ABSTRACTIn this paper, I explain why I disagree with David Pilgrim’s claim that critical realists should deny any ‘natal male’ claim to womanhood. Specifically, Pilgrim and I have different definitions of the transitive and intransitive dimensions of reality. In my version – which I believe is in the spirit of the Bhaskarian version – the transitive dimension embraces everything that is currently being affected by human praxis. This allows for an intersectional view of gender in which it is perfectly possible (...) for the same human, in different contexts, to be an ontological woman, an ontological trans woman ; and an ontological person with a prostate gland, some might say a man. In the same way, it is perfectly possible for a room to contain 17 people for the purposes of setting out tea cups, but 18 people for the purposes of providing lecture hand-outs. For the purposes of everyday life, and even, I argue, for the fight against sexism, trans women have the same claim to being women as cis women. (shrink)

ABSTRACTDavid Pilgrim is, in his words, ‘not at all hostile’ to transgender people. Nevertheless, in my opinion, his position allows him to provide a veneer of philosophical acceptability to transphobic arguments: such as that, if a person can choose their gender, they should be able to choose their age. In stripping away the veneer, I demonstrate that Bhaskar's version of the transitive and intransitive dimensions resolves the supposed conundrum. I also take issue with the idea that sex is biological and (...) gender is a social construct, i.e. that there is a duality between object and subject. I argue that this duality does more harm than good in the fight for equality since it gives philosophical resources to those who would bully LGBTIQ, allowing them to blame their victims. I use my understanding of gender to arrive at a compassionate resolution of the restroom debate, in which everyone's wellbeing is considered. I also warn that the debate may have been commandeered by men to achieve a transphobic agenda and that all women are likely to pay a high price because of it. Furthermore, an unexpected result of my analysis is that Judith Butler's position is, in significant ways and contrary to the opinion of some critical realists, similar to the Bhaskarian critical realist position. (shrink)

Rowland’s message in Morality by Design mirrors Kant’s ‘moral argument’ for God. As such, he is part of a global trend in philosophy towards a ‘religious renaissance’, also reflected in the work of orthodox critical realists, especially those who are drawn to (Kantian-inspired) Jurgen Habermas and/or (Pragmatist) John Dewey in addition to Roy Bhaskar. Many orthodox critical realists may not realize that their approach – which assumes the existence of an absolute, innate, embedded morality – ultimately requires the idea of (...) God to be consistent. By conflating faith with reason, this religious renaissance offers a progressive-sounding discourse that can be used to legitimise activism to achieve socially conservative, yet politically left wing, policy outcomes, norm formation and judicial interpretations. It therefore threatens the hard-won rights of women and members of the LGBTQ community. This review essay offers Bhaskar's original critical realism as an antidote to the religious renaissance in philosophy. (shrink)