Times article today by hugo rifkind : 'Even thinking about trans people is wrong: If a university philosophy department can ban discussion of what makes a woman, we’re all potential offenders' (extract) " The censorious junior philosophers of Durham, though, do not sound afraid. Rather, they sound positively proud, and perhaps even self-righteous, that this is a topic of discussion they are not prepared to tolerate. They appear to have, in other words, an absolute moral conviction that this is something not to be thought about.
This is a shame because, if one tried, one could have a decent stab at a philosophical justification for eschewing philosophy about trans issues. One could, for example, draw inspiration from John Stuart Mill’s harm principle which, in trite abbreviation, held that people should not be allowed to harm other people. Mill himself was firm about the distinction between actual harm and mere offence, but I suppose one could extend the former by contending that even discussion in this area could lead to actual, physical harm being caused to vulnerable people, either by their own hands or at the hands of others.
Even if such an argument could be intellectually advanced, however, could it be acceptably debated afterwards? Or would that also be “belittling trans experiences”? Indeed, am I doing that now? Fundamentally, if it is not morally OK to discuss this stuff, is it morally OK to even discuss discussing it? Look, don’t roll your eyes at me, this is what philosophers do. Or, as Stock says, it used to be.
Sofocleous’s offence, with the penis thing, was to deny that “trans women are women”, a maxim regarded by many as close to gospel. " (continues)
thread with link to article: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375156-Hugo-Rifkind-in-the-Times-Even-thinking-about-trans-people-is-wrong