Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)
@katjathieme
Into words, sentences, genres. #writingstudies #teamrhetoric #cdnwrds #genai+writing
Someone might say that by writing these threads on Ashley Rubin's thoughts about politicization, I show myself to be "surprisingly fond of ad hominem arguments." The point is, Holly Lawford-Smith, Alex Byrne, Daniel Kodsi are not disinterested truthseekers in a detached realm of trans philosophy.
PS: “This paper is based on an amicus brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court in September 2025.” *Journal of Controversial Ideas,* naturally.
Has Ashley Rubin read any of Daniel Kodsi’s writing? My most benevolent guess would be that she must not have read him beyond this tweet.
Traldi is also a member of the James Madison Yada Yada. He can have all the posts.
Sidenote. This Peter Thiel headshot is at least 12 years old. Thiel hasn't looked this alive in well over a decade.
If you ask me if I was happy with yesterday‘s lunch and I answer you on the scale provided, you will indeed have no idea about: 1) what I had for lunch 2) what I count as a happy-making lunch 3) whether someone who is much taller than I would consider my lunch of yesterday happy-making
Why publish a viewpoint article, defined by the journal as enabling dialogue among scientists and others, and then block this particular thread?
If societal debates don’t matter to biological definition, why was this paper conceived, written, and deemed worth publishing?
Did you know how very much on target your comment is. bsky.app/profile/katj...
Question: What is Dr. Rubin (objective and neutral sociologist) doing at a conference headlined by Chris Rufo and Richard Hanania? Is there something. . .political (!) going on here? <theatrically puzzled face>
Rufo and Hanania as headliners. It’s a Nazi bar, all right.
The level of epistemology is down in the dumps. It feels so strong now 'cause CHE pulls it up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up. Isn’t it neat how this scenario could much possibly happen if potentially it did might come to pass. <jazz hands> Objectivity!
Interesting what gets called “dickhead behaviour” in this instance. Nice choice of word given the pussyfooting that was recently demanded to be the only acceptable way to talk about Byrne’s anti-trans activism. www.thecrimson.com/article/2021...
Somewhat related. If you look closely, even benchmarked efforts to automate the review of other's research writing are very limited. It might not be obvious—"scientific" functions like magic sprinkles in the abstract—but afaik they're testing only for mathematical and logical errors.
From the same 2019 IHE piece as above. You simply don't have a research environment when the only rule that you accept and enforce is "don't say abusive words to others."
Let me show you the full list of references. So very embarrassing. And the co-signatories. Note there are 20 actively teaching professors who thought this was such a fine piece of argumentation that they wanted to put their name to it. The brief is rubbish and easily identifiable as such.
"What is wrong with these people? I'm being so very civil in my anti-trans ways."
Ben Ryan is one of the most farcical dudes on the anti-trans beat. I laughed out loud when this tweet was brought to my attention. I don’t want to deprive you of that kind of fun. Enjoy.
@nicemangos.bsky.social will be so intrigued to hear that 10 „eminent scholars“ from humanities fields vaguely point to something Sam Harris said in 2010 as the sole reference for this entire paragraph.
Were you patiently waiting for the moment when transphobia in philosophy would receive its obligatory defence? Wait no longer. That moment is here.
What’s the threshold number by which individual scholars may pursue some of these goals? 11.5% of individuals in a department? 23.6%? 57.2%? Because, you see: „Problems arise when these political goals distort the scholarly enterprise, as they sometimes do.“ Incisive handwringing, is it not?