American and Canadian Anthro conference drops panel on sex

[Wahoo Redux]

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?"  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.

[history_grrrl]

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.

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

Well, I never said that.

I 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

You should read "In defense of dangerous ideas" by Steven Pinker.

In 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.

[waterboy]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.

[downer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?)

[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.

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

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!]

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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

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?

[Hibush]

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?)

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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?)

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.