Anti-lesbian discrimination at LGBT Facebook group for philosophers
Two lesbian philosophers–Holly Lawford-Smith and Louise Moody–are removed from the group by Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown) after merely mentioning philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex).
The group is both closed and secret, so I haven’t seen any posts from it firsthand, only summaries of what’s going on. Someone asked how to learn more about…gender critical feminism? One of the pejorative labels for same? I don’t remember, but one of those or something like it. Holly and Louise suggested reading Kathleen Stock. Kukla kicked them out without further ado.
But wait, there’s more. Of course there is; there always is; there is the festering hatred of various men who have to share their festering hatred with the world. Trans ideology has been such a gift to those men.
UPDATE: Two different readers sent along the unhinged reaction of Keyvan Shefiei, another charming PhD student self-destructing on social media:
A “bigoted piece of shit” and a “vile fucking human.” Why? Because she doesn’t subscribe to the doctrine that men can magically become women simply by saying the words “I identify as.”
ADDENDUM: An amazing response to being called out for their unhinged behavior. Among the philosophers sympathizing with Shalfiei, who apparently think it’s fine to call another philosopher a “piece of shit” and a “vile fucking human,” are Daniel Silvermint (Connecticut), Fiona Schick (CUNY), Amy Marvin (Oregon), Audrey Yap (Victoria), Joshua Habgood-Coote (Bristol), and Nathaneal Smith (Rochester), among others.
I don’t know anything about the last five, but I saw Daniel Silvermint’s sympathizing before Brian’s update, and it’s a gem of its kind – its kind being a combination of ostentatiously professorial wording with intensely stupid content.
(2/4) the vulnerable person was right to get "as angry" as they did in response. Suddenly the attack no longer matters – only whether the reply was 'civil', or in this case of our field, 'reasoned' and ‘professional'. And because these are loaded terms, and because the people
— Daniel Silvermint (@DSilvermint) April 8, 2019
The “on the record” is laughable for a start, because what record? What godly recorder is seeking David Silvermint’s official opinion?
But the rest of it is infuriating, because what “attack”? There was no “attack.” Not agreeing to bizarre metaphysical claims is not an “attack.” And because what “wider conditions of vulnerability”? Are we supposed to assume that trans women are in a condition of vulnerability while women are not? If so, why? I asked him that, then after some hours I asked him again; all I got was a block. He pretends to be making a reasoned argument but he declines to argue.
(4/4) In my opinion, philosophers should spend more time worrying that the core values of our field align so closely with respectability politics, and less time worrying that a graduate student said a swear.
— Daniel Silvermint (@DSilvermint) April 8, 2019
“A swear.” Calling someone a “bigoted piece of shit” and a “vile fucking human” is not a mere swear. A man calling a woman those things is doubly not a mere swear. Daniel Silvermint is helping another dude bully a woman on Twitter, and pretending he’s doing serious philosophy in the process.
Guess what he teaches. Go on, guess.
I joined the University of Connecticut in 2013 as an Assistant Professor, jointly appointed in Philosophy & Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
Yeah. Women’s Studies, that guy.
Comments
6 responses to “The wider conditions of vulnerability”
This just in:
Also too–“Women’s Studies.” GAAHHHH.
“Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies” is NOT Women’s Studies. These asses killed Women’s Studies, and they deserve an eternity reading Judith Butler in Hell for it.
Well to be fair “for the record” is just a way of making “this is my opinion” sound as pompous as possible and he certainly pulls that off.
Indeed. He seems as adept as papering over context as he is at flat out inventing it (wider conditions of vulnerability my arse).
What’s with the weird ‘TE”RF”‘? Is TERF a banned word on Twitter or is there a significance to the quote marks?
I think it’s to thwart people who search via the word or have alerts for the word, that kind of thing. Basically to call feminist women names behind their backs.
I wondered if it’s because the “RF” represents Radical Feminism. I’ve seen the odd Tweet (twit?) saying something along the lines of “How can they call themselves a radical feminist and be against trans rights, because…”
It just seems to be a level if complete ignorance about the origins and meaning of radical feminism. Putting RF in scare quotes may be a nod to this belief that a TERF is somehow a regressive, not a radical in their beliefs.
tl;dr
Ignorance.
Rob – yeah, because to be a radical feminist these days, one has to support men being women over women being women. In fact, we’re getting to a point where women aren’t even supposed to claim to be women, because that’s all TERFy and bigoted.
I am woman. I was born woman. I have lived woman. I plan to die woman.
There. I am now officially a TERF. And yes, I am a rad fem, whether the TRAs like it or not.