American and Canadian Anthro conference drops panel on sex

[marshwiggle]

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?

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.

[history_grrrl]

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.

[apl68]

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.

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.

[history_grrrl]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.