Genderqueer teaching resources

I came across this fantastic article on xoJane today (‘My Gender is any Everything Bagel’), in which a person describes their experience of being genderqueer and explains what being genderqueer means to them:

I express my gender in a variety of ways that diverge from the norm of having a gender that is solely masculine or solely feminine. I see my gender as wild mixture of masculine and feminine energies. Some people call this gender fluidity. My loving sibling aptly refers to my gender as “an everything bagel.” The term that I use to describe this part of myself is genderqueer.

The article also includes lots of great photos of the author that illustrate the kind of gender nonconformity they’re talking about.

I was particularly excited to find this article because I’ve often struggled to find good introductory-level teaching resources on gender fluidity. Many resources I’m familiar with on genderqueer identities and gender fluidity assume a facility with gender concepts that a lot of students new to academic discussion of gender just won’t have. So articles like this are great to stumble across.

Any other ideas for good, accessible, introductory-level resources on genderqueer identities and gender fluidity? Please share in the comments!

Diversity in emotions, again!

[note: acute comments coming in make me realize that this post is a bit hastily written. I’ll say a bit more in the comments when I can, but let me Draw your attention to the discussion of the bystander in #3.]

There’s a recent post here about how humans vary in the strength of the emotions they field.  A cruel comment may get someone angry for a day or two, but another person may feel beaten up in a way that lasts far longer without being pathological, though it may become a pathological threat to their health and more general ability to function.

The discussion on the last post turned quite quickly to Borderline Personality Syndrome, and contributors covered a lot of ground.  But I think we left out two other important topics.  In addition, there may be connected topics that I am not mentioning, and I hope they’ll get raised in comments if anyone is interested.  So here are the two I am thinking about.

1.  Given that being nasty to someone can cost them a week or more of their lives, and that “strong feelers” are not rare, what in the world is happening with people who are nasty adult bullies in supposedly humanistic fields like philosophy?  I suggested in a certain recent discussion that occupied this and a number of other blogs that maybe some of the bullies are not aware of the power their words can have.  Words are not sticks and stones.  But words can kill by sending someone depressed over the edge.  And no doubt in other ways in our small world.

Another possible source of the nastiness is alexithymia, which is a fascinating but unpleasant disorder.  People with the disorder usually are literally incapable of imagining others’ distress.  It’s been suggested that corporate criminals who ruin the savings accounts of thousands or millions may not be able to imagine fully the effect of what they are doing.  While no diagnostician at all, I watched carefully the descriptions of Ken Lay, of Enron infamy, and he certainly was described as displaying related traits.

I once tried to tell someone prone  sometimes to incredibly nasty comments that she could end up killing someone.  A very difficult thing to say, and I messed up entirely by managing to suggest I was going to die.  That was a real mess to sort out.  So let me say now:  Words can kill.  Probably more often they deeply wound.  The wounds can cause chaos in someone’s life.

2.  A second question concerns the value of being a strong emoter.  If you look at our last discussion, emotional surges were likened to tsunamis.  Of course, some of us like to think that philosophy is driven by reason, but might strong emotional reactions have epistemic importance even in the ‘rational’ fields?  If so, it might mean that some of us arrive at important conclusions in advance of finding the reasons for them.  Does our pedagogy allow this?  If not, should we rethink some of the demands placed on students.

I recently gave a paper to a group of biologists, some of whom encountered the concept of mental content for the first time (which, incidentally, is a concept I doubt in the end makes sense).  Some of the biologists took standard argumentative weapons and launched them at the concept.  But one person was perplexed and very unhappy.  I was reminded of three-hour tutorials with Elizabeth Anscombe, where one could do deep conceptual therapy, which does allow that one may need a lot of time to find reasons for already intuited conclusions such as “There’s something badly mistaken here.”

Anyway, I’d love to know what others think about this.

Upcoming training for the site visit program

The training for the site visit program will provide you with important information on assessing departmental climate, including legal issue.  Do consider signing up!

A second Site Visit Training Workshop will be held May 31, 2015 immediately following the Diversity in Philosophy Conference to be held at Villanova University, May 28-30, 2015.  To apply to participate in this workshop, please email Peggy DesAutels ( with a paragraph describing your interest in being trained as a site visitor and an attached CV.  Spaces in the workshop are limited.

Information about the training and the program is available here.  Note the comment from the University of Miami.


The APA Newsletter on Asian American Philosophers and Philosophies

The APA Newsletter on Asian American Philosophers and Philosophies has a new issue out.   Considering it must have gone to press some time ago, it may seem amazing that the topics are so up-to-the-minute.  However, more realistically, it illustrates that urgent current topics are also long-standing ones.


Here are some of the highlights:

Carole Lee’s article has tables calculating the relative representation of different demographic groups in philosophy and religious studies majors and humanities phd’s in the U.S.  It also discusses the possibility of a gender/race/ethnicity hierarchy in philosophy (in section 2), with Asian Americans being a “model minority.”

Samantha Brennan’s article talks about micro-inequities and Asian Americans.

Molly Paxton’s article distinguishes between structural and intellectual diversity in academic and the implications of this difference for instituting change.

The Future of Life (for Men Only?)

The Gendered Conference Campaign highlights academic conferences with all male speakers. But of course it’s not just conferences that are gendered in this way. Institutes and research centres are often all male as well.

This weekend I’m attending the Association for Political Theory conference in Madison, Wisconsin. APT has a wonderfully diverse program and it looks about 50/50 in terms of speakers and attendees. It’s also got a very instructive atmosphere and I’d recommend it to political philosophers interested in presenting their work and getting good feedback.

I went to a panel this morning on gender and war. One of the speakers was presenting on gender and robots. Turns out she’s the author of this piece, Robots Don’t Lactate. Fascinating stuff.

But in the course of her talk she mentioned the Future of Life Institute and suggested we google it. I did, of course, and surprise, surprise, it has an all male advisory board. It’s not a small board either. The 13 member board includes Alan Alda and Stephen Hawking and Morgan Freeman but no women.

Here’s its mission:

To catalyze and support research and initiatives for safeguarding life and developing optimistic visions of the future, including positive ways for humanity to steer its own course considering new technologies and challenges.

Odd to think of the future of life, without women, but there you go.