63

It looks like some other academics have responded to the letter condemning Stock, with a letter of their own supporting her. They don't say they agree with her, just that she should be allowed to speak even if it offends others.

The letter

In particular I liked this:

"It cannot become our standard that where analysis and discussion of matters of public concern may cause offense, the social and institutional consequences of engagement are so costly that few will be willing to do the work. It cannot become our standard that the mere allegation of harm caused by some writing or speech, in the absence of any specific evidence to that effect, is sufficient to trigger such consequences."

It looks like some other academics have responded to the letter condemning Stock, with a letter of their own supporting her. They don't say they agree with her, just that she should be allowed to speak even if it offends others. [The letter](https://sites.google.com/view/open-letter-stock-freedom/home) In particular I liked this: "It cannot become our standard that where analysis and discussion of matters of public concern may cause offense, the social and institutional consequences of engagement are so costly that few will be willing to do the work. It cannot become our standard that the mere allegation of harm caused by some writing or speech, in the absence of any specific evidence to that effect, is sufficient to trigger such consequences."

23 comments

Update: Stock has also written some things in response to the last week's stuff about her:

https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/discussing-law-and-policy-is-not-discussing-an-abstract-thought-experiment-4069d2b420e6

[–] lucrecia 8 points (+8|-0)

“The proposition that trans gender identities are entirely valid — that trans women are women and trans men are men — is a foundational premise of my argument, which I will not discuss further"

Is that what happens when they feed 'NO DEBATE' through the Joseph Ducreux meme?

I had to look up said meme, and now I am filled with lol. :D

Jenkins is actually worth a read if only because she's so damned clear about the absurdities in her position, namely that (some) males are women even if they aren't "out" as transwomen and haven't done a damned thing to change their appearance, bodies or behaviour. And further, that they were always women. And further, that they should be centred in feminism.

Here's Jenkins's article just in case you have a perverse interest in bad philosophy.

[–] lucrecia 4 points (+4|-0)

:D

Thanks! I'll have a read in a bit. (Tbf, I think that position is more consistent than some alternatives I've seen floating around, even if I think it would need to posit gendersouls...But yeah, I think if one wanted to claim that they were oppressed for being women and that only they could know whether they were women or not, I think one would have to take that view. Otherwise one would get the conclusion that they're not oppressed unless they behave in a certain way, or that others determine one's 'gender', and those options are simply unthinkable to them. So I guess it's reasoning backwards from the conclusion? Well, I'll have to read.)

[–] lucrecia 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

So far I've made it to the first sentences of the abstract, and we already have a problem.

Feminist analyses of gender concepts must avoid the inclusion problem, the fault of marginalizing or excluding some prima facie women. [...] I argue that Haslanger’s analysis problematically margin- alizes trans women, thereby failing to avoid the inclusion problem.

...

prima facie women

Sure, whatever you say...

EDIT: omfg now she's thanking McKinnon for looking over it I'm not even past the first page

EDIT #2: also hm I note Jennifer Saul's name on there, I got the impression Feminist Philosophers closed down over background rows over transactivism but curious if that is what happened or if I just assumed that at some point based on timing.

[–] worried19 10 points (+10|-0)

That's an impressive list. It's good to know there are notable academics willing to push back.

[–] lucrecia 11 points (+11|-0)

I was so pleased to see someone as high-profile as Peter Singer on there! Didn't recognise a single name from the first letter, and some of them didn't even list an institution...

[–] wack 8 points (+8|-0)

you're absolutely right, I didn't notice before but I had a look through the list of signatories on the first letter and about 40 people didn't list an institution, some listed their own name again and one person listed a book (? The Timeship) and another listed a bank(????), a few art schools too but eh. Another thing that's hard to miss is that on the first letter not a single person mentioned their position at their institution, which leads me to thinking they're mostly students. This second letter has everyone's positions listed, most seem to be Professors, Lecturers, School teachers, Students even, I don't really mind if they're students or authors or whatever, what makes this noteworthy to me is the fact they listed their positions.

Yeah, Singer has copped some real flack over the years for his bioethics, which people have egregiously misrepresented. So it's nice that he signed.

[–] lucrecia 8 points (+8|-0)

Good to see. The linked blogpost correcting the details in the original letter is also quite entertaining.

[–] llkit 6 points (+6|-0)

Compared signatories across the two letters from an institution I know well.

In defence of Kathleen stock was a well respected law professor who happened to be a woman. a couple of signatories in the attack on Kathleen Stock, surprise surprise beardy white males. Both young and hungry academics looking to climb that greasy poll of academic careers.

[–] Tesserae_Tali 4 points (+4|-0)

It's awesome that Peter Singer signed it. He's got some serious academic starpower.