Jason Weinberg at Daily Nous is applauding from the sidelines again as another gender critical book is surrounded by the baying mob.
Two open letters are circulating regarding the decision of Oxford University Press to publish Gender-Critical Feminism, a forthcoming book by Holly Lawford-Smith, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Melbourne.
One letter, posted by Eugenia Zuroski of McMaster University (who notes that it was “very much a collaborative effort”), is from “members of the international scholarly community with a relationship of some kind, or several kinds, to Oxford University Press,” including authors, reviewers, series and journal editors, translators, instructors who teach OUP’s books, and readers. In the letter they express their “profound disappointment” with OUP’s decision to publish the book. They note that they are not aiming to “censor ideas” and do not call for the decision to publish the book to be reversed.
They just express their profound disappointment. Completely different thing.
Remember Eugenia Zuroski from last weekend? She was fun. Very scholarly.
Back to Daily Nous:
The authors are troubled by the book because, they write, “‘gender critical’ discourse attempts to deny transgender rights under the guise of scholarly inquiry,” and that it is
not a scholarly field, but a coordinated polemical intervention, unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed research in the fields of gender, sexuality, queer, and trans studies, that promotes itself by the deliberate sowing of public “controversy” without being held accountable for very real and dangerous consequences of these discourses for entire demographics of human beings.
The usual much-repeated jargon, in short. But they don’t want to censor ideas! Not at all!
Then there’s one from OUP employees who cheerfully say they do want to censor the book, then Weinberg says he doesn’t have time to say what he thinks. All very edifying and collegial.
Comments
11 responses to “Their profound disappointment”
“unsubstantiated by peer-reviewed research in the fields of gender, sexuality, queer, and trans studies, ”
hmm, and who would those ‘peers’ doing the reviewing be I wonder? The fields of biology and medicine, or any science, being conspicuously absent.
Sounds like Eugenia has her mind made up. Since the book’s publication is forthcoming, I doubt that she’s read it. Her judgements based on personal bias and prejudice, and therefore worthless.
Still looking for someone of reasonable disposition and average intelligence with pronouns in their bio. There sure isn’t any evidence of such.
Ah, so it’s not laden with insufferable bullshit.
This complaint reminds me of all the sophisticated theologians who complained about New Atheist books’ not engaging with the sophisticated theology.
The projection in that last blockquote is simply breathtaking.
It is, isn’t it. And these aren’t students at the University of York, they’re academics.
From a satirical open letter to Daily Nous on Justin Weinberg platforming the open letter against the unreleased and unread book:
Re #7, that’s hilarious, thanks for sharing it.
To be fair, genderists may read the OUP listing of the book and find enough to disagree with in the overview:
and the description:
I think all of that makes OUP look good — for hosting a coherent view — not just because I’m sympathetic to the view.
Sure makes me want to read it…and that is because I’m sympathetic to the view, but then I’m sympathetic to the view because it’s coherent and because it aligns with my experience and what I know.
Dave Ricks @7 — that letter made my day.