An Open Letter on the Hypatia Controversy

Anyone who read Dr. Tuvel's robust paper closely could instantly see how overtly ignorant and ideological the phoney outrage was. These academics are liberal reactionaries in the throes of mass hysteria, and whose influence should be limited and deconstructed vigorously.

Outrageous capitulation to seriously flawed transcult dogma/gaslighting by supposèd academics. Do they think they're being all with-it and right-on?

The freedom to engage in critical enquiry applies whether 'you' like the the topic or the lens

Gender theory is not being denounced for the sake of it. The critique of gender theory is valid within the scope of this open letter simply because gender identity has become the tool for silencing. The Tuvel affair would never have happened had Tuvel used any other theory to apply it to Dolezal. It is because gender identity has become the bastion of academic truespeak that this even transpired. Indeed, scholarly and popular journals are the places to debate this (and the latter is doing a far better job in recent years on this!). But this does not detract from the fact that female writers are singled out time and time over for writing about gender, dare they "get it wrong." Ask any male writer how many death and rape threats he has received for writing about gender, even trans politics. Hell, ask Singal! Then ask ask any female writer who has. The merit of this open letter is that it puts its finger on the issue: the limitation on academic freedom where gender orthodoxy is present. That gender theory is problematic is a point to make in an article. To say that it is the paradigmatic basis of silencing female scholars is today a truism.

It's a sad commentary on today's world that every aspect of it seems now to be under the control of this small group of individuals who freely impose their doctrine on us all while university deans and the editorial staff of normally credible journals roll over and do their bidding. I support everything in this open letter.

Let me get this straight, I am really just trying to understand your position. Is your view that "gender theory is and always will be problematic," and thus that we ought to denounce it in an open letter which simultaneously defends free thought and open inquiry? This view seems in great tension with itself. The notion that we should appraise arguments or theories by assessing how "problematic" they are (and denounce them in open letters rather than, for instance, rebut them in scholarly journals) is the motivating idea of Tuvel's censors. Are you perhaps instead suggesting they are correct in taking this attitude, and that it is merely the substance of their view of sex and gender that is wrong?

The "in various contexts" is usually that of a quite privileged individual who can make the claim that the body does not matter. For females specifically, the body does matter and they haven't the ability to negate it. This is why gender theory is and always will be problematic. The discussion of free speech is not coincidental to this debate. It is integral to it it seems to me. The strategic considerations at present is that gender theory is being used within academia to displace all discussion of historical materialism and physical reality which females can simply not identify their way out of. Yes, gender identity is a nice "add on", but you cannot create a new reality by pretending that the historical foundation never existed. And sex-based discrimination is real and constant for women. Any gender theory where sex is immaterial has, at least until now, hinged upon quite tired stereotypes. I honestly don't blame women for pushing back and I am astonished it has taken so long for their voices to be heard. The debates are not run together. It is the inverse in fact: the freedom of expression of those (especially females) who write about gender is specifically curtailed. Ask any female writer what happens to her when she writes on gender.

Trans activists are shutting down reasonable discourse on trans ideology. This cannot be tolerated in a free society that purports to embrace free speech.

I'm happy to bracket the question about the extent to which the piece is TERF-y, though I must say it seems plain to me that the wording of point (3) contains various dog whistles. The important point is this. We can make a conceptual distinction between (1) a gender theory according to which "sex is immaterial", and (2) the treatment of that gender theory as unquestionable dogma. To my mind, there is in the present context a strong incentive to denounce (2) while remaining neutral about the merits of (1). Failure to do this will elide two distinct debates, one between defenders of freedom of thought/speech and censors, the other between proponents of competing views of sex and gender. There are multiple strategic considerations that indicate such an incentive. One of these is that someone should be able to support Tuvel and freedom of expression while simultaneously believing that biological sex is (in various contexts) of less significance than gender identity. Running the debates together creates the appearance that one cannot, or should not, do this.

What a rhetorical piece of nonsense. You have not read the letter if only response is to accuse it of 'trans-exclusionary radical feminists talking points.' Hardly. The letter is signed by several transgender people if you haven't noticed. Many trans folks to include my cousin are worried about how women's voices and feminsm are being squelched by the politics of identity. The entire issue with Tuvel occurred because of an identity politics that presumes that sex is immaterial and that women who debate gender are sidelined from the very construction which marginalizes them. You have missed the forest for the trees if you have not understood that the censorship attempt occurred because Tuvel employed gender theory to another field and inadvertently showed it up as baseless. The "elision of feminist politics and the troubling sidelining of sex over gender 'feelings'" is precisely the reason why the call to censor happened. The authors of this piece, I can see nowhere at least, are not calling for feminist politics to supersede transgender politics. I think this letter is asking for the inclusion of every argument under the sun.

Academic freedom should not be eroded.

I would have considered signing if it weren't for numbered item 3, which decries the "elision of feminist politics and the troubling sidelining of sex over gender 'feelings'." It would have been preferable to denounce Tuvel's outrageous treatment without taking on board a substantive commitment regarding the relative metaphysical/normative significance of "gender 'feelings'" versus the "material reality of females." I thought the entire point of the open letter was supposed to be to defend principles of academic freedom, open inquiry, and anti-censorship. Incorporating trans-exclusionary radical feminist talking points into the letter is surely going to alienate people who would otherwise wish to voice their support for Tuvel and freedom of thought.

Such "outrage" about one form of "trans"--but no outrage about the erasure of women vis another type of trans. Considering Lucy, on eof the earliest known hominids, was found in Olduvai Gorge in Africa, it could be positited that we are all Black in some measure--[vis a vie mitechondrial DNA perhaps?]

It's important that freedom of speech continues in academic discourse. Censorship is wrong.

Stop the authoritarian cannibals.

The political correctness orthodoxy must not be allowed to stifle free speech.

When debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser....Socrates.

I agree with the sentiments and support the critique. However I cannot fathom why "This open letter is being sent to the provosts and other chief administrators and editors who serve at the institutions with which the signatories to the Hypatia letter are affiliated." It seems that the goal is to express dissent by relying on power structures and institutional networks. Is the ultimate purpose to create problems for the original signatories? This seems like a witch hunt as well. Free speech will always be constrained when such hierarchies are invoked, as seems to be the case here. I think it would be highly inappropriate for the institutions where the signatories work to publicly condemn the statements of employees on any side of this debate. I therefore think that this letter suggests a lack of respect for academic freedom, although I support the substance of its critique.

This is outright silencing. What are you so afraid of?

Trans-Vcabularization and Trans Stupidification and Trans Genderisation and Trans Laguagification and Transpercification...These people that used such epitetes need to have their brains or whar is left of it be examined and lobotomised. All this leads to a total dishumanisation by pseudu Intellectuals that have no place in Universities. They are Anachists that have soul purpose to destroy what is left in Humanity. One main cause of this is Soros Gyorgy.