-
However she does defend transphobes - or at least, she defends the right of transphobes to say things like 'trans women are men' - which means to me that she's a bit like what Jordan Peterson is to the far right, kind of a gateway drug.
I know what you mean, but I'm not really a fan of finding stuff in people's back catalogue of writing as a justification for ignoring everything they say. That seems to be a specific habit of progressive types (which I'd broadly place myself within) that just polarises debates and feeds the right-wing narrative of them being the defenders of free speech. To be fair it's not a strong example, in any case, since it seems to be her discussion of whether hate crime legislation was applicable to the retweeting of a poem (that she agrees was rude and unkind). That seems like fairly meat-and-potatoes work for a philosopher whose work hinges on being able to use language to express sometimes unwelcome viewpoints without worrying about prosecution.
More broadly I think one has to find someone on the other side of the debate who can at least intelligently articulate arguments. If you can work out responses to those, then finding responses to more stupid arguments should be straightforward, and I think we need to maintain a healthy distinction regarding speech of where arguments are put as part of a genuine discussion vs. those that are actually inciting harm (as with Mill's corn dealer example). That's not to say that there's no such thing as fostering a negative environment (anyone who cycles and reads any newspaper opinion pieces knows that), but if we don't engage with any counter arguments at all (on the basis that the mere utterance of them is harmful), then we're not really doing anything other than saying "we've made everyone's mind up for them." (Obviously that being the perceived tone of the left is quite relevant to the rest of this thread).
It's is also possible, with a bit of effort not to get on a slippery slope as long as you read broadly. Taking your example, thinking that Jordan Peterson occasionally says interesting things is still completely compatible with the belief that Ben Shapiro is just a diminutive bellend with nothing interesting to say at all.
ffm-
I know what you mean, but I'm not really a fan of finding stuff in people's back catalogue of writing as a justification for ignoring everything they say.
No, I'm with you on that. It's not a 'gotcha' of her views though - it's a cornerstone of her beliefs (that people should be free to say things like 'trans women are men' without it being assumed they're being hostile). And that actually sounds very reasonable if she's talking about the right of academics to discuss such points without being accused of hate crimes / harassment under UK law. I agree with that right firmly. There does need to be a discussion about precisely where we draw the line when cis and trans rights clash, and we can't discuss that without academic freedom.
But while Stock doesn't say this in her piece (which is reasonable and well argued) she does actively defend people like Maya Forstater who not only want the right to discuss such statements academically, they want the right to say these things to trans people whether it causes hurt or harm or not. That's quite a different thing because - well - it's harassment.
That's where I get a bit more nervous, because the academic freedom argument (which I agree with) and the licence to harass trans people argument (which I am firmly against) should be really very far apart. And the fact that she mixes these two things up quite often makes me worry, and it's what reminds me of Peterson.
None of that means we should discount what either academic says - I never went to Uni and I've an absurd and outsize respect for academia - but I do think we're entitled to put it in context.
ReekBlefs
I don't know much about Kathleen Stock though I do recognise that she's not one of the most rabid anti-trans people, and I'm pretty sure her views are honestly held.
However she does defend transphobes - or at least, she defends the right of transphobes to say things like 'trans women are men' - which means to me that she's a bit like what Jordan Peterson is to the far right, kind of a gateway drug.
I'm doing my very best on this to recognise my trans pals but also recognise that there are a lot of scared women out there who've been fed a pack of lies about how the GRA changes would mean blokes could just walk into your changing room and leer at you. Again I don't agree with Blair on much but I do agree that patient persuasion changes more minds than hurling insults.