https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/us/anthropology-panel-sex-binary-gender-kathleen-lowery.html
I know it's likely this thread will go off the rails and become a rightwing cesspool and/or a debate about "the trans issue," and I have zero control over that. But before it happens, let me make my naive plea for a different approach.
I find this decision to drop the panel appalling - not because I agree or disagree with the individual panelists or any particular "agenda" but because I fail to see any reasonable basis for shutting down discussion of interesting and important issues within any academic field (I mean, come on: identification of ancient bones!). Is it really "settled science" that biological sex shouldn't be treated as significant on its own in the study of anthropology? Is it really a good idea to first accept and then ditch a panel at an academic conference based on what are clearly political motives? Sure, some of the panelists have been "activists" around the sex/gender identity issue - but so what? That's true for scholars on "the other side" too. Is it really a smart move to decide, "Oh, I don't like so-and-so's politics so let's get rid of her panel and then accuse her and her colleagues of being crappy scholars and bigots - oh, and let's throw in 'eugenicists' for good measure"?"
I'm not exactly a free-speech fundamentalist, but I've been following Amna Khalid's work in particular on academic freedom issues and find increasingly that this sort of censorship is simply indefensible. I am unequivocally a leftist and genuinely cannot understand why "my side" thinks it is a good idea, unless those doing the censoring truly believe almost everyone affected (in this case, the membership of the two professional associations) will support their decision - either because they agree or because they're afraid to disagree given the potential consequences (as evidenced by this panel cancellation and subsequent denunciation of the scholars involved by the two associations).
God forbid "the other side" ends up back in charge and those doing today's cancelling are on the receiving end. Oh, wait . . . we're already seeing that in Florida and elsewhere, aren't we?
So I would love to know, not what people think about "the gender issue," but what people think about this strategy of shutting down discussion in an academic context. Do folks actually think this is acceptable? If so, what makes it so?
I think most people here will agree with your position. I do.
I've mostly been skeptical that there is a large scale attack on academic freedom coming from the inside, but certainly there are instances and this looks to be one of them.
I found this troubling too not just because of the pandering to cancel culture but also because academic research is now subject to what is considered to be politically "correct" rather than established scientific parameters.
Quote from: history_grrrl on September 30, 2023, 07:45:49 AMSo I would love to know, not what people think about "the gender issue," but what people think about this strategy of shutting down discussion in an academic context. Do folks actually think this is acceptable? If so, what makes it so?
This is why I think "activism", for almost any cause, is antithetical to the principles of academic inquiry; i.e. following the data wherever it lead,
even if that goes counter to the researcher's own theories.
No matter which end of the political spectrum someone comes from, the more committed they are to an ideology, the less objective their research will be, and the less useful for the rest of society.
I don't agree that they should have cancelled the session, but I do agree with the worries they probably had, which that the actual session would almost certainly result not in calm and reasoned debate between the two sides, but name-calling, charges of hatred, furious "cancellations" on social media, and flying fur, if not outright rioting.
My opinion on this question is the same as the one I have on many other questions raised in various threads: You don't like what your professional organization is doing, form a different one!
Competition, and nothing else, supports a search for truth.
As is often the case, claims about free speech here are intellectually incoherent. Editorial decisions about panels at conferences are not content neutral and they aren't supposed to be. What can and cannot be discussed at a conference is about the values and beliefs of the association members. One of those values should be a commitment to free inquiry, but that value is obviously not absolute and has to be balanced against the others. I doubt "Phrenology-was it all bad?" is going to get accepted as a panel at a criminology conference and "rethinking eugenics" isn't likely to fly at at the sociology conference.
So since an absolutist free speech argument is silly, all you're really left with is arguments about specifics. What should be considered beyond the pale? And if people in anthropology want to go have that argument they can, and you can weigh in if you want, but there's not some principal of free speech worth getting up on your platform about. It's a professional organization, they don't have to give anyone a platform. Sigh.
I'm okay with it, and I outlined why on the Seuss Cancellation thread.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 30, 2023, 10:35:39 AMQuote from: history_grrrl on September 30, 2023, 07:45:49 AMSo I would love to know, not what people think about "the gender issue," but what people think about this strategy of shutting down discussion in an academic context. Do folks actually think this is acceptable? If so, what makes it so?
This is why I think "activism", for almost any cause, is antithetical to the principles of academic inquiry; i.e. following the data wherever it lead, even if that goes counter to the researcher's own theories.
No matter which end of the political spectrum someone comes from, the more committed they are to an ideology, the less objective their research will be, and the less useful for the rest of society.
So go listen to the podcasts about gender fluidity Puget left for you on the Cancellation thread. Walk your talk, my Marshbrother.
It would be good to know what really happened. The session was initially approved and on the schedule, and then it got taken off. The article said that it had been approved by non-specialists.
Is that really true? If so, it has me wondering what kind of academic outfit this is. Seems half-baked. You don't ask subject non-specialists to review conference submissions.
Then supposedly it was reviewed by more people and more specialists. But what led to the extra review? My guess is that people saw the names of the presenters and recognized them as gender critical activists, and said "hell no, not on my watch." They caused a stir and said we have take this panel off. Then they cooked up some story about the scientific status which is just obvious BS.
Quote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 04:32:21 AMMy guess is that people saw the names of the presenters and recognized them as gender critical activists, and said "hell no, not on my watch." They caused a stir and said we have take this panel off. Then they cooked up some story about the scientific status which is just obvious BS.
I suspect this is correct; some folks brought the names of individuals on the panel who they consider anathema to the attention of the leadership. I also wonder if the leaders are overcorrecting, in part, for their field's long history of racism, ethnocentrism, etc.
Quote from: Hegemony on September 30, 2023, 08:01:05 PMI don't agree that they should have cancelled the session, but I do agree with the worries they probably had, which that the actual session would almost certainly result not in calm and reasoned debate between the two sides, but name-calling, charges of hatred, furious "cancellations" on social media, and flying fur, if not outright rioting.
I agree about the worries, but then what happened is that the association leaders "preempted" trouble by engaging in name-calling, charges of hatred, and cancellation themselves.
If people try to loudly disrupt a panel, isn't it possible to have someone on hand to escort them out of the room? (I don't know; I've never seen it happen at an academic conference.) Otherwise, can't mature adults express disagreement without shouting each other down? Perhaps that's a rhetorical question.
I was interested to see that Retraction Watch ran a story about this and then an opinion column by Alice Dreger, whose work is quite relevant.
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/09/27/anthropology-groups-cancel-conference-panel-on-why-biological-sex-is-necessary-for-research/
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/10/01/how-a-cancelled-panel-on-sex-plays-into-censorship-by-the-right-a-guest-post/
1) We should trust our colleagues in anthropology. The experts said the panel in question did not have "scientific rigor." If the experts are gatekeepers (and we need gatekeepers in science) then let them keep the gate. I know almost nothing about the discipline, so if experts in the field tell me that a panel is not appropriate for their conference, who am I to disagree?
2) The conference already has something like 30 panels on sexuality----it is clearly not a taboo subject.
3) Thus, while I know nothing about the subject, it seems obvious that sexuality is still a part of anthropological study; do we need to differential between "sex" and "gender" if they are both still being used?
4) We need to support LGBTQ scholars----they are under attack by a wide range of people, academics and otherwise, who have been swept into a fanatical cultural movement on the right. The time to try and be fair and balanced is gone for the moment. Maybe it will come back some day, but I do notice that one of the panelists on the panel in question already lost a job because of her views----do we want Sean Hannity, Jay Sekulow, or Mike Lindell on a panel? They have views. They can articulate their views. But they are nutballs. Perhaps the panelists in question are not quite so extreme, but the principle is the same.
5) It is time to stop trying to be adult about some things. The radicals on the right are not. And they are very dangerous.
What might put all this to rest is if we had all the information. The panelists could put their presentation materials on a blog, and the AAA and CAA could place all their meeting minutes and other materials on a blog. Let's see what everyone is actually saying.
As I understood the reporting, the panel was not about sexuality, but about physical sex. So, for instance, many modern scholars are saying sex and gender and synonymous, so that physical characteristics are not indicative of sex. So you can have a penis and be female, or have ovaries and be male. With that definition current, that means that when people excavate graves and report "A female skeleton was found with the following grave goods..." — how do we know the person was female? If a wider pelvis no longer is associated with the female sex, then physical characteristics are no longer sex markers. So, should scholars stop reporting on sex in such a way? Or should new terminology be used? And so on. Lots of issues to be considered.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 03, 2023, 01:57:05 PM1) We should trust our colleagues in anthropology. The experts said the panel in question did not have "scientific rigor." If the experts are gatekeepers (and we need gatekeepers in science) then let them keep the gate. I know almost nothing about the discipline, so if experts in the field tell me that a panel is not appropriate for their conference, who am I to disagree?
2) The conference already has something like 30 panels on sexuality----it is clearly not a taboo subject.
3) Thus, while I know nothing about the subject, it seems obvious that sexuality is still a part of anthropological study; do we need to differential between "sex" and "gender" if they are both still being used?
4) We need to support LGBTQ scholars----they are under attack by a wide range of people, academics and otherwise, who have been swept into a fanatical cultural movement on the right. The time to try and be fair and balanced is gone for the moment. Maybe it will come back some day, but I do notice that one of the panelists on the panel in question already lost a job because of her views----do we want Sean Hannity, Jay Sekulow, or Mike Lindell on a panel? They have views. They can articulate their views. But they are nutballs. Perhaps the panelists in question are not quite so extreme, but the principle is the same.
5) It is time to stop trying to be adult about some things. The radicals on the right are not. And they are very dangerous.
What might put all this to rest is if we had all the information. The panelists could put their presentation materials on a blog, and the AAA and CAA could place all their meeting minutes and other materials on a blog. Let's see what everyone is actually saying.
Wahoo, your argument relies on binary thinking, left and right. That's a complete misunderstanding of the topography of the debate. Gender critical feminists come from traditional feminists who prioritized biological difference and biological identity. It's where the term sexism comes from.
It's true that the right is against the movement of gender affirming clinics and the like. Like the porn debate of the 1980s, when radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon became allies with the Catholic Church, gender critical feminists and conservatives have been pushed together. But their motivations are mostly very different.
As for needing to support LGBTQ allies, the whole point is that gender critical feminists say that the interests of LGB are in tension with the T movement.
Quote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 04:45:26 PMWahoo, your argument relies on binary thinking, left and right.
My friend, we now live in a world of binary left and right.
Your comments about '80s feminism are right on but completely unimportant at the moment.
Someday we will return to the complexity of the these questions, but for now there are only two sides, and one side repeatedly threatens everyone with talk of a civil war.
Well, I also want the deficit to come down, so I guess I'm on the right.
Quote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 05:11:40 PMWell, I also want the deficit to come down, so I guess I'm on the right.
Once the right returns to actual national issues such as the deficit, and no longer involves itself in cult violence and threats of violence, we can talk.
Until that time, you are deflecting.
Quote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 05:11:40 PMWell, I also want the deficit to come down, so I guess I'm on the right.
BTW, if you wanna talk deficits, ya better talk to your Republican constituents about who they nominate.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/banking/national-debt-by-president/
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 03, 2023, 04:56:05 PMMy friend, we now live in a world of binary left and right....
Someday we will return to the complexity of the these questions, but for now there are only two sides, and one side repeatedly threatens everyone with talk of a civil war.
In the gender debate, I don't think this is true. There are two groups who oppose the idea that trans people are their "identified" gender (or in some definitions, sex) rather than the gender/sex they were "assigned at birth." One group is the politically right wing, who believe that men dressing or behaving like women, and women dressing or behaving like men, is unnatural and (in the minds of many) against God's will. The second group is left-wing "gender critical" people who regard transgender beliefs as gender essentialism (certain characteristics belong to men, others to women, and if you have the other gender's characteristics that shows you "are really" the other gender). They also have concerns about transwomen in female prisons, changing rooms, and the like, as well as about pervy cis-gender men who claim they're transwomen to try to infiltrate those spaces.
In short, there are a lot of issues arising, and many people fall at different places along the spectrum. Some think that anyone with what was formerly called male anatomy needs to wear male clothing and "act like a man" or it's an abomination; others draw the lines at different places, and still others draw no lines. Lots of opinions, lots of variety.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 03, 2023, 04:56:05 PMQuote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 04:45:26 PMWahoo, your argument relies on binary thinking, left and right.
My friend, we now live in a world of binary left and right.
Your comments about '80s feminism are right on but completely unimportant at the moment.
Someday we will return to the complexity of the these questions, but for now there are only two sides, and one side repeatedly threatens everyone with talk of a civil war.
I share your fears about the threat of the Right, but disagree with your proposed response on a couple of levels. First, I think it simply isn't the case that arguing for the significance of biological sex in the face of claims that self-defined gender identity should override it as an analytical category - which is what I think these panelists are doing - is some kind of right wing position. Yes, the Right absolutely has taken this issue and run with it, but there are plenty of people, including perfectly reasonable left wing feminists, who share this view. To accuse them of being on a par with eugenicists, fascists, or what have you seems to me seriously misguided. (I'm not saying you are doing this, but their detractors certainly are.) In fact, I struggle to understand why their position is treated as controversial.
Second, and I do see this as related, I think not allowing one's opponents to speak is a pretty dangerous move. My main exception to this would probably be actual fascists. When I was an undergrad, I was part of a group that tried to shout down Meir Kahane; come to think of it, I don't remember us trying to keep the event from happening, though that would have made sense too. I suspect our thinking was, better to let people hear the vicious things he had to say, which justified our robust interruptions. We also got a lot of publicity for our side. But aside from people like him who actually threatened violence against an actual group of people - a real fascist and terrorist - I think it's extremely worrisome to advocate shutting down views that we, or some people we are allied with or want to support, find objectionable. The Left has always been the target of this sort of repression; why use the Right's pet tactics? I find the work of scholars like Amna Khalid especially useful in this regard.
Suppression on "our side" makes me think of a similar conflict, in which many Democrats have gotten angry at leftists for supporting third-party candidates instead of "blue no matter who." I understand the fear but also believe the right to vote means the right to vote as one chooses. I also think Dems need to get their own house in order if they really want to counter the threat, and a major part of that includes reaching the half of the US population that doesn't vote at all. But lots of folks would rather shut down dissent within their own ranks on the grounds of needing to present a united front. I don't think it's viable, certainly not if you're considering the long game (something the Right has done very well). I hope you can see the analogy here, unless I have gone too far afield.
I've never been much impressed by "you are either with us or against us" stances. Political dialog in the US is in a sorry state, and I agree the rise of the fascist right in the US is a major worry. But I definitely don't agree that simplistic solidarity is going to be productive in the battle against the right. While I'm probably going to vote Democrat in future elections, I'm far from enthusiastic about Dem candidates or policies.
As academics, we should be calling out abuses of power in the academy. Dropping the panel from the conference strikes me as an abuse of power.
So Wahoo, are all of these people wingnuts?
Quote from: Hegemony on October 03, 2023, 08:38:20 PMThere are two groups who oppose the idea that trans people are their "identified" gender (or in some definitions, sex) rather than the gender/sex they were "assigned at birth." One group is the politically right wing, who believe that men dressing or behaving like women, and women dressing or behaving like men, is unnatural and (in the minds of many) against God's will. The second group is left-wing "gender critical" people who regard transgender beliefs as gender essentialism (certain characteristics belong to men, others to women, and if you have the other gender's characteristics that shows you "are really" the other gender). They also have concerns about transwomen in female prisons, changing rooms, and the like, as well as about pervy cis-gender men who claim they're transwomen to try to infiltrate those spaces.
In short, there are a lot of issues arising, and many people fall at different places along the spectrum. Some think that anyone with what was formerly called male anatomy needs to wear male clothing and "act like a man" or it's an abomination; others draw the lines at different places, and still others draw no lines. Lots of opinions, lots of variety.
Quote from: history_grrrl on October 03, 2023, 09:06:09 PMFirst, I think it simply isn't the case that arguing for the significance of biological sex in the face of claims that self-defined gender identity should override it as an analytical category - which is what I think these panelists are doing - is some kind of right wing position. Yes, the Right absolutely has taken this issue and run with it, but there are plenty of people, including perfectly reasonable left wing feminists, who share this view. To accuse them of being on a par with eugenicists, fascists, or what have you seems to me seriously misguided. (I'm not saying you are doing this, but their detractors certainly are.) In fact, I struggle to understand why their position is treated as controversial.
Second, and I do see this as related, I think not allowing one's opponents to speak is a pretty dangerous move. My main exception to this would probably be actual fascists. When I was an undergrad, I was part of a group that tried to shout down Meir Kahane; come to think of it, I don't remember us trying to keep the event from happening, though that would have made sense too. I suspect our thinking was, better to let people hear the vicious things he had to say, which justified our robust interruptions. We also got a lot of publicity for our side. But aside from people like him who actually threatened violence against an actual group of people - a real fascist and terrorist - I think it's extremely worrisome to advocate shutting down views that we, or some people we are allied with or want to support, find objectionable. The Left has always been the target of this sort of repression; why use the Right's pet tactics? I find the work of scholars like Amna Khalid especially useful in this regard.
Suppression on "our side" makes me think of a similar conflict, in which many Democrats have gotten angry at leftists for supporting third-party candidates instead of "blue no matter who." I understand the fear but also believe the right to vote means the right to vote as one chooses. I also think Dems need to get their own house in order if they really want to counter the threat, and a major part of that includes reaching the half of the US population that doesn't vote at all. But lots of folks would rather shut down dissent within their own ranks on the grounds of needing to present a united front. I don't think it's viable, certainly not if you're considering the long game (something the Right has done very well). I hope you can see the analogy here, unless I have gone too far afield.
Quote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 11:23:25 PMI've never been much impressed by "you are either with us or against us" stances. Political dialog in the US is in a sorry state, and I agree the rise of the fascist right in the US is a major worry. But I definitely don't agree that simplistic solidarity is going to be productive in the battle against the right. While I'm probably going to vote Democrat in future elections, I'm far from enthusiastic about Dem candidates or policies.
As academics, we should be calling out abuses of power in the academy. Dropping the panel from the conference strikes me as an abuse of power.
If they're all wingnuts, then I'm in good company. They're more articulate than I am.
Quote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 11:23:25 PMAs academics, we should be calling out abuses of power in the academy. Dropping the panel from the conference strikes me as an abuse of power.
When is it shutting down healthy discussion? And when is it objectively believing that the topic presented lacks scientific or scholarly merit?
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 04, 2023, 08:00:04 AMQuote from: downer on October 03, 2023, 11:23:25 PMAs academics, we should be calling out abuses of power in the academy. Dropping the panel from the conference strikes me as an abuse of power.
When is it shutting down healthy discussion?
When it's done
after the event is already
scheduled and approved.
QuoteAnd when is it objectively believing that the topic presented lacks scientific or scholarly merit?
When the organizers are
deciding what sessions to have at the conference.
Quote from: Hegemony on October 03, 2023, 03:39:52 PMAs I understood the reporting, the panel was not about sexuality, but about physical sex. So, for instance, many modern scholars are saying sex and gender and synonymous, so that physical characteristics are not indicative of sex. So you can have a penis and be female, or have ovaries and be male. With that definition current, that means that when people excavate graves and report "A female skeleton was found with the following grave goods..." — how do we know the person was female? If a wider pelvis no longer is associated with the female sex, then physical characteristics are no longer sex markers. So, should scholars stop reporting on sex in such a way? Or should new terminology be used? And so on. Lots of issues to be considered.
Then the panel should have been called "Updating Gender Terminology in Anthropology to Reflect Broader Cultural and Social Understanding."
Everyone here is a mature, responsible adult who has mature, earnest concerns with the integrity of academia and academic freedom. Everyone here understands the complexities of the issues regarding gender, including me (although I may not have the expertise that some of you evince, particularly Hegemony and downer).
But none of this is what I am on about, and I urge you to think about this.
Yes, I agree. The complexities of gender were not a right or left issue----until they were. In any other year or era I would agree with the good folks here. Obviously, academic freedom is a deal for me; the Suess threads about academic censorship are largely my curating.
I am going to suggest that we consider the position of the AAA experts rather than attacking them.
I'll post my reasoning again: with 30-some panels on the subject, sex and gender are obviously sanctioned topics at this conference; the experts reviewed this one particular panel and decided it was not science, it was something else; why are we challenging the experts (who are just fine with sex and gender as academic topics) on principles that the rightwing zealots do not respect?
I am saying that the time to be mature, reasonable adults will return, but now is not that time.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 04, 2023, 09:23:20 AMI am saying that the time to be mature, reasonable adults will return, but now is not that time.
How in Heaven's name will the situation change if
not by people being mature, responsible adults???
Will the crazies just all disappear or shut up??
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 04, 2023, 09:45:41 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 04, 2023, 09:23:20 AMI am saying that the time to be mature, reasonable adults will return, but now is not that time.
How in Heaven's name will the situation change if not by people being mature, responsible adults???
Will the crazies just all disappear or shut up??
What we don't need to do is give the crazies a platform.
The crazies will be crazy no matter what. They want to be crazy. They are thrilled to be crazy. They will take every opportunity they can to be crazy. They will not listen to mature, reasonable people. In fact, all the crazies do is misinterpret, cherry-pick, and distort what the mature, reasonable people say. Generally, the really crazy people are fringe and not really a concern. Now they have largely populated an entire political / socio-cultural sphere. We don't need them in academia. The time to be entirely mature and entirely reasonable is past. Think of McCarthyism. It took mature, reasonable, honest people to aggressively confront that psycho and his hysteria. We need to do the same.
From IHE: 'Let's Talk About Sex,' or 'Let's Platform Transphobia'? Association Cancels a Panel (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/10/04/anthropological-assoc-cancels-lets-talk-about-sex)
QuoteThey titled this serious session something cheeky, with a Salt-N-Pepa song reference: "Let's Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology."
The association's executive board has now canceled the panel, releasing a statement Thursday titled "No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology." Ramona Perez, the association's president, explained that after the preliminary program was published online Aug. 1, showing the panelists' names, anthropologists from multiple fields raised concern.
The controversial panelists would've included Michèle Sirois, president of Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, whose organization has referred to gender-affirming surgeries as "mutilations" and taken other conservative positions, according to CBC/Radio-Canada. Another would've been Silvia Carrasco, a social anthropology professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona who told Inside Higher Ed Tuesday that "trans children do not exist; they are being fabricated en masse by a very well-planned and financed initiative that has to do with transhumanism and the loss of women's rights in democracy."
Cherry-picking. Distortion. Hatemongering.
Support your colleagues.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 04, 2023, 09:23:20 AMthe experts reviewed this one particular panel and decided it was not science, it was something else; why are we challenging the experts ...
I don't feel I'm "attacking" the "experts," but I am certainly questioning the "experts." Aren't they deemed "experts" only because they espouse a particular side of the debate?
If one of the proposed speakers was "Silvia Carrasco, a social anthropology professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona," why is Carrasco not deemed an "expert"? Because her views don't fit in with the accepted trans-positive (for want of a better term) view of the issues, right? So "experts" here means not "people with credentials in the field," but "people who have the accepted views." So that is why I don't trust the "experts" who said this panel should not proceed. Everyone involved is a specialist on the subject, both organizers and panelists. The criterion for inclusion was not whether the person is an expert in the field, but whether they agreed with the side that the organizers are on.
Of course it's another question — what constitutes fair debate and what constitutes letting the crazies have the microphone. People do generally term people they disagree with as "crazies." My own view is that there are still issues that genuinely need to be worked out as we move to a society where trans people live and thrive. It sounds as if Michele Sirois' rhetoric is of the kind that would have inflamed listeners rather than bringing reasoned debate to the subject. So a fair question is "Would this panel have been productive?" But I'd guess that this is not why the organizers banned it. My guess is that they thought "Anyone who disagrees with us is beyond the pale and should not be tolerated." And I don't agree with that as a principle of exclusion in this instance.
These are good points, Hegemony, but you are assuming a great deal.
Do they "espouse" only "one side" of the issue? If you were presented with the presentation, would you be able to determine its validity within anthropology? I don't think I would. Nevertheless, I do wish that everyone would post their materials online; that might quell the controversy a bit. My understanding based on the couple of articles I read had more to do with a lack of scientific rigor than with an anti-trans viewpoint, although that is also part of the issue.
Again, would we have a "pro-slavery" panel which argues that the slaves were given "skills to benefit personal development?" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/floridas-new-education-standards-says-slavery-had-personal-benefits/) I mean, hey, that's true----but the purpose of this statement is to legitimize and deflect the true nature of slavery. We could have an "expert" make that argument. Does that make it a legitimate arguement?
The other part of the issue is that there is nothing stopping the panel in question from presenting their arguments in another forum. I've listened to a number of seminars presented online, and later this month I will participate in an online authors' conference. These are generally organized by individual associations, but they get good turnout.
The AAA does not have the power to shut these people down, only deny them a podium at their own conference.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 04, 2023, 12:13:09 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 04, 2023, 09:45:41 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 04, 2023, 09:23:20 AMI am saying that the time to be mature, reasonable adults will return, but now is not that time.
How in Heaven's name will the situation change if not by people being mature, responsible adults???
Will the crazies just all disappear or shut up??
What we don't need to do is give the crazies a platform.
The crazies will be crazy no matter what. They want to be crazy. They are thrilled to be crazy. They will take every opportunity they can to be crazy. They will not listen to mature, reasonable people. In fact, all the crazies do is misinterpret, cherry-pick, and distort what the mature, reasonable people say. Generally, the really crazy people are fringe and not really a concern. Now they have largely populated an entire political / socio-cultural sphere. We don't need them in academia. The time to be entirely mature and entirely reasonable is past. Think of McCarthyism. It took mature, reasonable, honest people to aggressively confront that psycho and his hysteria. We need to do the same.
I just don't see how one can argue that scholars who believe biological sex is more significant than self-defined gender identity as an analytical category are crazy. I agree with the point made that the panel was targeted because of their political views, not their scholarly credentials. But the conference organizers' political disagreement - or perhaps it's a matter of not liking how the panelists express their views - have been framed as an attack on the panelists' scholarly expertise. There are scholars whose work I find admirable but whose political views or personal behaviour I dislike; should I be able to stop them from presenting their work? I don't think so.
Joseph McCarthy, by the way, was not an hysterical psycho. He was a savvy, albeit disgusting, politician who saw which way the political winds were blowing and seized an opportunity to advance not just the Republican Party but in particular his own career. The Red Scare had been well underway for years before he burst on the national scene in 1950. The reasonable people who confronted him and his ilk were smeared as communists, jailed, deported, fired, etc. Even liberals, while perhaps uncomfortable with his abusive tactics, more or less accepted the premise that communist beliefs constituted a national security threat. It wasn't until McCarthy went too far, making accusations against high ranking officials in the US Army in 1954, that he was censured by a majority in the Senate. But the Red Scare persisted for years thereafter and well past his death in 1957. Rather than being crazy, McCarthy exploited political sensibilities that were already growing in popularity and becoming widespread - very much as Donald Trump has done.
Quote from: history_grrrl on October 04, 2023, 02:52:19 PMI just don't see how one can argue that scholars who believe biological sex is more significant than self-defined gender identity as an analytical category are crazy.
Well, I never said that.
QuoteI agree with the point made that the panel was targeted because of their political views, not their scholarly credentials.
We don't know that. That is not what the AAA said.
What the AAA said was that the panel lacked scientific rigor and they thought it was targeting trans-members. They were unanimous on this, which I think says something.
QuoteBut the conference organizers' political disagreement - or perhaps it's a matter of not liking how the panelists express their views - have been framed as an attack on the panelists' scholarly expertise. There are scholars whose work I find admirable but whose political views or personal behaviour I dislike; should I be able to stop them from presenting their work? I don't think so.
I think the difference is between a county sheriff who has a Nazi flag in hu's garage at home vs. the county sheriff who has a Nazi flag in hu's office at the sheriff's station. The former may be a bastard, but as long as the flag stays at home and the work is legal and fair, so what? The latter has clearly allowed the hatred to infuse the realm of law enforcement, and then we have a problem, even if hu's work is legit.
I am not sure how many debates have revolved around the idea that "students will not feel safe" or "minorities will have a hard time" with some nonsense spouting professor (my last posted link on the Suess thread is exactly that).
We are not talking about people who are simply jerkfaces, but people whose professional judgment seems impaired.
And I have say this again, so I will put it in all caps, bold, and underline:
UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THESE ARE NOT, NOT, NOT NORMAL TIMES. Can't say it any louder or plainer than that.
QuoteJoseph McCarthy, by the way, was not an hysterical psycho. He was a savvy, albeit disgusting, politician who saw which way the political winds were blowing and seized an opportunity to advance not just the Republican Party but in particular his own career. T...Rather than being crazy, McCarthy exploited political sensibilities that were already growing in popularity and becoming widespread - very much as Donald Trump has done.
Po-tay-toe.
Poe-tah-toe.
I applaud your factual accuracy, but it really makes not a whit of difference. A "savvy, albeit disgusting, politician" is not different in degree from a "crazy psycho," or of kind, actually. You really can't be one without being the other.
We might just be at the agree to disagree point of the debate.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 04, 2023, 04:44:41 PMAnd I have say this again, so I will put it in all caps, bold, and underline: UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THESE ARE NOT, NOT, NOT NORMAL TIMES. Can't say it any louder or plainer than that.
You should read "In defense of dangerous ideas (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pinker/files/dangerous_ideas.pdf)" by Steven Pinker.
QuoteIn every age, taboo questions raise our blood pressure and threaten moral panic. But we
cannot be afraid to answer them
.
.
.
Should we treat some ideas as dangerous? Let's exclude outright lies, deceptive propaganda,
incendiary conspiracy theories from malevolent crackpots and technological recipes for wanton
destruction. Consider only ideas about the truth of empirical claims or the effectiveness of
policies that, if they turned out to be true, would require a significant rethinking of our moral
sensibilities. And consider ideas that, if they turn out to be false, could lead to harm if people
believed them to be true. In either case, we don't know whether they are true or false a priori,
so only by examining and debating them can we find out. Finally, let's assume that we're not
talking about burning people at the stake or cutting out their tongues but about discouraging
their research and giving their ideas as little publicity as possible. There is a good case for
exploring all ideas relevant to our current concerns, no matter where they lead. The idea that
ideas should be discouraged a priori is inherently self-refuting. Indeed, it is the ultimate
arrogance, as it assumes that one can be so certain about the goodness and truth of one's
own ideas that one is entitled to discourage other people's opinions from even being
examined.
Also, it's hard to imagine any aspect of public life where ignorance or delusion is better than
an awareness of the truth, even an unpleasant one. Only children and madmen engage in
"magical thinking," the fallacy that good things can come true by believing in them or bad
things will disappear by ignoring them or wishing them away. Rational adults want to know
the truth, because any action based on false premises will not have the effects they desire.
Worse, logicians tell us that a system of ideas containing a contradiction can be used to
deduce any statement whatsoever, no matter how absurd. Since ideas are connected to other
ideas, sometimes in circuitous and unpredictable ways, choosing to believe something that
may not be true, or even maintaining walls of ignorance around some topic, can corrupt all of
intellectual life, proliferating error far and wide. In our everyday lives, would we want to be
lied to, or kept in the dark by paternalistic "protectors," when it comes to our health or
finances or even the weather? In public life, imagine someone saying that we should not do
research into global warming or energy shortages because if it found that they were serious
the consequences for the economy would be extremely unpleasant. Today's leaders who
tacitly take this position are rightly condemned by intellectually responsible people. But why
should other unpleasant ideas be treated differently?
There's more, but he makes a lot of excellent points.
An article in the Chronicle today pushes back on the AAA decision and notes that with anthropologists, the issue of sex as binary is a current and live debate. It is not settled. Again, not talking about unusual genetic conditions.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 05, 2023, 04:57:25 AMLet's exclude outright lies, deceptive propaganda,
incendiary conspiracy theories from malevolent crackpots and technological recipes for wanton
destruction. Consider only ideas about the truth of empirical claims or the effectiveness of
policies that, if they turned out to be true, would require a significant rethinking of our moral
sensibilities.
Again, I don't think the issue was an "unsettled" debate (for pete's sake, folks, there were 30 other sessions on the subject----do we not read stuff before commenting!?)----according to the association, the panel-in-question was NOT a matter of a difficult subject but one that lacked rigor and was presented by academics of questionable objectivity. Peeps, you are all arguing strawmen.
I'm not inclined to believe the association, because the panel was approved by the initial peer review process. I am inclined to think that is a BS rationalization after they made a political decision.
Do they standardly have topic experts review panels after they have been approved? No. They just wanted to justify their decision.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 05, 2023, 10:02:48 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 05, 2023, 04:57:25 AMLet's exclude outright lies, deceptive propaganda,
incendiary conspiracy theories from malevolent crackpots and technological recipes for wanton
destruction. Consider only ideas about the truth of empirical claims or the effectiveness of
policies that, if they turned out to be true, would require a significant rethinking of our moral
sensibilities.
Again, I don't think the issue was an "unsettled" debate (for pete's sake, folks, there were 30 other sessions on the subject----do we not read stuff before commenting!?)----according to the association, the panel-in-question was NOT a matter of a difficult subject but one that lacked rigor and was presented by academics of questionable objectivity. Peeps, you are all arguing strawmen.
If this had been a panel already scheduled and approved, but which got puled by the organizers after
conservative complaints, you'd be calling them cowards for not following their own process.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 05, 2023, 11:54:51 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 05, 2023, 10:02:48 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 05, 2023, 04:57:25 AMLet's exclude outright lies, deceptive propaganda,
incendiary conspiracy theories from malevolent crackpots and technological recipes for wanton
destruction. Consider only ideas about the truth of empirical claims or the effectiveness of
policies that, if they turned out to be true, would require a significant rethinking of our moral
sensibilities.
Again, I don't think the issue was an "unsettled" debate (for pete's sake, folks, there were 30 other sessions on the subject----do we not read stuff before commenting!?)----according to the association, the panel-in-question was NOT a matter of a difficult subject but one that lacked rigor and was presented by academics of questionable objectivity. Peeps, you are all arguing strawmen.
If this had been a panel already scheduled and approved, but which got puled by the organizers after conservative complaints, you'd be calling them cowards for not following their own process.
Don't go all ad hom out of frustration, my Marshrabbitbro. You're looking for hypocrisy, as always. But we only convict in this society based on evidence, not conjecture.
Quote from: downer on October 05, 2023, 11:32:33 AMI'm not inclined to believe the association, because the panel was approved by the initial peer review process. I am inclined to think that is a BS rationalization after they made a political decision.
Do they standardly have topic experts review panels after they have been approved? No. They just wanted to justify their decision.
It sounded as though the AAA initially approved the session based on the title and a relatively reasonable abstract, which is common practice.
It wasn't until they saw the details and learned more that they realized it was not what they had expected.
So with the massive cumulative experience of members here of attending and organizing conferences, how common is it that after a conference is organized and scheduled that an event is cancelled by the professional association, (not the conference organizers), on the grounds that the event has no academic merit? (If so, in what discipline?)
Quote from: dismalist on September 30, 2023, 08:53:59 PMMy opinion on this question is the same as the one I have on many other questions raised in various threads: You don't like what your professional organization is doing, form a different one!
Competition, and nothing else, supports a search for truth.
Well, it's not a new professional organization, but the ideas of The Five do get an outlet:
Heterodox Academy is hosting the presentations on-line
Heterodox Academy: Sex in Anthro (https://heterodoxacademy.org/announcements/uncanceled-heterodox-academy-to-host-virtual-canceled-panel-on-sex-in-anthropology-on-november-8/)
Competition saves freedom of speech!
[Reminds me of an old Soviet joke: Soviet man claims there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union to an incredulous American. The soviet man then confides that he can say what he wants, but not to whom he wants!]
Quote from: dismalist on October 08, 2023, 01:03:19 PMQuote from: dismalist on September 30, 2023, 08:53:59 PMMy opinion on this question is the same as the one I have on many other questions raised in various threads: You don't like what your professional organization is doing, form a different one!
Competition, and nothing else, supports a search for truth.
Well, it's not a new professional organization, but the ideas of The Five do get an outlet:
Heterodox Academy is hosting the presentations on-line
Heterodox Academy: Sex in Anthro (https://heterodoxacademy.org/announcements/uncanceled-heterodox-academy-to-host-virtual-canceled-panel-on-sex-in-anthropology-on-november-8/)
Competition saves freedom of speech!
[Reminds me of an old Soviet joke: Soviet man claims there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union to an incredulous American. The soviet man then confides that he can say what he wants, but not to whom he wants!]
This is exactly what I suggested they do.
Do you think they read my post? Will I get credit and / or blamed for this? Am I famous?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 06, 2023, 12:22:48 PMSo with the massive cumulative experience of members here of attending and organizing conferences, how common is it that after a conference is organized and scheduled that an event is cancelled by the professional association, (not the conference organizers), on the grounds that the event has no academic merit? (If so, in what discipline?)
I can't imagine that happening. The sessions are not policy statements on behalf of the professional society. They are opporutnities for people interested in a specific question to get together and compare their curren thinking. The professional society doesn't try to evaluate the academic merit or try to set some threshold different from the organizers.
Sure, there is evaluation at the proposal stage to slot sessions that will enhnance the conference experience. There are usually more proposal than slots. But after the thing is scheduled? No. And if the topic is controversial enough to get a big audience of dissenting opinion, well that makes for a lively conference.
Quote from: Hibush on October 08, 2023, 05:05:17 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 06, 2023, 12:22:48 PMSo with the massive cumulative experience of members here of attending and organizing conferences, how common is it that after a conference is organized and scheduled that an event is cancelled by the professional association, (not the conference organizers), on the grounds that the event has no academic merit? (If so, in what discipline?)
I can't imagine that happening. The sessions are not policy statements on behalf of the professional society. They are opporutnities for people interested in a specific question to get together and compare their curren thinking. The professional society doesn't try to evaluate the academic merit or try to set some threshold different from the organizers.
Sure, there is evaluation at the proposal stage to slot sessions that will enhnance the conference experience. There are usually more proposal than slots. But after the thing is scheduled? No. And if the topic is controversial enough to get a big audience of dissenting opinion, well that makes for a lively conference.
I don't think it's ever happened before.
Which makes me wonder at the content of the presentation.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 08, 2023, 06:43:53 PMQuote from: Hibush on October 08, 2023, 05:05:17 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 06, 2023, 12:22:48 PMSo with the massive cumulative experience of members here of attending and organizing conferences, how common is it that after a conference is organized and scheduled that an event is cancelled by the professional association, (not the conference organizers), on the grounds that the event has no academic merit? (If so, in what discipline?)
I can't imagine that happening. The sessions are not policy statements on behalf of the professional society. They are opporutnities for people interested in a specific question to get together and compare their curren thinking. The professional society doesn't try to evaluate the academic merit or try to set some threshold different from the organizers.
Sure, there is evaluation at the proposal stage to slot sessions that will enhnance the conference experience. There are usually more proposal than slots. But after the thing is scheduled? No. And if the topic is controversial enough to get a big audience of dissenting opinion, well that makes for a lively conference.
I don't think it's ever happened before.
Which makes me wonder at the content of the presentation.
Kind of like someone not liking the results of an election and saying the whole thing was wrong? That's never happened before either, but I think most people have more faith in the people doing their jobs.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 09, 2023, 03:15:56 PMKind of like someone not liking the results of an election and saying the whole thing was wrong? That's never happened before either, but I think most people have more faith in the people doing their jobs.
Ummm...No, actually, it's nothing like that at all...
My brofessor Marshmallow and his analogies and his tireless quest for victimization and hypocrisy...
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 08, 2023, 06:43:53 PMQuote from: Hibush on October 08, 2023, 05:05:17 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 06, 2023, 12:22:48 PMSo with the massive cumulative experience of members here of attending and organizing conferences, how common is it that after a conference is organized and scheduled that an event is cancelled by the professional association, (not the conference organizers), on the grounds that the event has no academic merit? (If so, in what discipline?)
I can't imagine that happening. The sessions are not policy statements on behalf of the professional society. They are opporutnities for people interested in a specific question to get together and compare their curren thinking. The professional society doesn't try to evaluate the academic merit or try to set some threshold different from the organizers.
Sure, there is evaluation at the proposal stage to slot sessions that will enhnance the conference experience. There are usually more proposal than slots. But after the thing is scheduled? No. And if the topic is controversial enough to get a big audience of dissenting opinion, well that makes for a lively conference.
I don't think it's ever happened before.
Which makes me wonder at the content of the presentation.
Since what was shut down was a
panel discussion, how common is it to have panelists submit their intended statements
in advance? If they didn't have to do that, then the "content of the presentation" is
entirely speculative. It was shut down because of what they
might say, not because of what they
did say.
And of course this implies that the organizers are completely incompetent in recognizing "scientific merit" in
their own discipline. If that's true, they should never have been chosen, and if it's not, their reputations have been trashed unjustly.
I think it is standard practice to submit summaries of one's panel to conference organizers. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse, my friend.
That summaries are provided in advance is an overly broad assumption. I seen, and been in such panels, when all that was required was some expertise in the issue at hand.
Quote from: waterboy on October 10, 2023, 06:56:53 AMThat summaries are provided in advance is an overly broad assumption. I seen, and been in such panels, when all that was required was some expertise in the issue at hand.
Dunno. At least from my experience, the most prestigious conferences are hard to get into and individual abstracts must be submitted beforehand. The less prestigious conferences will generally accept anyone, including grad students, again in my experience.
One can actually see what the AAA asked for. (https://annualmeeting.americananthro.org/submissions/) It would appear that not all panels were accepted.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 10, 2023, 07:54:30 AMQuote from: waterboy on October 10, 2023, 06:56:53 AMThat summaries are provided in advance is an overly broad assumption. I seen, and been in such panels, when all that was required was some expertise in the issue at hand.
Dunno. At least from my experience, the most prestigious conferences are hard to get into and individual abstracts must be submitted beforehand. The less prestigious conferences will generally accept anyone, including grad students, again in my experience.
One can actually see what the AAA asked for. (https://annualmeeting.americananthro.org/submissions/) It would appear that not all panels were accepted.
Using a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), each reviewer will evaluate each submission based upon four (4) weighted criteria:
- Rate the rigor of scholarship in this submission (25%)
- Rate the relevance of this submission to critical issues within the discipline (25%)
- Rate the importance of this submission to current issues of broad concern (15%)
- Rate the quality of the submission overall (35%)
It appears that section program chairs (i.e. anthropologists) evaluated contributed papers. Each of the 38 sections got to scedule the section chair's favorite. The remaining slots were fill in order of the panel scores.
The panel description is posted at https://elizabethweiss74.wordpress.com/discussing-sex-is-no-longer-allowed-at-anthropology-conferences/. While it is not my field, the text of the does not seem to match the description in the NY Times as anodyne and hiding the true agenda.
Quote from: Hibush on October 10, 2023, 08:18:55 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 10, 2023, 07:54:30 AMQuote from: waterboy on October 10, 2023, 06:56:53 AMThat summaries are provided in advance is an overly broad assumption. I seen, and been in such panels, when all that was required was some expertise in the issue at hand.
Dunno. At least from my experience, the most prestigious conferences are hard to get into and individual abstracts must be submitted beforehand. The less prestigious conferences will generally accept anyone, including grad students, again in my experience.
One can actually see what the AAA asked for. (https://annualmeeting.americananthro.org/submissions/) It would appear that not all panels were accepted.
Using a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), each reviewer will evaluate each submission based upon four (4) weighted criteria:
- Rate the rigor of scholarship in this submission (25%)
- Rate the relevance of this submission to critical issues within the discipline (25%)
- Rate the importance of this submission to current issues of broad concern (15%)
- Rate the quality of the submission overall (35%)
It appears that section program chairs (i.e. anthropologists) evaluated contributed papers. Each of the 38 sections got to scedule the section chair's favorite. The remaining slots were fill in order of the panel scores.
The panel description is posted at https://elizabethweiss74.wordpress.com/discussing-sex-is-no-longer-allowed-at-anthropology-conferences/. While it is not my field, the text of the does not seem to match the description in the NY Times as anodyne and hiding the true agenda.
Definitely not my field, and I'm also not a true academic. On the surface, it seems that the authors are making some fairly anodyne statements and discussing sex vs gender in anthropology which is a timely topic.
Still, if you read between the lines, it gets a bit gender-binary (references to DNA) and TERF-y (suggesting that new power dynamics and gender fluidity erases women and girls).
And then arguing "Discussing sex is no longer allowed..." is just silly. The conversation is broader now and recognizes the complexity of gender and sex and how many Western academics are catching up to the many cultures and societies which already recognize this. She wants to bring it back to the old days when "Goils were goils and men were men."
Nobody is saying categories of male/female, man/woman are not to be used! Gah.
From "Open Letter: RE: 2023 AAA/CASCA Annual Meeting Cancellation" in Hibush's link.
QuoteSpanish anthropologist Silvia Carrasco planned to present data that looked at "sex-based oppression, violence and exploitation" and the difficulty of addressing these issues when biological sex is disavowed. UK anthropologist Kathleen Richardson's abstract highlighted issues surrounding material disparities between the sexes in the tech industry that are being erased by counting men who identify as trans as women rather than by having more women enter the field. Francophone Canadian anthropologist Michèle Sirois was to offer an ethnographic account of the ways "in which Quebec feminists have organized to document, clarify and oppose the exploitative surrogacy industry that hides under the guise of 'equity' and 'inclusion'", and in which surrogacy policies which exploit poor women are cynically framed as liberatory.
How many transmen are we talking here? Aren't they able to count women, men, and transmen in Spain? Are there honestly enough transmen entering the system to skew "material disparities"? I guess I am just wondering about the legitimacy of these approaches. Is there anybody here who has some depth of insight about these things?
The language "under the guise of 'equity' and 'inclusion'" is worrisome. It sounds like the propagandistic stuff being bandied about by certain segments of culture right now.
-VS-
The quote from AAA on Hibush's post.
QuoteSuch efforts contradict scientific evidence, including the wealth of anthropological scholarship on gender and sex. Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for "sex estimation," not "sex identification," a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative, and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher. Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy. There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification. On the contrary, anthropologists and others have long shown sex and gender to be historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.
The function of the "gender critical" scholarship advocated in this session, like the function of the "race science" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is to advance a "scientific" reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.
Transgender and gender diverse identities have long existed, and we are committed to upholding the value and dignity of transgender people. We believe that a more just future is possible—one where gender diversity is welcomed and supported rather than marginalized and policed.
And, from the "Letter of Support for AAA's Withdrawal of Session from the Annual Meeting"
QuoteWe are writing in support of the American Anthropological Association's decision to withdraw the "Let's Talk About Sex, Baby" session from the Annual Meeting. The session itself makes a number of claims that are counter to much of the settled science within biological anthropology and evolutionary biology more generally, throwing vague insults at the concept of "gender" without defining it in a meaningful way. Let's look at some of the claims:
While some have focused on the session title, that is not our concern here except for the ways in which the title assumes a position within the field that is inaccurate.
**The session writers offer up a concept of "biological sex" that is in contrast to "gender" without defining either term.
**The session suggests that "gender" is being substituted for "sex" in anthropology.
**This is incorrect as there is currently massive work on these terms, and their entanglements and nuances, across social-cultural, biological, archeological, and linguistic anthropologies.
**From the first presentation abstract, the authors use outdated terms such as "sex identification" rather than the more scientifically accurate term "sex estimation."
**Implicit in the session abstract and several of the individual abstracts is the assumption that sex is a biological binary; a concept that is rejected by current biological anthropology and human biology, and highly disputed across contemporary biology.
Most of the individual abstracts reflect grievances based on the erroneous assumptions outlined above.
As anthropologists who work in biological anthropology and human biology, we are aware that definitions of sex can be made using pelvic girdle shape, cranial dimensions, external genitalia, gonads, sex chromosomes, and more. Sex, as biological descriptor, is not binary using any of those definitions. People are born with non-binary genitalia every day – we tend to call people who fall into this group intersex. People are born with sex chromosomes that are not XX or XY but X, XXY, XXXY and more, every day. The same is true with gonads. What's more, someone can have intersex genitalia but not intersex gonads, intersex chromosomes but not intersex genitalia. These bodily differences demonstrate the massive variation seen in sex physiology across vertebrate species. Looking beyond humans, we see three forms of the adult orangutan. Does this represent a sex binary? Significant percentages of many reptile species have intersex genitalia. Are we still trying to call sex a binary? The binary limits the kinds of questions we can ask and therefore limits the scope of our science.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 10, 2023, 09:30:23 AMAnd, from the "Letter of Support for AAA's Withdrawal of Session from the Annual Meeting"
QuoteAs anthropologists who work in biological anthropology and human biology, we are aware that definitions of sex can be made using pelvic girdle shape, cranial dimensions, external genitalia, gonads, sex chromosomes, and more. Sex, as biological descriptor, is not binary using any of those definitions. People are born with non-binary genitalia every day – we tend to call people who fall into this group intersex. People are born with sex chromosomes that are not XX or XY but X, XXY, XXXY and more, every day. The same is true with gonads. What's more, someone can have intersex genitalia but not intersex gonads, intersex chromosomes but not intersex genitalia. These bodily differences demonstrate the massive variation seen in sex physiology across vertebrate species. Looking beyond humans, we see three forms of the adult orangutan. Does this represent a sex binary? Significant percentages of many reptile species have intersex genitalia. Are we still trying to call sex a binary? The binary limits the kinds of questions we can ask and therefore limits the scope of our science.
Similarly, a coin flip shouldn't be viewed as binary, since this ignores the number of times the coin lands on edge.
Science, Marshgiant. Sometimes it tells us things we don't want to hear. My wife has been researching "UPFs"---ultra processed foods----which is sooooo depressing for a junk food maven such as myself.
Maybe it is the Branch Davidian documentary I just watched (I have a cold and am avoiding work) which detailed how both sides of that tragedy behaved in such a dangerously egregious manner that everyone was damaged, but the AAA / Sex Panel controversy seems like a double-whammy joint knockout on a much, much smaller scale.
On the one hand, maybe the panel should have gone forward and taken their lumps.
On the other hand, maybe the AAA and CASCA have the responsibility to knock off the crap. I mean, the panel used the phrase "exploitative surrogacy industry" as an implied pejorative for people who voluntarily transition. That's propaganda.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 10, 2023, 12:27:49 PMI mean, the panel used the phrase "exploitative surrogacy industry" as an implied pejorative for people who voluntarily transition. That's propaganda.
Huh?! Doesn't it refer to gestational carriers?
Quote from: namazu on October 10, 2023, 09:43:04 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 10, 2023, 12:27:49 PMI mean, the panel used the phrase "exploitative surrogacy industry" as an implied pejorative for people who voluntarily transition. That's propaganda.
Huh?! Doesn't it refer to gestational carriers?
You're right. I am just trigger-happy when I see "exploitative."
So how has it worked out for the panel organizers and the conference organizers? Was the dropping of the panel good for the association? How has the anthropology world reacted to it all? What lessons can future conference organizers learn from this episode?
Quote from: downer on October 11, 2023, 03:36:57 PMSo how has it worked out for the panel organizers and the conference organizers? Was the dropping of the panel good for the association? How has the anthropology world reacted to it all? What lessons can future conference organizers learn from this episode?
Everyone got a lot more media attention than they would have otherwise.
And the panel-in-question will get a much bigger audience because of the Streisand Effect and its easy-to-access blog posting.
And the conference organizers did the right thing.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 11, 2023, 06:11:18 PMQuote from: downer on October 11, 2023, 03:36:57 PMSo how has it worked out for the panel organizers and the conference organizers? Was the dropping of the panel good for the association? How has the anthropology world reacted to it all? What lessons can future conference organizers learn from this episode?
Everyone got a lot more media attention than they would have otherwise.
And the panel-in-question will get a much bigger audience because of the Streisand Effect and its easy-to-access blog posting.
So getting cancelled is a feature, not a bug. Maybe conference organizers could make money by getting individuals to pay to have a talk "scheduled" and then having it cancelled. The publicity gain would be well worth it!
For anyone organizing a conference, don't miss this monetization opportunity.
I've been out of town and not keeping up. Would just like to say this: I think that, before we applaud the professional association leaders for cancelling this panel, we should all try to imagine ourselves as the potential cancellees. I would hate to think that my own scholarship, or desire to talk about controversies related to competing approaches to scholarship, would be shut down because some folks hostile to my perspective decided my views were somehow too out of fashion to be aired. I wouldn't want to see this happen to anyone participating in this discussion.
We're scholars, people. We also have personal and political beliefs that help shape what we study, how we respond to others' work, etc. I confess that there are some scholars whose work I find distasteful and, in some cases, even hold in contempt. There are scholars whose personal behaviour or beliefs I find abhorrent. If I'm in charge and get to shut them up, it's just a matter of time before the tables are turned. I'd rather we have robust discussion. Actual threats against people and groups are not acceptable, but aside from that, why can't we have room for a diversity of perspectives? We don't all have the same cookie-cutter training and haven't all come to the same conclusions. Academia would be pretty boring if that were the case.
Quote from: history_grrrl on October 24, 2023, 10:25:47 PMI've been out of town and not keeping up. Would just like to say this: I think that, before we applaud the professional association leaders for cancelling this panel, we should all try to imagine ourselves as the potential cancellees. I would hate to think that my own scholarship, or desire to talk about controversies related to competing approaches to scholarship, would be shut down because some folks hostile to my perspective decided my views were somehow too out of fashion to be aired. I wouldn't want to see this happen to anyone participating in this discussion.
We're scholars, people. We also have personal and political beliefs that help shape what we study, how we respond to others' work, etc. I confess that there are some scholars whose work I find distasteful and, in some cases, even hold in contempt. There are scholars whose personal behaviour or beliefs I find abhorrent. If I'm in charge and get to shut them up, it's just a matter of time before the tables are turned. I'd rather we have robust discussion. Actual threats against people and groups are not acceptable, but aside from that, why can't we have room for a diversity of perspectives? We don't all have the same cookie-cutter training and haven't all come to the same conclusions. Academia would be pretty boring if that were the case.
That was kind of the point I was trying to make when I publicly put up a yellow caution light regarding some ill-considered actions our state legislature was trying to take regarding controversies at public libraries awhile back. Not that our local legislator listened--but he was in the room to hear it.
Quote from: apl68 on October 25, 2023, 06:52:47 AMQuote from: history_grrrl on October 24, 2023, 10:25:47 PMI've been out of town and not keeping up. Would just like to say this: I think that, before we applaud the professional association leaders for cancelling this panel, we should all try to imagine ourselves as the potential cancellees. I would hate to think that my own scholarship, or desire to talk about controversies related to competing approaches to scholarship, would be shut down because some folks hostile to my perspective decided my views were somehow too out of fashion to be aired. I wouldn't want to see this happen to anyone participating in this discussion.
We're scholars, people. We also have personal and political beliefs that help shape what we study, how we respond to others' work, etc. I confess that there are some scholars whose work I find distasteful and, in some cases, even hold in contempt. There are scholars whose personal behaviour or beliefs I find abhorrent. If I'm in charge and get to shut them up, it's just a matter of time before the tables are turned. I'd rather we have robust discussion. Actual threats against people and groups are not acceptable, but aside from that, why can't we have room for a diversity of perspectives? We don't all have the same cookie-cutter training and haven't all come to the same conclusions. Academia would be pretty boring if that were the case.
That was kind of the point I was trying to make when I publicly put up a yellow caution light regarding some ill-considered actions our state legislature was trying to take regarding controversies at public libraries awhile back. Not that our local legislator listened--but he was in the room to hear it.
The panel-in-question found a new forum. They were not shut down.
I applaud both your idealism as far as that goes, but not every viewpoint is legitimate. I won't invoke the Nazi comparison----except that I just did. Always the exaggeration to make a point (is this "reductio ad absurdum, Para?), we would not have a Nazi panel no matter how padded the panelists. The panel-in-question did not go that far, but it was the species.
If you don't want your panel canceled, be a reasonable human being.
Wahoo, did you miss my caveat about those who make actual threats? Nazis are who I had in mind, of course.
But I don't believe anthropologists who consider biological sex a more salient category of analysis than self-defined gender identity are comparable to Nazis. I simply don't see how one can reasonably make that claim, but it seems to be close to your position. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: history_grrrl on October 25, 2023, 08:09:36 PMBut I don't believe anthropologists who consider biological sex a more salient category of analysis than self-defined gender identity are comparable to Nazis. I simply don't see how one can reasonably make that claim, but it seems to be close to your position. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
You need to research what they were actually saying. The sex vs. gender issue was not the issue.
You can find out on this thread.
And you are mischaracterizing what I said. That's frustration.