The sudden cancellation of a lecture by ecophilosopher Derek Jensen at the Swedish Researchers' Desk Institute has sparked controversy amid growing concerns. The unexpected development was triggered by the decision not to allow Jensen, a previously invited speaker, to speak. It was argued that this decision was due to his involvement in the Deep Green Resistance (DGR) movement.
The unfolding saga came to public attention when Dr. Layne Hartsell, a prominent figure in the field, took it upon himself to write a letter to Alasdair Skelton, chair of the Researchers' Desk. In this letter, Dr. Hartsell eloquently articulated his deep-seated concerns about the cancellation of Jensen's talk, and particularly emphasized the lack of a clear explanation or a counter-argument from the Institute.
One striking aspect of this incident that deeply troubled Dr. Hartsell was the apparent dissonance between the stated reasons for the cancellation and the Institute's strong emphasis on inclusivity. In an earlier statement, Researchers' Desk had emphasized its commitment to welcoming everyone, regardless of gender identity. This statement is in keeping with the current socio-political climate, in which discussions of gender and identity have gained immense prominence, especially in the United States.
However, the crux of the matter is the essential distinction between the concepts of sex and gender. Dr. Hartsell emphasized that while the scientific community agrees on the biological basis of sex, which is determined by chromosome 23 and specific receptors in target cells, gender is far more complicated and less understood. Gender identity, it seems, defies simple genetic or endocrinological categorization.
At the heart of this ongoing debate lies a crucial, unanswered question: Does society have the knowledge to accurately distinguish between sex and gender? While there's room for speculation regarding the integration of genetics and endocrinology within the realm of biological philosophy, Dr. Hartsell contends that even if such knowledge were readily available, its dissemination and assimilation would require considerable time and effort.
This dilemma leaves us with two plausible scenarios: either society lacks the necessary knowledge to make an informed distinction between sex and gender, requiring patience as we await further scientific insights, or this knowledge exists but has not yet been fully understood and communicated to the public. In the latter case, Dr. Hartsell argues vehemently against condemning or canceling individuals based on the prevailing lack of public understanding, especially in a field where understanding is constantly evolving.
From Dr. Hartsell's perspective, the ongoing moral panic surrounding this issue embodies a struggle for power. He suggests that this struggle may be rooted in a postmodern-derived authoritarianism or religious authoritarianism, aimed at instituting a form of pseudo-clericalism. Dr. Hartsell calls for a collective effort to resist such tendencies.
In a final appeal, Dr. Hartsell asks the Researchs' Desk to issue a public apology to Derrick Jensen. He hopes that such a gesture could put an end to the ongoing confusion, especially at a time when women, especially those who are female, are facing multiple challenges in society.
The controversy surrounding the cancellation of Derrick Jensen's talk underscores the broader societal debate about the intersection of biology, identity, and politics, an issue that is likely to remain at the forefront of public discourse for years to come.-- Ed
The following is an email from Dr. Layne Hartsell to Dr. Skelton, the Researchers' Desk, in Sweden.
Dear Dr. Skelton
I am writing with great concern over your cancellation of Derrick Jensen’s talk on ecological philosophy at your institute. As I understand it, Jensen had already been invited, and then close to the date, was notified that he would not be permitted to speak due to a position of Deep Green Resistance on their website. As an aside, in the cancellation, I did not see any quote from the DGR website or rebuttal from you. I did see in your letter “We welcome everyone irrespective of how they identify themselves in terms of gender." This is fine, in fact, great under the fairly awful social conditions these days, particularly in the US; however, there is no analytical value to your statement since it has nothing to do with DGRs actual principles that are about the fact of sex, so far as we know scientifically (which is what the courts use).
Concerning the matter of sex and gender, it is certain that scientists know, or it is easy to ask the ones on your faculty, that sex is determined by chromosome 23 and then receptors in target cells in the skin, striated muscles, testes, etc. The scientific definition of sex is at the level of genetics and endocrinology; courts (and society) rely on empirical science as mentioned. This is a fact. For sex, we do not have empirical evidence on how many cell receptors are necessary to determine male and female if that is even the case in reality. Also, gender cannot be reduced down to genetics as far as I know; we do not have this level of knowledge either and I tend to think that might be beyond various limitations of our ability to understand.
Speculation is fine about the integration of genetics and endocrinology in the philosophy of biology, and then how we are made up psychologically; but even if we had that information about genes, receptors, cells, and on up, it would be so new that the teachers in schools would not have had enough time to teach children and do adult continuing education to update them. I see two main ways this goes; either we do not have the knowledge and if not, then we have to wait for the medical scientists to understand more. Or, we have the knowledge and it just has not had the time to be taught. In the latter case, people in general should not be blamed and canceled due to such a lack of understanding. Personally, I work in research and am trained in biomedicine and I have not seen any technical papers in genetics and endocrinology on the fact of knowledge of the kind of integration that it would take for a full understanding. Therefore, what I think is happening with the moral panic is a power grab, a postmodern derived authoritarianism or religious authoritarianism is trying to install a kind of parametricism. You all ought to be fighting against this.
Whatever is the case with the various groups, they will have to work their problems out for themselves. What I do call for is an open apology to Derrick Jensen hoping that the sheer insanity stops as female women are under attack in any of a number of other ways in society.
Sincerely,
Layne Hartsell, PhD
Asia Institute
Tokyo/Berlin
