Kathleen Stock, at Brian Leiter’s blog, on the latest blacklistings:

We are currently compiling an article where we ask leading thinkers ‘How can philosophy change the way we understand the transgender experience and identity?’ Given your influential work on the subject, I was wondering whether you would be interested in contributing a 200 word response?

“I’m writing on behalf of the Institute of Art and Ideas – we organise the world’s largest music and philosophy festival, HowTheLightGetsIn, and also run an online magazine, IAI News , which receives around 100,000 views per month. Contributors so far have included Rebecca Goldstein, Martha Nussbaum, Anthony Appiah, Elizabeth Anderson, Homi Bhabha and others.

This was the invitation, which went out verbatim to Holly Lawford-Smith and Julie Bindel and I assume to the others. Holly wrote to the editor who commissioned us a few days ago and hasn’t heard back.

One complaint I’ve seen from them is that I have no relevant expertise in this area. Yet my contribution links to my forthcoming piece on sexual orientation, sex, and gender, in the Aristotelian Society proceedings. (Moreover this isn’t a criteria I’ve ever seen employed when the contributor agrees with self-ID in law and policy, as we obviously do not. As usual it’s a highly selective use of a norm).

I see that the blog of the Institute of Art and Ideas has taken down a piece ( Download The current transgender debate polarizes Western societies like no other ) to which Holly Lawford-Smith and I contributed, alongside Julie Bindel, Robin Dembroff, Susan Stryker and Rebecca Kukla. I assume the reason to be the fuss the latter three have been making on social media and letters to the editor since the piece was published.

They contributed, and the thanks they get is that the Institute of Art and Ideas takes the collection down.

But wait, there’s more.

A separate incident I’m told of recently involves Professor Sally Haslanger writing to the entire board of the NDPR to complain about my being asked to review Serene Khader’s latest book, and to ask them to review their policies moving forward so that a similar mistake isn’t made again.

And still more!

n the meantime I’m told that a graduate student is compiling a spreadsheet of my past tweets; publicly encouraged by Professor Jonathan Ichikawa, whose only regret is that others aren’t helping https://mobile.twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1166504879449239552

Sure enough: here’s what Ichikawa said:

Hi Christa, I just wanted to say again, thanks for all the work you are doing staying on top of these conversations. It’s incredibly valuable labour, although I do wish it didn’t fall so heavily in you specifically

He just wanted to say again, thanks for all the creepy stalking and harassment you are doing of feminist philosophers who fail to obey the strict orders to pretend that men are women if they say they are. It’s incredibly valuable labour, this nonstop spying and persecuting.

Back to Kathleen:

These philosophers are happy to use intimidation of editors, and attempted intimidation of gender-critical philosophers, under the guise of moral outrage, to shut us up, rather than intellectual engagement. Perhaps they even believe that we are such harmful individuals that any such tactics are appropriate. Either way, I’m embarrassed for them. Is there any other area of philosophy in which gate-keeping is so intense? Why is that, I wonder?

I wonder too. I’ve been wondering for a long time.