Scholarlink

<p>We argue that poorly reasoned, scientifically unsound, and materially harmful anti-trans arguments should be rejected when they are submitted to scholarly spaces. Taking as a case study Isabela Fairclough’s 2023 International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) keynote speech and subsequent publication in the conference’s proceedings, we demonstrate that the arguments being made in the paper contradict its own stated standards of critical rationalism, misrepresent scientific findings on trans and intersex communities, and lend illegitimate authority to actions that are likely to have harmful consequences. We treat this specific keynote as part of a larger pattern of contemporary discourse where trans lives are thrust into the center of public debate through disingenuous appeals to open dialogue. In response, we call for scholars to embrace academic values such as reason, trustworthy evidence, and professional ethics when testing arguments in academic spaces, especially arguments that claim to take a critical rationalist approach to deep disagreements. Arguments that fail to meet those tests should be rejected.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Bad Arguments, Bad Science, and Bad Consequences: A Response to an Anti-Trans Keynote

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月1日

查看全文
  • Emma Frances Bloomfield,
  • Leah Ceccarelli

摘要

We argue that poorly reasoned, scientifically unsound, and materially harmful anti-trans arguments should be rejected when they are submitted to scholarly spaces. Taking as a case study Isabela Fairclough’s 2023 International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) keynote speech and subsequent publication in the conference’s proceedings, we demonstrate that the arguments being made in the paper contradict its own stated standards of critical rationalism, misrepresent scientific findings on trans and intersex communities, and lend illegitimate authority to actions that are likely to have harmful consequences. We treat this specific keynote as part of a larger pattern of contemporary discourse where trans lives are thrust into the center of public debate through disingenuous appeals to open dialogue. In response, we call for scholars to embrace academic values such as reason, trustworthy evidence, and professional ethics when testing arguments in academic spaces, especially arguments that claim to take a critical rationalist approach to deep disagreements. Arguments that fail to meet those tests should be rejected.