Tuvel and Trans* Marginalization

It's disheartening to see the philosophical establishment circle the wagons around Hypatia and Tuvel. Even John Corvino (who admits that he really shouldn't have anything to say about this issue) seems to have more sympathy to Tuvel than he does to the trans* community which has been and will continue to be harmed by this publication. This wasn't a case of moral bad luck. Tuvel and Hypatia exhibited culpable ignorance of trans* issues. The anti-Trans movement (mostly TERFs, but also many conservatives) is delighted with this development because not only can they point to this article that seems to legitimize an argument that they have been making for while (more below), but they can claim that our attempt to hold Hypatia to account is a witch hunt. TERFs get to play the victim card, casting Tuvel as an innocent victim of the "transsexual empire". 

You might think that I am misreading Tuvel, since she claims (in the article) that she is arguing in favor of transracialism BECAUSE she accepts the arguments in favor of "transgenderism" (a term that is not commonly accepted in the trans community and that Tuvel used throughout her paper). She accepts transgender people; or so she says. But to be honest that doesn't matter. The argument used by TERFs for years has been "if being transgender is possible, then so is being transracial or transspecies, since they are analogous." For TERFs, this argument shows how absurd the concept of a trans woman is. Tuvel makes the same argument except bites the bullet that everyone else thinks is absolutely absurd (or so she says). The argument is something like a slippery slope argument (which is a series of analogical arguments). Tuvel just accepts the slope. But by making the argument for the analogy, she gives amunition to the TERF movement. And no one else in their right mind is going to bite the bullet that Tuvel seems willing to bite. 

Dolezal is not black. That is a given. So, if you accept that being transgender is analogous to being "transracial" then you are basically telling me that you don't believe me. You don't accept my proprio-descriptive authority over my gender. 

The "trans-slide" argument is similar to an argument that was offered against homosexuality. This argument was that if we allow homosexuals to have sex, then we will have to allow bestiality as well. Call this the "sex-slide" argument. I recall that in Corvino's video where he deals with this argument, he is very dismissive and doesn't seem to think that it even merits a response. I agree. But how is it not analogous to the "trans-slide" argument? They seem analogous to me. And yet, Corvino treats Tuvel's defense of the trans-slide (with the willingness to slide down) as if it is worthy of consideration. How would Corvino respond if Peter Singer had published an essay arguing that allowing homosexuality was morally analogous to allows bestiality, whilst biting the bullet on the latter? It's hard not to think that there's some inconsistency here. 

When I first came out, my experience with people in academia was pretty good. I did have some problems with people that I now consider to be pseudo-allies (people who think that they are on your side, but are not). But I am seeing that this is much more wide-spread in institutional philosophy. I now don't feel safe doing philosophy as a trans* philosopher on issues dealing with gender and feminism. I have watched the Hypatia page take down the thread in which many of the experts in trans* studies held them to account for their awful publication and then leave up the thread that includes dozens of transmysogynistic comments, completely unmoderated. The message: actual trans* experts are to be silenced and TERFs are allowed to be part of the conversation. (Liberals defend TERFs free speech like they defend the free speech of fascists.) I can't help but conclude that my initial judgement that the philosophical community would be a safe place to do trans* studies is wrong. (BTW, I now understand the need for safe spaces like never before.) Institutional philosophy has an ingrained, inplicit transphobia that it has yet to confront.

Another example: Justin Weinberg's summary of the debate on the Daily Nous involves gaslighting the trans* reaction to the paper. We all read the paper and we knew that Tuvel claimed to be in support of trans* rights. But she nevertheless defended a traditional TERF polemic as a legitimate argument. 

Institutional philosophy is not a safe place for trans* philosophers.

My area of research used to be philosophy of religion and Mormon theology. But I left Mormonism and want nothing to do with it now and I came to the conclusion that contemporary analytic philosophy of religion is completely dysfunctional as a field. So, although I am a professor at a teaching university, I was looking for another area of research where I feel I can make a positive difference. And then I came out as a trans woman last year. I thought that doing work in trans* studies made sense. I was reading it all anyway. But now, I don't think that I can do it, knowing how ignorant and bigoted the philosophical world is. (The world of Mormon Studies is highly dramatic and acrimonious and I was a heretic. So, I have had enough of acrimonious environments.) 

To be honest, I was really digging Hypatia's publication history on trans* issues. I thought that they really understood what was going on in that field. But then Tuvel happened and this showed that they are either careless or clueless. I just can't even.

So, here I am making the decision to retreat to the icy slopes of logic, as Neurath puts it in the Vienna Circle's Yellow Brochure. Philosophy is not safe for trans* studies.

(Note: I have also noticed some prominent trans* scholars have deactivated their social networking accounts. I can't help but think that they feel similarly.)

I wonder if the philosophical establishment (i.e., those that keep opining on issues about which they know very little) knows how much this has/will hurt the trans* community. Also, I can't help but wonder if this implicit, pervasive transmisogyny is related to the braoder misogyny in a community that shields sexual predators just because they are top philosophers and can't seem to correct the dearth of women and people of color in the discipline. I don't just wonder this, actually, I believe it. It's my hypothesis. But I am willing to be proved wrong. Although I have no hope that I will be.