Scientists say they have been stopped from giving a talk about the importance of biological sex at an anthropology conference – because of the “harm” it could allegedly cause the Trans and LGBTQI community.
An oral presentation, titled ‘Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology’, had been accepted by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) as a panel at its annual conference in Toronto, Canada, in November. However, the anthropologists giving the talk have shared a joint letter they received from the AAA and the CASCA saying their panel – which consisted of six women – had been pulled after an “extensive consultation”.
The six women say the content of talks would actually have been gender-affirming. They claim their panel was pulled because AAA/CASCA now thinks that using words like male and female, or man and woman, will “imperil the safety of the LGBTQI community”.
One of the presentations the panel intended to give was titled ‘No bones about it: skeletons are binary; people may not be’. It argues that the sex identification of skeletons is “one of the most fundamental components in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology”. However, it also noted that anthropologists should work to ensure “skeletal finds are identified by both biological sex and their gender identity, which is essential due to the current rise in transitioning individuals”.
In a written response to the panel being pulled, its organiser, Kathleen Lowrey – an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alberta – said the six female academics were all “disappointed” that the AAA and the CASCA “have chosen to forbid scholarly dialogue”.
Lowrey, who reportedly describes herself as a gender-critical feminist, said in 2020 that she had been dismissed from an administrative role at the University of Alberta because she believes that gender identity doesn’t trump biological sex for policy decisions. At the time, a spokesperson for the University said she could not comment on the status of Lowrey’s administrative appointment because of privacy reasons – but confirmed that Lowrey remained an associate professor.
Regarding the panel being cancelled, Lowrey said: “While it has become increasingly common in anthropology and public life to substitute ‘sex’ with ‘gender’, there are multiple domains of research in which biological sex remains irreplaceably relevant to anthropological analysis. Contesting the transition from sex to gender in anthropological scholarship deserves much more critical consideration than it has hitherto received.”
Lowery said the planned talk “was concerned with equity and the deep analysis of power” and “has as an aim the achievement of genuine inclusivity”. Consequently, she said: “It comes as a shock to all of us that the AAA and CASCA cancelled the panel due to the false accusation that ‘the ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large’.
“Due to the serious nature of the allegation, we hope that, rather than maintaining secrecy, the AAA and CASCA will share with us and its membership documentation about the exact sources and nature of these complaints and the correspondence that led to this decision.”
She went on to say the panellists were “puzzled” that the AAA / CASCA were “Adopting as its own official stance that to support the continued use of biological sex categories (e.g., male and female; man and woman) is to imperil the safety of the LGBTQI community”.
Lowery continued: “Our panel description… acknowledges that not all anthropologists need to differentiate between sex and gender. One of the abstracts explicitly expresses concerns that ignoring the distinction between sex and gender identity may cause harm to people in the LGBTQI community.”
“In ‘No bones about it: skeletons are binary; people may not be’, Elizabeth Weiss wrote: ‘In forensics, however, anthropologists should be (and are) working on ways to ensure that skeletal finds are identified by both biological sex and their gender identity, which is essential due to the current rise in transitioning individuals’.”
Lowery said that AAA/CASCA’s suggestion the panel “would somehow compromise ‘…the scientific integrity of the programme’ seems to us particularly egregious, as the decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign.”
She added: “Most disturbingly, following other organizations, such as the Society for American Archaeology, the AAA and CASCA have promised that ‘Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion’.
“Anthropologists around the world will quite rightly find chilling this declaration of war on dissent and on scholarly controversy. It is a profound betrayal of the AAA’s principle of ‘advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world’s most pressing problems’.”
In their letter cancelling the panel, the AAA/CASCA said that the “ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large”.
They added: “While there were those who disagree with this decision, we would hope they know their voice was heard and was very much a part of the conversation. It is our hope that we continue to work together so that we become stronger and more unified within each of our associations. Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion.”
The AAA has been approached for further comment.
