American and Canadian Anthro conference drops panel on sex

[history_grrrl]

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?

 

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[Langue_doc]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm okay with it, and I outlined why on the Seuss Cancellation thread.

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

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.

[downer]

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.

[history_grrrl]

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.

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.

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.

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/

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[downer]

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.

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo, 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.