There's some infighting drama amongst academic philosophers again. There are a few extra ins and outs, but the short version is, certain factions are unhappy with how anti-trans philosophical work isn't having as easy a time as they'd like getting through peer review.

One recent anti-trans paper did get through in a high-profile way — an embarrassment to our field IMO. Robin Dembroff submitted a very response to it; it was anonymously refereed and accepted. (Both papers at Phil Studies.)

Dembroff's paper has ignited a small firestorm among people who pay attention to these things. (If you're not a professional philosopher I don't blame you a bit for not numbering among those! I'd frankly RATHER you ignore it, this story makes us look terrible.)

You can read some background here if you like. http://dailynous.com/2020/06/12/resignation-philosophical-studies-reply-editors/ But seriously, only if you'd like. Don't feel bad about skipping this very stupid dispute!

Stew Cohen resigned as editor-and-chief of Philosophical Studies over this brouhaha.

(I myself raised concerns about Cohen's editorship of that journal several years back. You can read about my experience here http://blog.jichikawa.net/2015/02/journal-editorial-practices-and-anecdote.html or here http://dailynous.com/2015/02/02/guarding-the-guardians-or-editors/ )

But the thing I'd like to react directly to here — with apologies for the long thread of context! — is the idea that Dembroff's paper contained unprofessional personal attacks. Cohen even describes them as defamatory. This is incredibly far from the truth.

Holly Lawford-Smith wrote a Medium post selecting quotations from Dembroff's paper that she found to be "nprofessional and personal". They are, like, more aggressive than average, but well within disciplinary norms. https://medium.com/@aytchellis/peer-reviewed-insults-c1e4a3d87c2a

In some cases, I don't even know what the personal insult Lawford-Smith is perceiving is supposed to be. These examples — her own examples, cherry-picked () to demonstrate how inappropriate Dembroff's piece was — don't even strike me as a little bit personal.

This is probably the most inflammatory bit. As Dembroff points out in a public facebook post, it is the conclusion of an an entire paper of careful argumentation. https://www.facebook.com/robin.a.dembroff/posts/10159278221643797

Trans-exclusionary philosophers' partyline rhetoric paints a picture of a coddled, intolerant liberal orthodoxy, interpreting even the slightest dissent from gender dogma as severe oppression.

This incident shows us yet again that the reverse is much closer to the truth.

(It's wholly unsurprising in this context that Brian Leiter has aligned himself with the trans-exclusionary crowd here. See this thread. https://twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1042917380358266880 )

As Dembroff points out in a public facebook post (worth reading!), Cohen resigned as EIC over the journal's refusal to give special treatment to author of the trans-exclusionary article—special treatment inconsistent with the stated norms for the journal. https://www.facebook.com/robin.a.dembroff/posts/10159278221643797

I was shocked to read Holly Lawford-Smith's remarks about Dembroff's language.

She's "never seen anything like it in philosophy"? Really?

https://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2020/06/n-cohen-resignation

See, Holly used to have a twitter account. Actually it seems she's probably had more than one, since at least one account — the one her name was attached to — was banned from twitter for hate speech a while back. Some of us remember how she used to talk. https://medium.com/@aytchellis/an-open-letter-to-twitters-board-of-directors-2d0b89195aff

I could show you a lot more examples of unprofessional, personal attacks — I searched her tweets at me specifically — but they've literally been removed from twitter for violations twitter's Terms of Service on respectful conduct. Those were screenshots that have been preserved.

Or see e.g. https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1148698864402046976

Or https://twitter.com/JazzArtemis/status/1182401806787170304

In short, as Christa pointed out last year, TERF attempts to claim victimhood or the moral high ground in these cases are just not credible. This latest attempt is especially brazen, but falls completely flat.

https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1176549950961831936

In summary:

* Transparent editorial practices are good
* Editorial discretion to suspend normal procedures are bad
* Many TERF scholars are incredibly touchy and defensive and quick to perceive attack
* They should suck it up and deal with peer review like everybody else