Nancy Hartsock wrote one of the foundational texts of standpoint epistemology - feminist standpoint theory. Would she be classed as a "Terf", I wonder, and should there be campaigns for the exclusion of her work from the Academy? Let's see.
Hartsock now goes a bit bonkers with the psychoanalysis, but basically argues that girls end up with more empathy, and are more connected to others, less dependent on an idealized conception than boys (concrete femininity versus idealized masculinity), etc.
-
-
Regardless of the whole "terf" thing, this stuff is really dodgy actually. Way too essentialist, and bordering on misandry, I reckon. But I digress. This'll give you a sense of the "cisnormative" (I know all the lingo) character of the argument:pic.twitter.com/qmoIMOcgLF
Show this thread -
Later on Hartsock riffs on Bataille, and the centrality of biology, and the psychodynamic interplay the occurs as a result, is absolutely explicit. She's talking about the male experience of reproduction. (This stuff is fairly batty.)pic.twitter.com/ntQLI6IIFh
Show this thread -
Okay, I think that's enough to demonstrate that Hartsock should be considered at the very least "Terf-adjacent", and that her work should be verboten in the wokiest of philosophy departments. Trigger warnings, that's what it needs! You're welcome.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.