Thread by @shengokai

Putting the plagiarism aside (which is something I never thought I'd write) we need to keep in mind that this is expert testimony submitted to government on an issue that affects the lives of an incredibly vulnerable population and would subject them to further violence. (1/n)

https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1355932930875396098

I point out that this is EXPERT TESTIMONY because much of the defenses offered by Stock et al, Leiter, and their associates, and those who circulate and sign on to open letters in their defense, is based on the argument that the scholarship does not and will cause harm. (2/n)

That is, they assume that the scholarship remains within the confines of the academy and has no detrimental effect on the lived experience of the subjects of Stock and co.'s "research." To this end, they can say that they're just "doing inquiry" into valuable subjects. (3/n)

Which is ironic since Stock and co. have stated repeatedly that they intend to deploy their work to effect social change particularly where policy about gender is concerned. However, this point is intentionally ignored or outright overlooked in the rush to defend her. (4/n)

That said, this plagiarized work should put to rest any concerns about Stock and co.'s work not harming transpeople, particularly as what appears to be advocated in this "expert testimony" would create the conditions for pervasive violence against transpeople. (5/n)

To be clear, this would result in policy and social organization that, if adopted, would render transpeople as inherently predatory and criminal, and strip them of what protections they already have. It would make a dangerous situation much worse and make them vulnerable. (6/n)

Further, even if "senior scholars" are not concerned about that, which they really fucking should be, they should be concerned that the scholarship they're presenting as expert testimony has long since been addressed and refuted by the history of trans scholarship. (7/n)

However, recognizing THAT concern would require them to perform the most cursory of attempts at research into the long history of scholarship on gender and trans experiences within the academy, research which Stock, by her own admission, ignores. (8/n)

Now, to bring this back around to my favorite subject of academic freedom: this is what "senior scholars" are leveraging academic freedom in support of. This is the kind of work that they seek to protect in their open letters and their punching down. (9/n)

They are protecting the right to engage in shitty scholarship in the service of bigotry that is then leveraged to create social policy that will make transpeople vulnerable to further violence. And, in so doing, setting a norm for what is acceptable within the discipline. (10/n)

And, if this is what the discipline is willing to defend, willing to circulate open letters in defense of, one wonders if the discipline itself is beyond salvation.