IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i2p2158244020927029.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion

Author

Listed:
  • Aleardo Zanghellini

Abstract

The Reform of the Gender Recognition Act: Government Consultation (2018) catalyzed a heated debate on transgender rights and trans inclusion in the United Kingdom. I start by explaining what the reforms to the U.K. system of gender recognition propose, why gender-critical feminists oppose them, and how other feminist academics have responded to their arguments. I then offer a more detailed philosophical critique of gender-critical trans-exclusionary feminist arguments. I argue that the gender-critical feminist case against trans women’s access to women-only (or sex-segregated, or single-sex) spaces suffers from a number of fallacies, and introduces modes of argument that are at odds with well-established and sound uses of practical reason. I try to make sense of these problems with gender-critical feminist thought by appealing to the idea of presupposed paranoid structuralism. I also argue that gender-critical feminists’ enthusiastic use of social media and allied online platforms may be implicated in generating some of these problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleardo Zanghellini, 2020. "Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:2158244020927029
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020927029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020927029
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020927029?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    2. Luis Miguel Rondón García & Dolores Martin Romero, 2016. "Impact of Social Exclusion in Transsexual People in Spain From an Intersectional and Gender Perspective," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erman Örsan Yetiş & Yekta Bakırlıoğlu, 2023. "Fatalistic normalisation, daunted managerialism and afflictive condemnation as forms of slow violence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duede, Eamon & Teplitskiy, Misha & Lakhani, Karim & Evans, James, 2024. "Being together in place as a catalyst for scientific advance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    2. Iandoli, Luca & Primario, Simonetta & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2021. "The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Deole, Sumit S. & Huang, Yue, 2020. "Suffering and prejudice: Do negative emotions predict immigration concerns?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 644, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. Ignacio-Jesús Serrano-Contreras & Javier García-Marín & Óscar G. Luengo, 2020. "Measuring Online Political Dialogue: Does Polarization Trigger More Deliberation?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 63-72.
    6. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Sarah Schneider-Strawczynski & Jérôme Valette, 2021. "Media Coverage of Immigration and the Polarization of Attitudes," PSE Working Papers halshs-03322229, HAL.
    8. Kendall L. Bailey & Austin Trantham, 2021. "Racial Politics and the Presidency: Analyzing White House Visits by Professional Sports Teams," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 897-919, March.
    9. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    10. Massoc, Elsa Clara & Lubda, Maximilian, 2022. "Social media, polarization and democracy: A multi-methods analysis of polarized users' interactions on Reddit's r/WallStreetBets," LawFin Working Paper Series 28, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    11. Jan Hk{a}z{l}a & Yan Jin & Elchanan Mossel & Govind Ramnarayan, 2019. "A Geometric Model of Opinion Polarization," Papers 1910.05274, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    12. Gil Appel & Lauren Grewal & Rhonda Hadi & Andrew T. Stephen, 2020. "The future of social media in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 79-95, January.
    13. Charlson, G., 2022. "In platforms we trust: misinformation on social networks in the presence of social mistrust," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2204, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    15. Joshua Uyheng & Kathleen M. Carley, 2020. "Bots and online hate during the COVID-19 pandemic: case studies in the United States and the Philippines," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 445-468, November.
    16. Hajime Tomura, 2022. "What Will Be the Impact of Fintech on the Payment System? A Perspective from Money Creation," Working Papers 2205, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    17. Matthew I. Jones & Antonio D. Sirianni & Feng Fu, 2022. "Polarization, abstention, and the median voter theorem," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Hagmann, David & minson, julia & Tinsley, Catherine, 2020. "Personal Narratives Build Trust in Ideological Conflict," OSF Preprints sw7nz, Center for Open Science.
    19. Anna Keuchenius & Petter Törnberg & Justus Uitermark, 2021. "Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-23, August.
    20. Amirarsalan Rajabi & Alexander V. Mantzaris & Kuldip Singh Atwal & Ivan Garibay, 2021. "Exploring the disparity of influence between users in the discussion of Brexit on Twitter," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 903-917, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:2158244020927029. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.