The correct way for an analytic philosopher to answer the question, "Why do you cite primarily white men?" is that the field has been, due to discrimination, dominated by white men. However, that has thankfully been changing and they now seek out female scholars/scholars of color
If you're only working on analytic philosophy up to a certain point in time, there will be mostly only white men to cite. This historical trend is worse in analytic philosophy than other fields, like continental philosophy, history, & English. However, again, it is now changing
There are plenty of female scholars/scholars of color in the fields of bioethics or climate ethics or ethics more broadly. Many have been game-changers. There's really no excuse to not seek them out.
Honestly don't know how you publish in bioethics at all w/out seeing female scholars or scholars of color. I focus on bioethics here b/c that's the field where Singer does a lot of his work.
I think I worded this poorly. I do NOT think there is a good excuse for current analytic philosophers to not be citing women/POC. I am saying one can make a point about the unfortunate history of the field & how they are now actively working to change it
https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/1387044244225859586
If they haven't been working to change it, well, then there's an issue. There are tons of women and POC who could be cited in these works: 
And if you really are concerned w/ equity & applied ethics, you could do a nice pivot to how fields like philosophy have benefited immensely from intentional efforts to diversify their faculties. Then cite some game changers (e.g. Satz, Anderson)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
