American and Canadian Anthro conference drops panel on sex

[downer]

Well, I also want the deficit to come down, so I guess I'm on the right.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, 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. 

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, 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/

[Hegemony]

My 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.

[history_grrrl]

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. 

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.

[downer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

So Wahoo, are all of these people wingnuts?

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.

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.

If they're all wingnuts, then I'm in good company. They're more articulate than I am.

[ciao_yall]

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.

When is it shutting down healthy discussion? And when is it objectively believing that the topic presented lacks scientific or scholarly merit?

[marshwiggle]

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.

When is it shutting down healthy discussion?

When it's done after the event is already scheduled and approved.

And 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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

Then the panel should have been called "Updating Gender Terminology in Anthropology to Reflect Broader Cultural and Social Understanding."

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[marshwiggle]

I 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??

[Wahoo Redux]

I 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.

[Wahoo Redux]

From IHE: 'Let's Talk About Sex,' or 'Let's Platform Transphobia'? Association Cancels a Panel

They 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. 

[Hegemony]

the 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.