you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vari4 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

Philosopher here: I went through this the other day. Couple of observations.

Firstly it's a paid journal - most of the stuff is behind a paywall (presumably none of the cash goes to the academics who write this drivel though)

Second, some of the article titles are fucking hillarious. "De/Colonizing Hijra" by Dr. Claire Pamment (A white person and professor of Theatre :p ) or "Challenging Queer Metronormativity: The Case of Southern Trans Masculinity" by Z. Zane McNeill a self described enbie, neurodiverse, animal activist and scholar.

Third, went through the free article "Decolonizing Trans/Gender Studies?: Teaching Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Times of the Rise of the Global Right" by Alyosxa Tudor Lecturer in Gender Studies at University of London (who - based on the jawline - I'm pretty sure is just a bloke). It made a couple of claims about us. He claims that he will "analyze attacks on trans people and gender studies by transphobic feminists who call themselves “gender-critical” or “radical feminist” and show how transphobic feminists are aligned with masculinist anti-gender and far-right anti-immigration rhetoric. "

Needless to say - he doesn't really do this. The closest he comes to doing this is arguing that Gender Critical feminists have shared platforms with right wing people. Which isn't really news to anyone. Certain parts of the radical feminist movement have been making alliances of convivence with conservatives for decades. They never tried to hide this. It's a tactic that is controversial in radical feminist communities and is something that is only practiced by a few. What "Alyosxa" fails to recognise is that (1) he doesn't have an original thought here, and (2) that agreeing to make a single issue coalition with right wing people doesn't make you right wing. If you really were right wing you wouldn't need to make these sorts of coalitions.

This is the sort of shallow drivel that passes for a professor at a major university. It's a disgrace to the university, to academia, and to the philosophical community.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Information about the journal for everyone else: https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq

It mentions "pathologization", "transgender biopolitics", can any sociologists here tell us if these are legitimate terms? I found a new part of the sociology field to laugh at.

A white person and professor of Theatre

Thankyou for helping us read it. It's usually those in the arts who come up with bullshit and publish this type of crap (e.g. Queerkidstuff).

a self described enbie, neurodiverse, animal activist and scholar.

Just double checking, does the "self-described" also include neurodiverse, animal activist and scholar or is it only restricted to neurodiverse?

"De/Colonizing Hijra" "Decolonizing Trans/Gender Studies?: Teaching Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Times of the Rise of the Global Right"

Why does the headings use "decolonize"? You can't even colonize beliefs, just countries. Is there some sort of separate sociological definition which includes beliefs and political movements and studies?

Colonization: ​the act of taking control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force, and sending people from your own country to live there

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/colonization

I just read it's a peer review academic journal. As if the gender deluded need more validation.

[–]soundsituation 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why does the headings use "decolonize"? You can't even colonize beliefs, just countries. Is there some sort of separate sociological definition which includes beliefs and political movements and studies?

When woke people use that word it means removing white and western influence from basically anything you can conceive of.

It originated in postmodern philosophy but it's been adopted by sociologists and activists.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I was wondering if that's the case. It's a stupid way to use the word.

It originated in postmodern philosophy but it's been adopted by sociologists and activists.

It's this type of crap why I can't take any of the "soft science" fields (or whatever these studies are categorised into) seriously. Why not just come up with a completely different word that doesn't change the meaning of an already existing word? The "harder sciences" manage to come up with words when they want to describe a relationship between one thing to another and that word properly captures it.

Example:

Neuropathophysiology - refers to pathophysiological conditions that affect the nervous system.

I can understand what that term relates to and what kind area of study of the nervous system without studying the nervous system, I even figured it out without even needing to look up the word.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's also neuro-ophthalmology, neuroimmunology, psychoneuroimmunology, neurodermatology, neuro-hematology and neuropsychopharmacology.

I know this coz I've had medical reasons for needing to see specialists in each field.

[–]soundsituation 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why not just come up with a completely different word that doesn't change the meaning of an already existing word?

I honestly think they want people to be confused. Using doublespeak allows them to pull off a Motte & Bailey.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate people who misuse the English language (or try to change it to make it more "progressive" or "woke").