Yet another smug philosophy bro telling women why we don’t get to talk without his approval.
A cursory review of Stock's bigotry which philosophers have allowed to masquerade as scholarship reveals that the only people who are presumably deserving of a full allocation of human rights are lesbians and gay men.
Everyone else must fend for themselves.
— Dr. Johnathan Flowers, Sword Bisexual (@shengokai) March 12, 2023
Another so called “philosopher” (wtf is a comics philosopher anyway?) who thinks that philosophy can be used to fortify an untenable ideology. Probably my “eccentric” idea of what philosophy and philosophers should be all about (again). Kathleen Stock is great, but this guy? Maybe he needs more than a “cursory review” before he pops off on twitter.
Another gross misrepresentation. You’d think trained philosophers could read for understanding. There is nothing in that tweet to suggest that only lesbians and gay men matter.
I suspect he probably does understand that, but filters it through his trans decoder ring. I heard there was a recall on those because they have too many flaws to innumerate.
I can understand the study of comics as a graphic media and how there can be a philosophy of it. This fellow though is just another bog standard TRA in terms of his insulting Kathleen Stock. Having read both her Material Girls and Only Imagine, I can vouch that Stock is a bona fide philosopher.
It’s the same exercise of power we are used to seeing. Stock is not permitted to define herself, nor to have her words mean what they say. Someone with more power than her insists on those privileges. He gets to define her identity and gets to say what her words mean.
I suppose “a cursory review of Stock’s bigotry” means only a glance at what trans activists have claimed she said, rather than actually reading anything she wrote and engaging with her arguments.
One of the things I find frustrating in this area is the insistence by so many that there are simply no legitimate criticisms, and no legitimate critics.
Here you have someone saying that Stock’s work isn’t even “scholarship” and that philosophers should have, I don’t know, tarred and feathered her or something. Whatever the philosophical equivalent of being disbarred or “struck off” the official Registry of Philosophers, I suppose.
Emily Bazelon writes a very even-handed article for the NY Times about youth gender medicine? Well, what does she know about this subject? Jesse Singal writes multiple articles about this area and does deep dives on the published research? Ugh, that dude is OBSESSED, donchathink there’s something creepy and odd about that?
Anyway, you can’t opine on what went on in those clinics unless you worked there. Oh, but if you did (Jamie Reed), then you can’t be trusted because you’re a transphobic bigot, even if you’re trans yourself, and besides, she was “just a receptionist” (which I’m sure folks here know wasn’t the case). Erica Anderson, a trans psychologist who’s worked in the field? Oh, ignore her, she’s a bigot, too.
The NHS comes out with a report raising concerns about gender medicine in the UK? Well, that’s TERF Island, what do you expect? Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, too? Nothing to see here, folks, please disperse. All is well.
There are, of course, public controversies over which there really is no legitimate debate. There really aren’t any reasonable, good faith Flat Earthers. But that’s a pretty high bar to clear, and when you declare that your views have no legitimate opposition, you’re putting yourself out on a precarious ledge.
And it’s really counterproductive. When people can see that it sure looks like there’s some legitimate criticism, attempts to handwave it away — or worse, intimidate or dismiss it with accusations of bigotry — just encourage conspiracy theories and open the door to actual bigots, and the grifters and political opportunists who pander to them. I’m not saying that justifies anyone deciding to go full-on bigot. Anyone who does that is morally responsible for that choice, just like anyone who becomes a full-on white supremacist because they’re a little irritated by wokeness needs to own that choice. But there is simply no way that all the developments we’re witnessing — a massive increase in children being diagnosed and given medical and surgical treatment, and trans women competing in women’s sports, etc. — is going to happen without some societal debate and discussion, and anyone who truly cares about trans people is making a massive miscalculation by thinking they can preempt that debate by just branding everyone who disagrees with them as an ignorant bigot.
TL;DR version: you can’t keep crying wolf (or, in this case, TERF) and be surprised when people stop taking you seriously.
Another so called “philosopher” (wtf is a comics philosopher anyway?) who thinks that philosophy can be used to fortify an untenable ideology. Probably my “eccentric” idea of what philosophy and philosophers should be all about (again). Kathleen Stock is great, but this guy? Maybe he needs more than a “cursory review” before he pops off on twitter.
Another gross misrepresentation. You’d think trained philosophers could read for understanding. There is nothing in that tweet to suggest that only lesbians and gay men matter.
I suspect he probably does understand that, but filters it through his trans decoder ring. I heard there was a recall on those because they have too many flaws to innumerate.
I can understand the study of comics as a graphic media and how there can be a philosophy of it. This fellow though is just another bog standard TRA in terms of his insulting Kathleen Stock. Having read both her Material Girls and Only Imagine, I can vouch that Stock is a bona fide philosopher.
It’s the same exercise of power we are used to seeing. Stock is not permitted to define herself, nor to have her words mean what they say. Someone with more power than her insists on those privileges. He gets to define her identity and gets to say what her words mean.
I suppose “a cursory review of Stock’s bigotry” means only a glance at what trans activists have claimed she said, rather than actually reading anything she wrote and engaging with her arguments.
Stock’s article is well worth a read. It’d be nice if mainstream papers in the US would give voice to her kind.
J.A. @3 I agree. I have read Material Girls, and quite a few articles by her as well, and she’s not only genuine, but in my opinion, first rate.
One of the things I find frustrating in this area is the insistence by so many that there are simply no legitimate criticisms, and no legitimate critics.
Here you have someone saying that Stock’s work isn’t even “scholarship” and that philosophers should have, I don’t know, tarred and feathered her or something. Whatever the philosophical equivalent of being disbarred or “struck off” the official Registry of Philosophers, I suppose.
Emily Bazelon writes a very even-handed article for the NY Times about youth gender medicine? Well, what does she know about this subject? Jesse Singal writes multiple articles about this area and does deep dives on the published research? Ugh, that dude is OBSESSED, donchathink there’s something creepy and odd about that?
Anyway, you can’t opine on what went on in those clinics unless you worked there. Oh, but if you did (Jamie Reed), then you can’t be trusted because you’re a transphobic bigot, even if you’re trans yourself, and besides, she was “just a receptionist” (which I’m sure folks here know wasn’t the case). Erica Anderson, a trans psychologist who’s worked in the field? Oh, ignore her, she’s a bigot, too.
The NHS comes out with a report raising concerns about gender medicine in the UK? Well, that’s TERF Island, what do you expect? Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, too? Nothing to see here, folks, please disperse. All is well.
There are, of course, public controversies over which there really is no legitimate debate. There really aren’t any reasonable, good faith Flat Earthers. But that’s a pretty high bar to clear, and when you declare that your views have no legitimate opposition, you’re putting yourself out on a precarious ledge.
And it’s really counterproductive. When people can see that it sure looks like there’s some legitimate criticism, attempts to handwave it away — or worse, intimidate or dismiss it with accusations of bigotry — just encourage conspiracy theories and open the door to actual bigots, and the grifters and political opportunists who pander to them. I’m not saying that justifies anyone deciding to go full-on bigot. Anyone who does that is morally responsible for that choice, just like anyone who becomes a full-on white supremacist because they’re a little irritated by wokeness needs to own that choice. But there is simply no way that all the developments we’re witnessing — a massive increase in children being diagnosed and given medical and surgical treatment, and trans women competing in women’s sports, etc. — is going to happen without some societal debate and discussion, and anyone who truly cares about trans people is making a massive miscalculation by thinking they can preempt that debate by just branding everyone who disagrees with them as an ignorant bigot.
TL;DR version: you can’t keep crying wolf (or, in this case, TERF) and be surprised when people stop taking you seriously.
[…] a comment by Screechy Monkey on What was that about arbitrary […]
He spent a lot of words to state ‘all lives matter’ there, didn’t he?