Unlike many HN commenters, I generally fall in favor of the current trend in social media censorship and stratification. I don't think there's a problem with individuals choosing to engulf themselves in a "bubble" of reinforcing opinions. I certainly see no reason why any individual should be forced into internet debates about their opinions if they are not personally a fan of internet debates.

That said, academic institutions are not Facebook or Twitter, and academics rightfully should hold the power to ask questions and make statements that make others feel uncomfortable. There is no doubt that there should be room at universities for people who want to muse on the nature of gender, even in a way that may challenge others' strongly held beliefs.

However, it is immediate and utmost importance to recognize that questions of gender identity are not just abstract questions. There are members of universities and of society at large struggling to gain acceptance as queer and transsexual, and whether or not academics want to deliberate on what it even means to be of a gender, universities and the people involved with universities seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of protecting the current progressive status quo of gender identity.

I think there needs to be an important distinction made. Academic inquiry into the nature of gender is fine. But oppressing those already struggling to gain acceptance in society is not okay.

To that end, I'm not sure I understand the bullets listed at the bottom of the post:

>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.

Is this not a contradiction? If we are looking to protect philosophers' "social and political advocacy for sex-based rights", it seems implied that this includes advocacy in opposition to the previously stated "right of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals to live free of harassment and abuse".

Even within academic discourse, there is an Overton window. The window may be wider for academics but it still exists. I don't know who gets to decide the Overton window for academics, but there are topics which are certainly out. We can all agree that sympathizing with genocide or advocating racism, things of that nature, are outside the Overton window for academics. If a philosopher muses "maybe killing all Jews is okay", he or she would be removed from the institution, and rightfully so.

The question here is where the Overton window's edge lies in the realm of gender identity. My opinion is that the window ends where people's rights begin. If you want to ask "does gender even exist? Is gender identity a meaningful form of expression?", fine. If you want to say "gender doesn't exist, so don't protect transgender folk from discrimination in legislation", you have gone too far.

Who defines the Overton window in reality? There is no "Board of Acceptable Philosophy". The process we have now of internet rage mobs and "deplatforming" is arguably the most democratic way society has ever had of enforcing an Overton window, but that's not a good thing in the context of academia, which should rightfully be separate from society at large. I think in the old days, the outdated ideas would simply die off with the thinkers who hold them, reflecting the changes in the world in slow motion.