I teach at a small liberal arts college. A few years ago I started a once-a-semester gathering for our female majors and minors, called Women in Philosophy, mostly to build community over a dinner, but sometimes we talked specifically about gender issues in the discipline and about classroom climate. This year a student asked that we change the name of the group to “Women and Allies in Philosophy” to include people whose relationship to identifying as a woman is more complicated. How can we be more inclusive of trans and gender queer students, which we very much want to do, without opening the doors to men who identify as “allies”? The concern is that doing the latter may recreate in the group the very dynamics that we feel are sometimes harmful to female students in other contexts. Any suggestions for a name change that indicates the direction we would like to go? We would be most appreciative. Thank you.
10 thoughts on “Reader query: expanding’Women in philosophy’”
Comments are closed.
I’m finding it hard to come up with a good way to phrase it, and on reflection I think it may be because it’s not clear to me that the aims of the group are cohesive. For example, are transmen welcome? Certainly they will experience outsider status in philosophy, but so will gay cis men, and male POCs. Unless the intent is to make the group for all philosophy outsiders, which it sounds like it isn’t, then it’s going to be hard to pin down just who it is for.
If anyone who identifies as female at least partly (thus including ciswomen, transwomen, and genderqueer/fluid/etc people) is welcome, you could go with female-identified or female-identifying, which might seem to leave open the door to people who also identify in other ways too, as genderqueer people might (but then, they might not, too. But then we’re back to the question of whether the group is really for them, I suppose).
Women and gender minorities in philosophy, maybe? But this would include transmen, so whether that is the intent or not would be relevant.
One question: Are trans men welcome to the group? Your comment (“without opening the doors to men who identify as “allies””) could be construed as exclusive of trans men, since trans men are men.
Assuming your group is open to trans men, my suggestion: Perhaps “Women and Trans* Philosophers”? Technically that’s not perfect, since some women – trans women – are included under the umbrella “trans*”. But it would be a group name that would, I think, pick out everyone who you see as potentially a member.
How about “women and gender minorities in philosophy” or just “gender minorities in philosophy” since women are a minority within philosophy.
mzane, Great ideas! I prefer the first, because it seems to me clearer.
DO NOT call it “Women and Trans* Philosophers” or whatever. That makes it seem like trans women aren’t women, even if it’s not intended (I think Matt is sensitive to this worry.) The way that our student Women in Philosophy group at CofC is dealing with this is to have an inclusive mission statement easily accessible to those considering attending.
Great point, Rachel. Could there be a title before the mission statement?
Something like: “Statement on Aims and Inclusivity”
Rachel, sorry to have been unclear – i meant ‘group title’.
Just want to second “Gender Minorities in Philosophy.” It’s a fairly compact title, and if I saw that group somewhere, I would be interested in finding out more about it.
Stacey, I agree, especially given Rachel’s comments!