On 'pies' and 'spaces' (They’re connected) #MoralMaze
@AdamWagner1 argues that ‘rights are not like pies’. To spell things out, boringly, his point is that rights are not a zero-sum game, that it is possible to increase one right or set of rights without reducing ...
another right or set of rights.
I think that he is correct, about some rights, and his example of equal marriage is a pretty good example.
But I think he is wrong about other rights, and especially about the rights in question.
Consider the pie metaphor. It’s supposed to be powerful because it conveys the idea that we are talking about big, abstract, social rules, roles and institutions, not something as simple as a pie.
As simple, material and *spatially constrained* as a chunk of pie. 3/
So @AdamWagner1's prescription might be "don’t think with spatially constrained analogues when thinking about big abstract social rights and roles" etc. /4
But think about the terms of this debate. Quite often people talk about ‘women’s *spaces*, single sex *spaces* and so on. Sometimes this talk is metaphorical. There’s a growing tendency, a bit pomo, tbh, to talk in this way, people talk about eg. ‘the space to debate’ /5
But quite often the space talk is *not* metaphorical at all. It’s about rooms, wards, blocks, (in hospitals and prisons, for example). These rooms, these spaces, are limited. You can measure them. They are not abstract social roles /6
One space that I think about a lot, is *exactly* 400 metres long, and *exactly* 1.22m wide. It’s the lane of a running track and there are generally only - 8 of them at any one track. /7
Lanes are like pies, in certain morally relevant respects. If a lane is taken up by one person, no-one else gets it.
So @AdamWagner1's analogy is wrong. He mischaracterises the relevant rights.
Lots of the relevant spaces really are spaces.
And spaces are like pies. /e
[Addendum and note to self. In other respects athletics tracks and pies do not mix and should be kept as far apart as possible]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jon Pike

Jon Pike Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @runthinkwrite

24 Jun
Nonetheless... (thread)
@AyoCaesar foregrounds Non-Domination. (ND) She points to the fact that there is only one trans competitor in Tokyo (ignoring the alternate, and the 9 (?) para-athletes... 1/
What does ND show about trans-inclusion into women's sport (TI)? Some candidate answers:
A) ND shows that TI is fair
B) ND shows that TI doesn't matter...

I'll take these in turn
A) is a category error. Whether a contest is fair or not is independent of the results of that contest. Fairness (in sport) is a matter of procedures, not outcomes. To see this, consider the difference with a criminal trial. There's a fact of the matter that the trial ...3/
Read 15 tweets
9 Jun
OK, I'll try to explain how I see things, recognising that this might not be right, and that others here can put things better and/or differently
1) The rights that women have fought for and won are collective rights, and in a lot of cases they are sex-based rights.
2) Sex -based rights are grounded in and justified by the fact of sexed bodies. Sexed bodies do not always count for grounding rights, - eg. for the right to vote they are irrelevant - but sometimes they do.
Read 11 tweets
8 Jun
This is an interesting new paper with which I don't wholly agree, (especially in the case of archery)... /1

Integrating transwomen athletes into elite competition: the case of elite archery and shooting tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
Beyond the details, though, look at the overall logic. Here's the antecedent of the conditional:
*If* a sport is sufficiently sex-unaffected, such that the minimal physiological changes made by x-sex hormones do not affect fairness... /2
Here are two consequents:
A) *Then* it's fair to integrate transwomen
B) *Then* that sport should be unisex.

Which should we go for?
Pitsiladis et al favour (A), but I favour (B). I don't see why the argument for (A) isn't an argument for (B) .../3
Read 12 tweets
29 Mar
This is interesting (Thread) My article below has been edited, after publication, without my knowledge or agreement. 1/

Why the World Rugby guidelines banning trans athletes from the women's game are reasonable via @TC_Africa theconversation.com/why-the-world-…
The main change, on a quick look, is from 'male' and 'female' to 'assigned male' and 'assigned female'.

I don't use those terms because I'm concerned with sex as a biological fact rather than as the outcome of a social process.
This is an important distinction, and making distinctions is my job.
Read 5 tweets
6 Jan
Philosophers on Twitter getting push back about The Letter: here are some candidate actions, and some evaluations (by me) of those actions (thread):

i) Say nothing, refuse to engage
Evaluation: You have made a public stand: this makes you publicly accountable.
ii) Try to laugh it off.
Evaluation: This is a serious matter (you accept). Please don't ridicule those who disagree with you. You want to be taken seriously: take your interlocutors seriously.
iii) Straw-man your critics.
Some people will tweet that you are an effing misogynist. But other people will make polite and serious objections to the text of your letter: address the strongest objections to your claims, not the weakest.
Read 8 tweets
5 Jan
(i) P'raps I'll spell out the dialectic here. In the letter, @jichikawa elides 'trans-exclusive' and 'transphobic'. I'm coming up with a counter-example to that elision. My (philosophical) view is that trans-women should be excluded from women's rugby. Of course, I don't think
(ii) that trans-women should be excluded from rugby as such, but that they should play in the category of their birth sex (it's slightly more complicated than that, but I'll stick the paper at the end.)
(iii) On most normal understandings, this is a trans-exclusive (no scare quotes) view, in philosophy, which I argue for quite explicitly. I argue for it, because of the difference in bodies between males and females, which, I think, has ethical consequences.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!