She is not a serious scholar of feminism/gender Holly, this is obvious to anyone with training in the field
— Rachel McKinney (@r_a_mckinney) July 26, 2019
where “training in the field” means 3rd wave and later, i suppose? i’m just not sure what it would take for you to concede that gender critical feminists are peers. is it that we haven’t published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals yet? give us time! most of us only got into
— Dr Holly Lawford-Smith (@H_L_Smith_) July 26, 2019
(three tweets snipped)
I literally mean “training in the field”- sitting in on graduate courses, participating in conferences, learning history of the tradition, understanding the competing positions in the debates, picking up vocab and background assumptions.
— Rachel McKinney (@r_a_mckinney) July 26, 2019
And — assuming this is true, which I doubt — your view is that all this is required to count as a serious scholar? in a subfield of PHILOSOPHY?! The privilege, it burns.
— John Schwenkler (@johnschwenkler) July 26, 2019
Last year I said, in response to someone who seemed to be using the concepts of “privilege” and “epistemic injustice” without understanding them:
Being slightly familiar with the literature whose terms you’re using and using those terms properly isn’t a form of privilege, even if people who don’t do it tend to get marginalized and dismissed.
I didn’t expect this to be controversial! Or, perhaps less tendentiously, what does Schwenkler mean by “privilege” here?
Saucers of Mud 