BErlin, Lüneburg, now Leipzig: Another scientist at a German university is to be silenced with the accusation of transphobia. This time he meets the seminar “Historical-Genetic Theory of Gender Relations: Subject – Identity – Love” by the philosophy lecturer Javier Álvarez-Vázquez. There, basic forms of communitization will be examined using the guidelines of Günter Dux’s cultural theory. Transsexuality or transpersonality are not the focus of the event, but rather the question of why we love and seek the closeness of another.
Activists who are not seminary members are not interested in such subtleties. Her allegation is based solely on the brief description in the annotated course catalog and excerpts from the list of literature presented there, which includes, among other things, the allegedly trans-hostile book “Nature and Gender” by philosophy professor Christoph Türcke. Türcke, who has also published on the subject in this newspaper, argues in the book that the gender debate is under the influence of a delusion of technical feasibility, which favors the opinion that one can choose one’s gender completely independently of one’s physical constitution. This also helps to explain the current exponential growth in gender transitions. Contrary to what the activists suggested, Türcke does not completely attribute the individual desire for gender reassignment to external factors.
Where’s the scandal? Türcke’s theses are empirically supported, for example, by the widely received studies by American medical professor Lisa Littman on rapid-onset gender dysphoria. In transhumanist varieties of gender theory, the overcoming of the human body through technology has been a common topos since Donna Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto”. American pharmaceutical entrepreneur Martine Rothblatt, one of the most well-known activists in the United States, explicitly placed transgender people in this perspective.
Accusation of unscientific and phobia
The protest group is also bothered by the fact that Türcke associates the gender change trend with the progress and sales targets of the pharmaceutical industry. This assumption is confirmed, for example, by the report on the Tavistock transgender clinic, which was commissioned by the British government. At the largest gender clinic in the country, it was said there, patients in adolescence would be uncritically channeled to the fastest possible gender reassignment, which would turn them into lifelong pharmaceutical customers. The clinic was then closed. Similar accusations were leveled at gender medicine in the United States by respected gender surgeons Erica Anderson and Marci Bowers. Both are transgender themselves. Anderson criticized sloppy medicine without proper education about the risks, many would later regret the decision to transition.
The activists accuse Türcke and Álvarez-Vázquez of being unscientific and mentally ill (phobia). These are serious accusations aimed at destroying Álvarez-Vázquez’s reputation and career and removing Türcke’s book from the scientific community. That calls for an explanation. However, only one trans person claims that Türcke declared it a feasibility fascination. But this only shows the inability to distinguish between oneself and external influences, i.e. to theoretical abstraction.
The group considers itself particularly vulnerable and therefore wants to remain anonymous, which does not stop them from acting with great aggression against others. Initially, the slanderous allegations were spread to local media and university committees. Then, on October 12, the first seminar session was stormed by around thirty activists. The lecturer said he was shouted down and physically threatened. One of the activists read out a letter of protest. The slogan “queer hostility kills” was written on the blackboard. Álvarez-Vázquez moved the seminar to the Internet and filed a criminal complaint.
The university is informed about all this. She has put the clarification in the hands of the Dean’s Office and Philosophical Institute, which has since spoken to all parties, but does not want to comment on request. According to Álvarez-Vázquez, his institute has given him every form of support. This is good news and, if the promise is kept, would set Leipzig apart from the universities that caved in to pressure from activists. It is to be hoped that this will send out a signal. For the university and science, it is also an act of self-defense, because both institutions would have no future under the rule of subjective well-being.
