Bad Philosophy: Aaron Jaffee: "Cis Fears And Transphobia: How Not To Debate Gender"

Wow this is just awful. If it even counts as philosophy at all, it's very, very bad philosophy. It's yet another bad response to Kathleen Stock's argument against transgender ideology. If you've got the stomach for it, try to just wade through the first two sections. It's like stepping into the twilight zone. Not, unfortunately, that it's the worst I've ever seen, because it isn't. The pro-"trans" position requires us to basically start off by ignoring the fact that all women are female. Now...the idea that women are female absolutely, positively has to be the starting-point for any such discussion. The pro-"trans" side is free to dispute it...though the arguments never, ever work. But all women are female is so clearly (or, if you like: apparently) true, that if you don't start there, you're never going to be able to provide support for your position by the lights of any sensible person. Jaffee, instead, starts--philosophically speaking--on Mars, by pretending that it's profitable to begin by listing things (like: being able to pay rent) that all "trans" and "cis" "women" have in common. This is the rough equivalent of insisting that any discussion of the existence of God start off by acknowledging the reality of original sin. [Bad analogy: rather, it's just a stupid starting-point. You've got to be deeply confused about the overall logical/dialectical situation to think that's an even vaguely plausible starting-point.]

   Stock is berated for "ignoring theoretical developments" in "trans" philosophy...as if such
"developments" constituted knowledge or even justified beliefs or even interesting advances--rather than merely new literary/political fads in an intellectually corrupt attempt to provide some kind of quasi-poetic, rhetorical prop for certain weird political and sexual preferences. Jaffee simply assumes the truth of some bizarre propositions and suggests that Stock should have begun with the same ones. To borrow a characterization from Searle, it's the kind of stuff that gives bullshit a bad name.

   And, of course, Stock is accused of "transphobia" before Jaffee even really gets warmed up: 'transphobia' occurs in the title of the piece and in the abstract/blurb. It first appears in the body at the third paragraph, and then it (or some variation of it) appears sixteen more times before the end of the relatively short piece. Make no mistake about it: to disagree with the current flavor of "trans" ideology is to be declared "transphobic." There is no such thing as honest, respectful, permissible disagreement with trans ideology: to disagree is to be a bigot.

   This is madness, and almost no one on the left is willing to acknowledge that.