This is pretty funny. An academic on the tenure track in the field of philosophy at Rhodes College named Rebecca Tuvel wrote an article titled “In Defense of Transracialism” which she was selected to present in January at the American Philosophical Association’s Eastern Division conference. https://apaonline.site-ym.com/?page=2017E_Accepted  This was a pretty big deal for someone in her line of work. Only the cream of the crop make the cut and the competition is tough.

Near as I can understand it, the field of academic philosophy involves the application of logic to various questions. Like mathematics, practitioners attempt to follow their computations to an unassailable conclusion supported by data. Then their opponents try to pick holes in either their logic or their data. It’s like a nightmare form of Twitter where every reply requires a 2500 word rebuttal. A brutally unromantic, areligious, aspiration to the highest levels of human thought, all couched in various fightclub lingo only understood by other initiates.

Anyway, Rebecca Tuvel examined the logic behind white Rachel Dolezal identifying as black (transracial), and male Bruce Jenner identifying as female (transgender), and concluded that the premise was one and the same and we could either affirm both identities, or neither. Further, she argued that society had reason to support such identities, and had precedent in doing so. You can read her paper in full here: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-transracialism-rebecca-tuvel/

All of this was well and good until a site specifically concerned with women’s liberation, the (ostensibly) feminist philosophy journal Hypatia, reprinted Tuvel’s article. Like all places and spaces dedicated to the specific interests of female human beings Hypatia was heavily monitored by those who wish to preserve sex-roles and police the women who protest or critique them. Particularly the men who identify as transwomen and those who champion them in that endeavor. Long story short, the shit hit the fan!

No one had any idea how to counter her logical arguments. They could easily prove Rachel Dolezal wasn’t actually black, but the same arguments applied to Caitlyn Jenner proved he was a sexist man performing a ghastly pantomime of womanhood. Not only could they not rebut her argument but they couldn’t stop people from reading it, so they did what every gender panicked soul who hates the idea that sex roles are culturally created to ritualize female subordination to males is left to do: Silence, censor, smear, threaten, defame.

Heterosexual white female Nora Berenstain of the University of Tennessee accused Tuvel of being a violent perpetrator:

“Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman [Bruce Jenner]. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege.”

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/nora-berenstain-on-rebecca-tuvel-and-hypatia/

Heterosexual white female Alexis Shotwell of Carleton University  https://twitter.com/alexisshotwell organized a demand letter for censorship claiming that Rebecca Tuvel’s work fails standards of scholarship:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1efp9C0MHch_6Kfgtlm0PZ76nirWtcEsqWHcvgidl2mU/viewform?ts=59066d20&edit_requested=true

Archive: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/alexis-shotwell-open-letter-to-hypatia/

Call for censorship signed by Jack Halbersham

In response, the moderators of the Hypatia facebook page, representing “A Majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associated Editors” (whatever that means) censored and deleted all previous related posts and announced an unauthorized (?) apology from Hypatia stating that academic philosophy should never hurt the feelings of people who like sex roles:

Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy

23 hrs ·

To our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy,

We, the members of Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors, extend our profound apology to our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy, especially transfeminists, queer feminists, and feminists of color, for the harms that the publication of the article on transracialism has caused. The sources of those harms are multiple, and include: descriptions of trans lives that perpetuate harmful assumptions and (not coincidentally) ignore important scholarship by trans philosophers; the practice of deadnaming, in which a trans person’s name is accompanied by a reference to the name they were assigned at birth; the use of methodologies which take up important social and political phenomena in dehistoricized and decontextualized ways, thus neglecting to address and take seriously the ways in which those phenomena marginalize and commit acts of violence upon actual persons; and an insufficient engagement with the field of critical race theory. Perhaps most fundamentally, to compare ethically the lived experience of trans people (from a distinctly external perspective) primarily to a single example of a white person claiming to have adopted a black identity creates an equivalency that fails to recognize the history of racial appropriation, while also associating trans people with racial appropriation. We recognize and mourn that these harms will disproportionately fall upon those members of our community who continue to experience marginalization and discrimination due to racism and cisnormativity.

It is our position that the harms that have ensued from the publication of this article could and should have been prevented by a more effective review process. We are deeply troubled by this and are taking this opportunity to seriously reconsider our review policies and practices. While nothing can change the fact that the article was published, we are dedicated to doing what we can to make things right. Clearly, the article should not have been published, and we believe that the fault for this lies in the review process. In addition to the harms listed above imposed upon trans people and people of color, publishing the article risked exposing its author to heated critique that was both predictable and justifiable. A better review process would have both anticipated the criticisms that quickly followed the publication, and required that revisions be made to improve the argument in light of those criticisms.

We would also like to explain our review process. Manuscripts sent to Hypatia are sent out for peer review to two anonymous reviewers. The reviewers do not see the names of the author of the manuscript, and the identity of peer reviewers is not known to authors. The journal has had a long-standing policy of minimizing desk rejections due to its commitment to providing constructive feedback to feminist scholars. Revised manuscripts are also sent to the same readers for review. In the case where two peer readers disagree, a third anonymous reader may be found. Members of the Associate Editorial Board might be asked to provide another opinion and are expected to serve as readers on two articles each year. Some have wanted us to reveal the identities of the peer reviewers for this article. We cannot do this. We are a scholarly journal committed to an anonymous peer review process. We want readers to feel free to offer their honest feedback on manuscripts submitted to Hypatia. Anonymous peer review is important for the scholarly reputation of Hypatia; mistakes in particular instances should not compromise the commitment to anonymous peer review in scholarship.

In addition, to reconsidering our review policies, we are drafting a policy on name changes that will govern review of all work considered for publication in the journal from this point forward. We wish to express solidarity with our trans colleagues in our condemnation of deadnaming. It is unacceptable that this happened, and we are working to ensure that it never happens again. We also wish to express solidarity with our colleagues of color (understanding that gender and race are entangled categories) in our condemnation of scholarship about racial identity that fails to reflect substantive understanding of and engagement with critical philosophy of race. We are working to develop additional advisory guidelines to ensure that feminist theorists from groups underrepresented in our profession, including trans people and people of color, are integrated in the various editorial stages. This does not mean that we want to place future responsibility solely on transfeminists and feminists of color. We are committed to improving our review process and practice in order to make the best decision about publication and to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Hypatia is a journal committed to pluralist feminist inquiry and has been an important site for the publication of scholarship long-considered marginal in philosophy. Too many of us are still characterized as “not real” philosophers by non- and anti-feminist colleagues. As a feminist journal, Hypatia is committed to providing mentorship to all who submit articles by encouraging substantive feedback on essays submitted for consideration. Clearly there was a mistake along the line in the review process, and we are doing our best to figure out a way forward.

Several further types of responses have been suggested to us, including issuing a retraction and setting up a blog or website for further conversation about how to move forward and improve our process. We continue to consider those responses and all of their potential ramifications thoughtfully. We welcome more feedback and suggestions, as we intend to learn from this mistake and do our best to be accountable and worthy of the trust of all feminist scholars.

Finally, we want to recognize that following the publication of the article, there was a Facebook post from the Hypatia account that also caused harm, primarily by characterizing the outrage that met the article’s publication as mere “dialogue” that the article was “sparking.” We want to state clearly that we regret that the post was made.

We sincerely thank all who have expressed criticism of the article’s publication and who have called on us to reply. Working through conflicts, owning mistakes, and finding a way forward is part of the crucial, difficult work that feminism does. As members of Hypatia’s editorial board we are taking this opportunity to make Hypatia more deeply committed to the highest quality of feminist scholarship, pluralism, and respect. The words expressed here cannot change the harm caused by the fact of the article’s publication, but we hope they convey the depth and sincerity of our commitment to make necessary changes to move forward and do better.

Sincerely,

A Majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associated Editors

 

https://www.facebook.com/hypatia.editorialoffice/posts/1852550825032876

 

As you can see, no rebuttal of Rebecca Tuvel’s arguments exist. Her paper was vetted by both the American Philosophical Association and the Hypatia Journal.

The capitulation to genderist harassment by some members of the Hypatia organization who have taken control over their facebook content (Board of Associated Editors have no input or control over editorial decisions, they seem to be interns) has raised the alarms among academic philosophers.

Leiter Reports calls for a defamation lawsuit against the genderists:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/the-defamation-of-rebecca-tuvel-by-the-board-of-associate-editors-of-hypatia-and-the-open-letter.html

Daily Nous did a piece in response with a comment by Rebecca Tuvel:

http://dailynous.com/2017/05/01/philosophers-article-transracialism-sparks-controversy/

The jist of all of the protest seems to be that if transgender people were what they actually are (Not the other sex! As Dolezal is Not Black!) it would be the most awful thing imaginable.

Gavin/Laurel Hubbard (center)

Wealthy New Zealander Gavin Hubbard, now calling himself “Laurel”, bumped two women from their Olympic weightlifting qualifying slots after he decided to compete in the women’s category. Hubbard is the son of cereal magnate and former Auckland mayor Dick Hubbard, best known for his position against allowing gay people to marry or raise their own biological children. [1]

Pink shoes = Female

Gavin “Laurel” Hubbard, 39, was a one-time nationally ranked weightlifter in his twenties [2] but he failed to make his mark competing against other males. He remained active in the sport, funding various events and serving as the Executive Officer of OWNZ (Olympic Wrestling of New Zealand) until his position was eliminated last year. [3]

Hubbard responded to the loss of his authority by funding a new state-of-the-art weightlifting facility to host and sponsor the OWNZ competition itself. [4]

Gavin competing against women.

OWNZ then authorized the women’s competition that Hubbard won on Sunday March 19 at the Australasion Championships in Melbourne.

Spot the middle-aged dude

OWNZ cited IOC guidelines for transgenderism, which allow any male who can prove his testosterone levels are 10 nmol/L or below for one year duration to compete in the women’s division. Any female can compete in the male category if she qualifies regardless of her hormone levels. No female athlete has ever qualified to compete against males under IOC guidelines.  Female athletes that outperform males in male events (example: high jump skiing) have not been allowed to compete. [5]

Typical testosterone levels for males are 9-38 nmol/L, and for females 0.52-2.4 nmol/L. So the IOC guidelines allow typical males to compete “as women” if their testosterone levels are in the low normal male range:

 

The IOC position is that males with testosterone levels in lower male average are female, but testosterone levels in female athletes are irrelevant. It is unknown if Hubbard qualified for the women’s division by medically reducing his testosterone levels or if he is just naturally on the low normal range for males.

When it became known that Hubbard intended to destroy the ranking [6] of female New Zealand Olympian Tracey Lambrechs [Rio 2016) by competing as a male in the women’s 90k+ category, Ms. Lambrechs immediately set her sites on competing against other women by the only means left available to her: qualifying for another weight category away from men.

Olympian Tracey Lambrechs

This involved rapidly losing 38 pounds in order to compete in the nearest woman-only class.

“It was a big shock,” Lambrechs told Radio Sport [on March 4]. “At first I was quite angry and then confused and upset.

“I was taken aback when it first happened but I have no control over anything around me, so I’ve really just been focusing on myself and whatever happens happens.”

She said OWNZ had advised it would only select one competitor per weight division for the world championships.” [7]

Lambrechs. Kickin Ass.

The female Olympian somehow managed to shed the weight in time but underperformed on Sunday as a result. “Obviously losing all that weight my body shape has changed and so my technique is a little bit clumsy at the moment”, Lambrechs had stated back on March 4. She came in second place after the rapid weight loss regimen, losing her qualifying ranking.

The new first place champion of the Australasian heavyweight women’s division, Samoan Iuniara Sipaia, was also stripped of her title and ranking. You can see her on the left below.

Actual heavyweight women’s champ Iuniara Sipaia on left, next to smug creepy male fucker.

OWNZ sponsor and former Executive Officer, white male Gavin “Laurel” Hubbard,  will take her place as women’s heavyweight champion.

 

[1] https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/03/compare-contrast-dick-hubbard-now/

[2] http://olympicweightlifting.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Round-4-June.pdf

[3] http://olympicweightlifting.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-AGM-Minutes.pdf

[4] http://www.scene.co.nz/sport-scene/lift-off-for-new-event/

[5] https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/olympic-committee-rescinds-sex-change-requirement-for-female-short-hill-ski-jumpers/

[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Weightlifting_Championships_–_Women%27s_%2B75_kg

[7] http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11811767

No.

March 8, 2016

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/03/can-we-celebrate-all-who-identify-women-international-women-s-day

international women's day for men toronto

What’s a man to do?

January 22, 2016

what's a man to do?

 

 

Terrifying TERF

December 29, 2015

trans pretending to be terf reddit

….

 

ewwwwww trans lesbians

 

.

https://www.facebook.com/Lezlovetgirls

 

couric

“Later when Couric introduced Carerra, she said that “she was born a man and that’s why she’s on our show,” making it very clear that she’s only interesting because of her transition. Couric continued to focus on that part of Carerra’s life when she said that after being onRupaul’s Drag Race, Carrera “realized she was done acting like a woman and wanted to become one.” However, the real trouble started when Couric started to ask Ms. Carrera if transitioning was painful because of all the surgery that she had to go through. Carmen looked a little confused and responded by talking a little about her nose job and breast augmentation and that’s when Katie pounced. She immediately asked if Carmen’s “private parts” are “different now” and if she’s had that surgery yet. Carmen Carrera responded perfectly. First she literally shushed Katie Couric, trying to get her to stop asking such a private thing. Then she told her “I don’t want to talk about it, it’s really personal” and she told Katie that there’s a lot more to get than her genitals. She said, “after the transition there’s still life to live, I still have my career goals, I still have my family goals.” [ Family Goals- Impregnating women with his dick-GM]

“Couric explained that she just wants to be educated and that a lot of people are curious because they’re “not familiar with transgenders.” She told Cox that Carrera had “recoiled” when asked about surgery and said that cis people are preoccupied with “the genitalia question.” Couric wondered if Cox felt the same way about that question and about cis people’s attitudes towards trans women. As soon as Cox started telling her that, yes, she keeps her private parts private and that cis people do have an obsession with trans women’s genitalia, she really started picking up steam. Cox said that the preoccupation with genitalia and transition objectifies trans women and distracts us from the real issues.”

From:

Flawless Trans Women Carmen Carrera and Laverne Cox Respond Flawlessly To Katie Couric’s Invasive Questions/Autostraddle

Watch Two Trans Advocates Take Katie Couric To School
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/01/watch_two_trans_advocates_take_katie_couric_to_sch.php#twfKTt44bVgaluZ6.99

Laverne Cox & Carmen Carrera on Katie Couric

Posted by helenboyd – January 7, 2014

I’m sure everyone has seen these already, but if you haven’t, they’re worth watching – even if only for their responses to the genitals questions.”

Katie Couric Offends Trans People Everywhere With Her Invasive Genitalia Questions

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/katie-couric-offends-trans-people-everywhere-with-her-invasive-genitalia-questions-20140107/#ixzz2pm3EeaEv

Katie and the guys

Katie and the guys