The APA Newsletter on LGBT Issues in Philosophy invites members to submit papers, book reviews, and professional notes for publication in the Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 editions. Submissions can address issues in the areas of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, gender, and sexuality studies, as well as issues of concern for
LGBT people in the profession. The newsletter seeks quality paper submissions for anonymous review. Reviews and notes should address recent books, current events, or emerging trends. Members who give papers at APA Division Meetings, in particular, are encouraged to submit their work by the appropriate deadlines.


Fall Issue: June 15, 2015

Spring Issue: January 15 1, 2016

These deadlines are based on the APA National Office deadlines for submitting

materials for publication in the fall and spring issues of their newsletters.


Papers should not exceed 12,000 words.

Reviews and Notes should not exceed 5,000 words.

All submissions must use endnotes.

All papers should be prepared for anonymous-review.

Submit all manuscripts electronically (PDF or MS Word), and direct questions to:

Kory Schaff

Editor, APA Newsletter on LGBT Issues in Philosophy

O no! Irrational philosopher

The Guardian characterizes the lead character in Woody Allen’s new film, “Irrational Man”:

Joaquin Phoenix plays Abe Lucas, a sketchily imagined philosophy professor with a reputation as a devilishly handsome wild man. He is a charismatic lecturer and a great seducer of women, both faculty members and students (the movie is notionally set in the present, but seems to come from a pre-90s age in which this latter campus activity was not rigorously policed and frowned upon).

Consider yourself warned/policed.




Elizabeth Barnes on Doing Philosophy of Disability

A really wonderful post that is also, and relatedly, on anger.

I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person. I have been told it would be wrong for me to have my biological children because of my disability. I have been told that, while it isn’t bad for me to exist, it would’ve been better if my mother could’ve had a non-disabled child instead. I’ve even been told that it would’ve been better, had she known, for my mother to have an abortion and try again in hopes of conceiving a non-disabled child. I have been told that it is obvious that my life is less valuable when compared to the lives of arbitrary non-disabled people. And these things weren’t said as the conclusions of careful, extended argument. They were casual assertions. They were the kind of thing you skip over without pause because it’s the uncontroversial part of your talk.

So sorry– forgot to put the link in! It’s here.