Mick Hartley

Philosophy book reviews have a tradition of plain-speaking, verging on the rude. It’s all part of the cut and thrust of philosophical debate. There is, though, one exception to this rule. Yep, that’s right: anything trans-related. “No debate” is the mantra. There are certain ideas that, especially in the academy, simply cannot be questioned.

The book under review in this case, by Rach Cosker-Rowland, is Gender Identity: What It Is and Why It Matters, “Cosker-Rowland addresses a wide range of gender-critical feminist philosophers’ views against trans rights and shows that these arguments fail.” So there we are. The reviewer, Alex Byrne, a professor of philosophy at MIT, details the problems he encountered in The Philosophers Magazine – On being rejected.

[L]ast October, I saw that Rach Cosker-Rowland’s Gender Identity: What It Is and Why It Matters had just come out with Oxford University Press. “Philosophically powerful,” “excellent, important, and timely,” and “fascinating, well-argued,” according to blurbs from well-known philosophers who work in this area. Timely, for sure. I thought reviewing Cosker-Rowland’s effort myself would be worthwhile, since I’ve written extensively on gender identity, in my 2023 book Trouble with Gender and other places.

Many readers will be aware that the topic of sex and gender has not showcased philosophers on their best behavior. It is almost ten years since Rebecca Tuvel was dogpiled by colleagues for writing about transracialism, and—incredibly—things went downhill from there. Dissenters from mainstream thought in feminist philosophy have been subjected to name-calling, no-platforming and other extraordinarily unprofessional tactics. As a minor player in this drama, I have had OUP renege on a contracted book and an invited OUP handbook chapter on pronouns rejected. 

To cut a long story short, yes, Byrne’s review was rejected, but no one will tell him why, or take responsibility. Read it and weep.