Tuvel / Hypatia Dust-Up At The NYT
Nothing really new here.
Again I'll note: this is an embarrassment to philosophy. But, of course: though the incident constitutes an embarrassment in itself, the more important point is that it reveals things that are much more embarrassing. I.e.: that this politically-motivated nonsense can survive in philosophy, that it can even take on the status of unquestionable orthodoxy, that one risks being dogpiled for making obvious, ordinary arguments that should be apparent to anyone...and that philosophy has remained silent while the rest of the culture has been gaslighted by the prevailing, incoherent theory of transgenderism.
Tuvel didn't even draw the correct conclusion, which would have been: transracialism makes no sense and neither does transgenderism. Imagine how she would have been treated had she had the temerity to do that...
As almost a side-note: it's worth noting the strategy that the Hypatia crowd is using here. Now, if you've seen some of their arguments in support of their preferred theory of transgenderism (e.g. Jenner is literally a woman, etc.), you know that they're an incoherent mess. But, basically, it doesn't matter how bad your arguments are in support of their preferred theory--just about any such argument will be accepted. But if you reject their preferred view? Then the very most stringent...and absurd...standards will be applied. You must review all the literature, you must respond to every possible objection, no matter how inane, your paper must (we are now told) meet the standards of all the various disciplines that are taken to be part of...the women's studies coalition, or whatever it is, you must cite and respond to a sufficient number of papers written by the right kinds of people (in this case: non-white, transgendered). These differential demands alone are very effective at squelching dissent--differential skepticism is one way in which individuals and groups maintain their preferred beliefs.
Philosophy needs to sit down and do some hard thinking about the political shackles that it has allowed the PC left to place on it.
Again I'll note: this is an embarrassment to philosophy. But, of course: though the incident constitutes an embarrassment in itself, the more important point is that it reveals things that are much more embarrassing. I.e.: that this politically-motivated nonsense can survive in philosophy, that it can even take on the status of unquestionable orthodoxy, that one risks being dogpiled for making obvious, ordinary arguments that should be apparent to anyone...and that philosophy has remained silent while the rest of the culture has been gaslighted by the prevailing, incoherent theory of transgenderism.
Tuvel didn't even draw the correct conclusion, which would have been: transracialism makes no sense and neither does transgenderism. Imagine how she would have been treated had she had the temerity to do that...
As almost a side-note: it's worth noting the strategy that the Hypatia crowd is using here. Now, if you've seen some of their arguments in support of their preferred theory of transgenderism (e.g. Jenner is literally a woman, etc.), you know that they're an incoherent mess. But, basically, it doesn't matter how bad your arguments are in support of their preferred theory--just about any such argument will be accepted. But if you reject their preferred view? Then the very most stringent...and absurd...standards will be applied. You must review all the literature, you must respond to every possible objection, no matter how inane, your paper must (we are now told) meet the standards of all the various disciplines that are taken to be part of...the women's studies coalition, or whatever it is, you must cite and respond to a sufficient number of papers written by the right kinds of people (in this case: non-white, transgendered). These differential demands alone are very effective at squelching dissent--differential skepticism is one way in which individuals and groups maintain their preferred beliefs.
Philosophy needs to sit down and do some hard thinking about the political shackles that it has allowed the PC left to place on it.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home