Newsflash: Top professors believe “philosophers should not be sanctioned” for their traditional opinions on gender identity.
Strange that the idea of a man being a man or a woman being a woman is now “philosophical.” Previously, it was scientific. It’s jumped classrooms.
Maybe soon, algebra will be a literary issue.
I’d love microeconomics to move over to P.E. — I hated that class, but jumping jacks are A-Okay.
And diversity of thought is okay with left-wing Princeton Professor Peter Singer.
In a recent open letter published Monday on Inside Higher Ed, scholars agreed that the big-brained among us should be able to voice their opinions on sex without fear.
Gee — ya don’t say.
The 12-member group behind the letter spanned from Oxford to Princeton, and here’s how they put it:
We, all scholars in philosophy at universities in Europe, North America and Australia, oppose such sanctioning. The proposed measures, such as censuring philosophers who defend these controversial positions or preventing those positions from being advanced at professional conferences and in scholarly journals, violate the fundamental academic commitment to free inquiry. Moreover, the consequent narrowing of discussion would set a dangerous precedent, threatening the ability of philosophers to engage with the issues of the day.
But don’t be hateful:
We affirm the right of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to live free of harassment and abuse, and we welcome them enthusiastically as fellow participants in the profession of philosophy.
We reject calls for censuring or deplatforming any of our colleagues on the basis of their philosophical arguments about sex and gender identity, or their social and political advocacy for sex-based rights.
We condemn the too frequently cruel and abusive rhetoric, including accusations of hatred or transphobia, directed at these philosophers in response to their arguments and advocacy.
We urge that the philosophical discussion of sex, gender and related social and political issues be carried out in a collegial and mutually respectful manner, reflecting the full range of interests at stake and presuming the good faith of all parties.
Signer Peter Singer is no stranger to controversy. The Princeton man, while contending gender-nonconforming folks should live free from harassment, believes it’s alright to slaughter babies.
Here’s what he had to say in 2015, via his faculty page:
Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
Peter teaches bioethics. Maybe soon that subject will change areas of study, too. Do they have a class called Murder?
See 3 more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.
If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”