Good morning everyone! If you are interested in subtle distinctions within Florida State Philosophy Professor John Schwenkler's ideas about feminism and feminist philosophy, this thread is for you!

Others may allow their attention to wander.

Yesterday I wrote this tweet, describing have seen a philosopher say there's no such thing as expertise in philosophy. https://twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1159534797871468544

Professor Schwenkler correctly perceived that I was subtweeting him, but took exception to my characterization. He said that I "flagrantly misrepresented" what he said, and engaged in an "absurd misinterpretation" and an "obvious misreading".

I was surprised that Professor Schwenkler thought I'd misdescribed him. I went back to check my memory. July 26 wasn't THAT long ago.

After an extended back-and-forth yesterday between Professor Schwenkler, myself, and some other twitter users, I think I finally understand his position. He's right, I was incorrect in saying he'd said there's no such thing as specialized knowledge or expertise in feminism.

What Professor Schwenkler actually thinks is that, although there is (or at least he allows that there might be—he doesn't affirm it and expresses partial skepticism) specialized knowledge and expertise in feminism, one can be a serious scholar of feminism without it.

When I read Professor Schwenkler say that when it comes to feminism—unlike linguistics, logic, and natural sciences—there is no expertise that is required for serious scholarship, I took him to mean that there is no expertise in feminism. This was incorrect.

To set the record straight: Dr. Schwenkler allows that there MIGHT be expertise in feminism ("whatever that would mean"), but possession of it and/or specialized knowledge is not necessary for being a serious scholar of feminism.

My interpretation makes sense (only) on the assumption that, if there is such a thing as expertise/specialized knowledge in feminism, a serious scholar of feminism would be expected to have it.

I apologize to Dr Schwenkler for inaccurately attributing this assumption.

I do not agree with Professor Schwenkler's characterizations of my hermeneutical error as flagrant mischaracterizations, obvious misreadings, or absurd misinterpretations, but readers may judge for themselves.

I also do not think his now-clarified stance is any more respectful of feminist scholarship than the one that I misattributed to him. Professor Schwenkler continues to promote the myth that feminist knowledge/expertise isn't important (even if he grants that it might exist).

Audrey Yap is exceptionally well-placed to offer opinions on the comparison between scholarship in logic and in feminism. This thread is helpful on the subject. https://twitter.com/audreyseokhean/status/1159689858429751296

Some people challenged Dr. Schwenkler on his dismissal of the importance of feminist expertise on the thread yesterday. These are good challenges.

Thank you for reading my thread about Professor Schwenkler's views about feminism.

Sorry it was so boring.