Ms. Tuvel added that she had received hate mail and had been strongly urged to retract the article. She also said that a few people had expressed support — talking about “bullying culture, call-out culture, virtue-signaling, a mob mentality, and academic freedom.”
“So little of what has been said, however, is based upon people actually reading what I wrote,” she continued. “There are theoretical and philosophical questions that I raise that merit our reflection. Not doing so can only reinforce gender and racial essentialism.”
She added: “Calls for intellectual engagement are also being shut down because they ‘dignify’ the article. If this is considered beyond the pale as a response to a controversial piece of writing, then critical thought is in danger. I have never been under the illusion that this article is immune from critique. But the last place one expects to find such calls for censorship rather than discussion is amongst philosophers.”
You would think.
Didn’t it used to be that, if you disagreed with an article, you wrote a rebuttal? Didn’t that used to be a thing? All these calls to retract articles or cancel speakers or shut down art shows is chilling. We’ve gotten to the point that even critically engaging with ideas in order to rebut them is forbidden. This absolutely is censorship and stifling critical thought. If you can’t articulate why you agree or disagree with an idea, then all you have is a knee-jerk opinion, not a well-reasoned and well-thought out position. Refusing to allow discussion of an idea in any way is the strategy of those who don’t have an actual argument to back up their viewpoint.
If you are so afraid of disagreement that you have to completely silence it for fear that others may agree with the person doing the disagreeing, then your ideas are built on a very flimsy foundation.
morganmine,
I disagree with your suggestion that things used to be better on this front. I would say ’twas ever thus. Censors have always been among us. They used to be much more successful at it, in part because there were gatekeepers who controlled the means of mass communication. Hell, the ink was barely dry on the First Amendment when Congress passed, and John Adams signed, the Alien and Sedition Acts.
That’s both good news and bad news. The good news is that we’re not necessarily on some downward decline towards repression. The bad news is that those of us who support free speech have to be continually vigilant about protecting it, because it is always under attack, and not just from would-be dictators but from people who think that they’re upholding the public good.
‘…Not doing so can only reinforce gender and racial essentialism.’
But they WANT to reinforce gender essentialism, without being called out on the racial implications.
Why on Earth should THIS matter be the Great Shibboleth among Ivy Covered ‘progressives?’
And, is this example enough to get people to realize how carelessly the ‘privilege’ card is being played?
Screechy Monkey:
True, there have always been censors. Maybe I’ve been particularly lucky (or particularly sheltered), but this sort of thing seems shocking to me coming from the left, especially the academic left. It just goes against a lot of what I was taught and a lot of what the lefties I used to run with back in the day held dear. Perhaps that was just my group of friends and fellow-travelers, though.
And it really gets under my skin, to be honest.
“There is no such thing as cisgender privilege”
Wow, you’ve seriously gone full TERF? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and wanted to have another look at B&W, but this is just sad.
Good luck in your further endeavours.
=8)-DX
So you’re a “TERF” if you don’t agree that women have something called “cisgender privilege”?
The E is for exclusionary. How is it exclusionary to deny that women have something called “cisgender privilege”? Who is being excluded by that denial?