{"id":1376,"date":"2022-02-21T10:00:19","date_gmt":"2022-02-21T10:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1376"},"modified":"2022-02-18T15:29:38","modified_gmt":"2022-02-18T15:29:38","slug":"on-choosing-reality-how-public-discussions-of-gender-recognition-go-wrong-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-part-2-rejecting-the-ontology-first-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/on-choosing-reality-how-public-discussions-of-gender-recognition-go-wrong-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-part-2-rejecting-the-ontology-first-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"On \u201cChoosing Reality\u201d: How Public Discussions of Gender Recognition Go Wrong, and What We Can Do About It: Part 2 Rejecting the Ontology-First Approach"},"content":{"rendered":"

Content advice: transphobia.<\/em><\/p>\n

In the last blog post<\/a>, I identified what I call the \u2018Ontology-First Approach\u2019 to gender recognition. This approach says that disagreements about gender recognition should be settled by establishing how gender really exists \u2013 its ontology <\/em>\u2013 as this determines how people should be able to navigate gendered social spaces and take part in gendered social activities (which is what is at stake in disagreements about gender recognition). In this post, I\u2019ll argue that we should reject the Ontology-First Approach.<\/p>\n

The Ontology-First Approach is not obviously misguided. Indeed, it may even seem like common sense: we want to respond to the way the world is, and so when we are thinking about how we should act, ought we not begin by finding out about the relevant parts of the world \u2013 in this case, gender categories \u2013 and go from there? However, when we look more closely at how the Ontology-First Approach might be defended, each option suffers from serious problems.<\/p>\n

The way that someone might try to defend the Ontology-First Approach will depend on what sort of thing they think gender really is. <\/em>One possibility is that someone might think that what gender really is <\/em>concerns bodily features. On this view, being a woman is a matter of belonging to a biological category. Biological categories, the thought goes, are an objective feature of the world (what philosophers call a \u2018natural kind\u2019), so we should arrange our social practices so as to track them. Sometimes this view is expressed in the slogan \u2018sex not gender\u2019, though I\u2019ll stick with the term \u2018gender\u2019 for simplicity here, as it\u2019s the term I\u2019ve been using so far and I don\u2019t want to get embroiled in the complex philosophical debate about whether it\u2019s helpful to distinguish between \u2018sex\u2019 and \u2018gender\u2019.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll also set aside here the question of whether there can be a coherent account of gender (or indeed sex) as a biological category \u2013 because even if there can, <\/em>it would not help the proponent of the Ontology-First Approach. This is because there is simply no straightforward route from identifying a natural kind to determining how social practices should be arranged. There can be all sorts of reasons for social practices not to correspond to natural kinds. Indeed, this happens all the time.<\/p>\n

For example, minerals are usually thought to be natural kinds; and two different minerals, jadeite and nephrite, are both considered to be \u2018jade\u2019 even though they are quite different in their chemical composition. Treating both minerals as jade is a matter of social practices \u2013 and whether or not we should <\/em>do this is a question that can only be settled by thinking about what we want to use jade for and whether or not beginning to differentiate between jadeite and nephrite in our day to day activities would be helpful for those purposes. Simply pointing out that jadeite and nephrite are in fact different minerals does not settle the issue at all.<\/p>\n

A different way to defend the Ontology-First Approach starts from the view that having a certain gender is not a matter of someone\u2019s biological features, but of their social features, such as the social relations they stand in to other people. On this view, gender is a \u2018social kind\u2019, and according to many philosophers, being a member of certain social kind is a matter of falling under certain social constraints and enablements. For example, what it is to be a judge is to be enabled to do certain things (e.g. to pass sentences) and constrained from doing others (e.g. having certain sorts of business interests). On this way of thinking, the defender of the Ontology-First Account does not need to traverse the tricky gap between natural kinds and social practices; rather, they can simply say that our social practices should track the relevant social kinds because they already capture what matters for this purpose.<\/p>\n

This defence of the Ontology-First Approach encounters a different problem. If we think about social kinds in terms of constraints and enablements then it should become clear that the very fact that an individual is constructed as a member of a social kind can be wrongful: people might be socially constrained from doing things that they should, morally speaking, be able to do. When this happens, we can describe it as a case of \u2018ontic injustice\u2019. When someone suffers ontic injustice, they have been constructed as a member of a certain social kind, where this construction, in and of itself, constitutes an injustice.<\/p>\n

Think, for example, of someone who is socially constructed as a member of the social kind slave<\/em> in Jamaica in the 1820s. What it is to be a member of that kind is to be constrained in all sorts of ways: it is to be made into someone who lacks social protection against exploitation, violence, even murder. All of these constraints are hideously unjust. The person who is socially constructed as a slave in that context suffers a wrong in being so constructed \u2013 and we can say that this is so without knowing anything about what happens to them after that point. They suffer an ontic injustice.<\/p>\n

Realizing that ontic injustice is possible fatally undermines the Ontology-First Approach. If an existing social kind is ontically unjust, why should we consider ourselves bound to defer to it in arranging our social practices? In arranging our social practices, without further consideration, so as to track the distinction between people who are members of the kind and people who are not, we run the risk of perpetuating the pattern of unjust constraints and enablements that constitute the kind. It is no defence whatsoever of slavery to point out that \u2018slave\u2019 is a social kind that really exists (indeed, that\u2019s the whole problem).<\/p>\n

It is important to stress that I am not claiming that we should never <\/em>arrange our social practices so that they track ontically unjust kinds. We might need to respond differently to kind members and non-kind-members precisely in order to mitigate the effects of injustice. However, the mere possibility that we might want to organise our social practices in ways that do not<\/em> track existent social kinds is enough to undermine the Ontology-First Approach, because of the way that approach assumes that social practices should always<\/em> track existent kinds.<\/p>\n

As soon as we switch to a view on which social practices should sometimes <\/em>track existing kinds and sometimes <\/em>depart from them, we have rejected the Ontology-First Approach. This rejection enables us to keep open the option of actively intervening in an unjust situation with the aim of creating a different, better social reality. This is something that feminists have always done \u2013 and, indeed, something that members of any social justice movement must<\/em> do.<\/p>\n

Overall, then, the Ontology-First Approach cannot be justified, regardless of whether we think of gender in biological terms or in social terms. We should reject the Ontology-First Approach, and look for a different way of settling questions about gender recognition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Content advice: transphobia. In the last blog post, I identified what I call the \u2018Ontology-First Approach\u2019 to gender recognition. This approach says that disagreements about gender recognition should be settled […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1372,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"The second post in the On \u201cChoosing Reality\u201d: How Public Discussions of Gender Recognition Go Wrong, and What We Can Do About It' series Part 2 Rejecting the Ontology-First Approach by Katharine Jenkins on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[327,124,329,264],"custom_author":[328],"class_list":["post-1376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-gender","tag-justice","tag-ontology","tag-transgender","custom_author-jenkins-katherine"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-mc","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1386,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/on-choosing-reality-how-public-discussions-of-gender-recognition-go-wrong-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-part-3-beyond-the-ontology-first-approach\/","url_meta":{"origin":1376,"position":0},"title":"On \u201cChoosing Reality\u201d: How Public Discussions of Gender Recognition Go Wrong, and What We Can Do About It Part 3. Beyond the Ontology-First Approach","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Content advice: transphobia. In the previous post, I argued that we should reject the Ontology-First Approach, which is the view that questions about gender recognition should be settled by first establishing what gender really is. This raises the question of how we should approach discussions of gender recognition. In this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1369,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/on-choosing-reality-how-public-discussions-of-gender-recognition-go-wrong-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-part-1-arguing-about-what-gender-really-is\/","url_meta":{"origin":1376,"position":1},"title":"On \u201cChoosing Reality\u201d: How Public Discussions of Gender Recognition Go Wrong, and What We Can Do About It: Part 1 Arguing About What Gender Really Is","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Content advice: transphobia. On 10th October 2018, a full page-advert ran in the Metro, London\u2019s free commuter newspaper. The topic of the advert was an imminently closing government consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the legislation governing changes of legal gender for trans people in England and Wales. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2047,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/confessions-intersectionality-and-personal-pronouns\/","url_meta":{"origin":1376,"position":2},"title":"Confessions, intersectionality and personal pronouns","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In the past decade or so, great achievements have been made in the emancipation of genderqueer persons. Not only has there been increased visibility of these individuals in politics and media, but more and more often, practices are instated that aim to include, respect and do justice to genderqueer individuals\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/06\/OpenForDebate_Talbi-_Molteni_Giuseppe_La_confessione_BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1064,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/is-jk-rowling-transphobic\/","url_meta":{"origin":1376,"position":3},"title":"Is JK Rowling transphobic?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 30, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Is JK Rowling transphobic? According to many transgender activists and their supporters, including Harry Potter stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Eddie Redmayne she is. The LGBTQ+ organisation GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has said that the author \u201ccontinues to align herself with an ideology which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/BWTrans_Women_are_Real_Women_39819062561-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1051,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ii-bodily-threats\/","url_meta":{"origin":1376,"position":4},"title":"II: Bodily threats","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"It is the bodily difference between males and females that explains most of the other differences in the roles of men and women in any given society\u2014both in Homeric society and in ours. The social and ceremonial differences in their roles are ritualisations and \u2019containments\u2019 of the difference and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1435,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/whats-wrong-with-the-individualistic-approach-to-public-trust-in-science\/","url_meta":{"origin":1376,"position":5},"title":"What\u2019s Wrong with the Individualistic Approach to Public Trust in Science?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 16, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"While academics and commentators have been worrying about distrust of science for some time now, the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown into stark relief the full scale of the problem as well as its practical consequences. In rich countries, a sizable portion of the eligible population refuses to get vaccinated against\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/05\/Dipsea.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/05\/Dipsea.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/05\/Dipsea.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/05\/Dipsea.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/05\/Dipsea.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/02\/Gender-Recognition-Act-715x431-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1376"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1382,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1376\/revisions\/1382"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1372"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1376"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}