Concepts and Contexts: Towards a Theory of "Hermeneutical Bastardization"

Hypatia (2024),1–22

doi:10.1017/hyp.2024.32

ConceptsandContexts:TowardsaTheoryof “HermeneuticalBastardization”

MeganR.F.Drury

DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofNottingham,HumanitiesBuilding,UniversityParkCampus, Nottingham,UK

Email: apyjd3@nottingham.ac.uk

(Received5May2022;revised5October2023;accepted10October2023)

Abstract

ThispapertheorizesanddefendsaprocessIterm “hermeneuticalbastardization.” This concepttracksthewayinwhichsomehermeneuticalinjusticesarisenotfromagapin asharedpoolofhermeneuticalresources,butfromthedecontextualizationofanadvantageoushermeneuticalresourceintoanother(typicallydominant)hermeneuticaldomain. Thisdecontextualization bastardizes hermeneuticalresourcesbyseveringtheconcept fromitsoriginalmeaningandsignificance.Ifocusontheterm “transwoman” and examinethewayinwhichdominantepistemicagentsrewriteandredefinetheconcept accordingtoprominentandprevalentperniciousrepresentations.Specifically,once decontextualized,theterm “transwoman” denotesanindividualwhoisthoroughlyerotic andsexualinnature. Hermeneuticalbastardization canilluminatehowhermeneutically marginalizedgroupsarereconstructedbyotherdominantepistemicagentsaccording totheseperniciousrepresentationsandcanbesilencedwhilsttheirconcepts,orrather their terms,arebeingutilizedinsetsofdominanthermeneuticalresourcesinwaysthat severelydivergefromtheiroriginalintra-communalconceptualization.Thistypeofhermeneuticalinjusticedoesnotarisefromalacunainoursetofresources,butinstead depends ontheuptakeofaconcept’stermanditssubsequentdecontextualization.

Defininghermeneuticalbastardization

Variousphilosophicalworkshaveundertakentoexpandandenhancethenotionof hermeneuticalinjustice introducedbyFricker(2007)inrecentyears(Pohlhaus 2012; Medina 2012, 2013, 2017;Barnes 2016;Elzinga 2018;Goetze 2018;Dembroff 2020; Hänel 2020;Jenkins 2020;Federico 2021;Falbo 2022).Iaminterestedinaphenomenonthatmakesanon-lacuna-basedspeciesofhermeneuticalinjusticepossible: hermeneuticalbastardization. Ielaborateanddefendthefollowingdefinition:

Aresourceorconceptishermeneuticallybastardizedwhenitisdisplacedfroma setofcounter-epistemologicalhermeneuticalresources.Subsequentlylocatedina

©TheAuthor(s),2024.PublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPressonbehalfofHypatia,aNonprofitCorporation.Thisis anOpenAccessarticle,distributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionlicence(https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),whichpermitsunrestrictedre-use,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium, providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.

dominantsetofhermeneuticalresources,theconceptnolongerhastheoriginal contentorforcethatitheldintra-communally.Instead,themeaningofthe resourceorconceptis “re-written” andispoorlyoperationalizedwithinlarger socialdiscoursesthroughthisprocessofdecontextualization.

Thisdecontextualization bastardizes hermeneuticalresourcesbyseveringtheconcept fromitsoriginalmeaningandsignificance.InthispaperIunderstand “hermeneutical resources ” tomeanconcepts includingstereotypes,images,associations,narratives, andheuristics thatenableboth knowledgeacquisition and knowledgetransmission (McKinnon 2016,441;Podosky 2019,145).1 Thepoorredefinitionofresourcescauses harmtomembersofhermeneuticallymarginalizedgroupsbecauseoftheinfluence exertedbywhatCollins(2000)terms controllingimages.Controllingimagesarepotent stereotypesormisrepresentationsthatexertculturalinfluencebyprescribingbehaviors forhermeneuticallymarginalizedgroups.Theseimagesprovidethebasisforpoorconceptualizationsofhermeneuticalresources2 thatareinterpretedindifferentwaysbyepistemicagentsdependingonthepoolofresourcesbeingused.

ThenextsectiontrackswhatItaketobekeydevelopmentsintheliteratureonhermeneuticalinjustice.Ihighlightthewaysinwhichhermeneuticalinjusticeliteraturehas focusedonlacunaeinthepoolofsharedhermeneuticalresources.Ithereforeshiftmy focustoFalbo’s(2022)critiqueofthisemphasisonlacunae.MydefinitionofhermeneuticalbastardizationdependsonFalbo’sclaimthatspeciesofhermeneuticalinjustice existthatdonotdependonalacuna perse,butinsteadarecausedby poorconceptual aptnessandadequacy.

NextIfocusonthecapacityof representations (bothcognitiveandinthemedia)to exertinfluenceoverthewaysinwhichepistemicagentsparsethesocialworld. Thisincludesthewayinwhichadominantknowercharacterizes(andmarginalizes) anindividualonthebasisoftheirgroupidentity,usingthesehermeneuticalresources toimpacttheconstitutionofselfhoodexperiencedbyanepistemicagentwithinthe groupbeingrepresented.IdrawondeLauretis(1984, 1989)andCollins(2000)tosubstantiatethenotionofproductiveimagesandtoargueagainstFricker’sviewthatthis processislacuna-based.Isubsequentlyidentifyandreconstructabinarypairofimages fortransgenderwomenthattwistsexpositivityandenjoymentofsexinto aneroticcore thatmakesalltransgenderwomenintoasexualresourceofonetypeoranother(submissiveoractive).

AfterthisIpresenttheideaofhermeneuticalbastardizationandcashitoutinterms ofdecontextualizationandpoorconceptoperationalization.HereIreturntodefinitions of “hermeneuticalresources” andunderscoretheexistenceofresourcesthatcan aid understandingandthosethatcan hinder it.ConsideringDotson’s(2012)critiqueof a single sharedpoolofresourcesandMedina’s(2013)argumentconcerningepistemic vicesIestablishthathermeneuticalresourcescanbe pernicious. Ithendescribehow decontextualizationofhermeneuticalresourcescantakeplacefromamarginalized pooltoadominantpoolofhermeneuticalresources.DrawingonFalbo(2022)I arguethathermeneuticalbastardizationisaparallelconcepttothatof hermeneutical clashes thedifferencedependingonwhetherconceptualdecontextualizationorconceptualdistortionoccur.

ThenIdefendthedefinitionofbastardizationasdependingondecontextualization byexaminingthewaythatthesametwinimagescanbeinterpretedindiversewaysby epistemicagentsdependingontheirpoolofresources.Highlightingthatasubsetof patriarchalepistemicagentsinterpretstranswomenasfetishizedsexualresourceswhilst

someradicalfeministepistemicagentsinterprettranswomenasahumiliatingperformanceorsexualthreatdemonstratesthattheconcept<Transgenderwoman>doesnot containanyoftheintra-communalmeaningsdevelopedbythetranscommunitybut hasbeenremovedfromitsoriginalconceptualcontext.

Iconcludethat hermeneuticalbastardization canilluminatehowhermeneutically marginalizedgroupscanbesilencedwhilsttheirconcepts,oratleast,theirterms,are beingutilizedinsetsofdominanthermeneuticalresources.Thistypeofhermeneutical injusticedoesnotdependonalacunainoursetofresources,andinstead depends on theuptakeofaconceptanditsdecontextualization.Thisresultsincontrollingimages offeringtheclosestapproximationtoconceptualizationsofcertainidentitiesfor privilegedepistemicagentsthataretakento adequatelyrepresent thegroupsfor whichtheystand.

Hermeneuticalinjusticeandhermeneuticalresources

Thestudyofhermeneuticalinjustice,amongstotherformsofepistemicinjustice,has becomeakeyareaofinterestinsocialepistemologyfollowingFricker’s(2007)articulationoftheconcept.OntheFrickerianmodel,hermeneuticalinjusticedescribesthe structurallydifferentiatedcapacitiesofvarioussocialgroupstodefine,conceive,and communicatetheirexperiencesinthesocialworld(Fricker 2007,148).Illustrated throughtheearlyfeministmovementsofthe1970s,Frickerhighlightsthewayin which women ’sexperiences3 requiredconsciousness-raisingsessionstoshedlighton the “scantlyunderstood,barelyarticulateexperiences” (148)thatwereunrecognizable asasharedexperienceforwomenunabletoattendthesemeetings(Medina 2017, 45–46).

Redstockingsco-founderKathieSarachild,theprimaryproponentofconsciousnessraising(C-R)asapolitical(andepistemic)strategy,definedtheideaofC-Rasendeavoringto “awakenpeople [to]thinkingandacting” inwaysthatwouldwiden “the commonpoolofknowledge” (Sarachild 1978,147,148;seealsoEchols 2019,84). C-Rfacilitatesthenamingandconceptualizationof hermeneuticalresources because ofitsroleincontributingtothepoolofconceptsavailableformembersofamarginalizedcommunity(FrickerandJenkins 2017,268).Thatis,C-Rofferedameansby whichindividuals(inthisinstance, certaintypes ofwomen)4 areabletomaketheir experiencesintelligibletothemselvesandtoothersbecauseitfacilitatestheproduction ofconceptsthatfilllacunaeinafullunderstandingofour “distinctivesocialexperiences ” (Fricker 2007,1,6,150–51).

OnthemodelpresentedbyFrickerin Epistemicinjustice (2007),thetwotypesof injustices,testimonialandhermeneutic,areseparateandrarelycomeintocontact witheachother(2007,159).However,thetwoformsofinjusticeantagonizeeach other,coalescingtoenhancetheeffectsofeachother hermeneuticalinjusticescan dependontestimonialinsensitivities,andtestimonialinjusticescanbeenabledby theunintelligibilitythatappearstobefallmembersofhermeneuticallymarginalized groups(Medina 2012,206).ThisleadsMedina(2017,42) inwhatistomyminda criticalmomentintheliterature tochallengethenotionthatindividualscannotbe culpableforhermeneuticalinjustices(Fricker 2007,7,168).

ForFricker,lacunaeinthesetofsharedhermeneuticalresourcesarenotcausedby anagent’sactions,butbycertainstructuralfailures.ButifhermeneuticalandtestimonialinjusticesarenotasdistinctasFrickerfirstproposed,thenthelinebetweenculpabilityandinculpabilitymustalsonarrow.Payingattentiontotheroleof socialstructures

4MeganR.F.Drury

andthe complicity ofagentsinthedirectorindirectmaintenanceoftheseinjusticesisa crucialmeanstoensurethat “[individuals]cannot(atleastnotalwaysandcompletely) beallowedtohidebehindtheshortcomingsoftheirculture” (Medina 2017,42). Moreover,thelacunaunderscoredbyFrickerissaidtobeagapin the sharedsetofconceptsandresources.BothMedina(2012, 2013, 2017)andDotson(2012)rightlychallengethisassumptionandopenuptheoreticalgroundfromwhichtotakeanalysesof thephenomenonofhermeneuticalinjusticefurther.

Dotson(2012)challengestheideathatthereexistsoneparticularsetofsharedconceptsandfavorsinsteadaviewofmultiplehermeneuticaldomainsthatmightcompete withoraffirmoneanotherandmayhavemoreorlesssuitableresourcesavailablein each.Medinaemphasizesthe polyphonic natureofcommunicativecontextsandthedifficultywithpurportingtoknowwhichvoicesusewhichconcepts,especiallyincasesof marginalizedcommunitiesinwhichterminologyandconceptsmaystillbeintheir embryonicstate(Medina 2012,209).Theseapproachesreversewhatmightotherwise beassumed;5 thus,namingandconceptualizingahermeneuticalresourceisnotmerely thesolutiontoaninjustice,butthebeginningofacomplexprocessofdiagnosingthe factorsanddynamicsthatmadethestructuralfailing(s)possible.Theexistenceofmultiplesetsofhermeneuticalresources,inconjunctionwiththepolyphoniccharacterof communicativecontexts,therefore,inducesacriticalturninthinkingthroughhermeneuticalinjusticebringinguscloserto “calibrat[ing][the]complexissuesofsharedand collectiveresponsibility ” (Medina 2017,43).

ThoughtheinitialmodelpresentedbyFrickerpointstotheexistencesof lacunae in certainepistemicandhermeneuticcontexts,theemphasisonthelacunaitselfcanprecludethepossibilityofindividualsfeelingandaccepting complicity inthemanufacture ofthesegapsinunderstandingandinterpretativefailings.AsMedina(2012,207)demonstrates,weoughttobesensitivetotheselacunaeasbothvictimsofthemandperpetuatorsofthem.Thatis,weoughttoparticipateinourownconsciousness-raising practicesthatfacilitatetheproductionofintra-communalconceptsandpractices,whilst simultaneouslybeingsensitivetothelacunaefacedbyothersocialgroups.Frickerhighlightsvirtuouslisteningasakeystrategyinthemarchtowardshermeneuticaljustice, butMedina(2017,48)describes hermeneuticresistance asapracticeinwhichwenot onlyexercisethekindsofsensitivityandacuteawarenesstowardsthespeaker’sextraordinarystructuralbarrierstocommunication,butinwhichweseekto “[exert]epistemic friction.” Hearers,therefore,oughttoactivelysubvertandabandonthedominant modesofinterpretationandknowingtomakeepistemicandconceptualspacefor seemingly unintelligiblevoicesandmeanings.Notonly virtuouslylistening, then,but actively seekingtounderstandbyrefusingtheprevailingdominantepistemologyandrecognizing hermeneuticaldissonance iscrucialtohermeneuticaljustice(Medina 2012,209).Itis clear,then,thatidentifyinglacunaeinone’ssetofhermeneuticalresourcesandactively seekingtosubvertorclosethesegapsinknowledgeisanimperativeforhermeneutical justicetooccur,andnodoubtavaluablecontributiontotheliteratureonepistemic injustice.

Hermeneuticalresistanceofthistypecanbeunderstoodasacriticalpracticewith whichpeopleoutsideofahermeneuticallymarginalizedgroupcancombat willfulhermeneuticalignorance (Pohlhaus 2012).Here,membersofgroupswithintracommunallyintelligiblemeaningsandconceptsaremisunderstoodnotbecausethe “epistemicagent[s][are]notbelievedorcannotmakesenseof[their]world” but becausedominantknowerscontinuetoparsetheworldaccordingtoanarrowepistemic framework(Pohlhaus 2012,716).Thatis,ineffect,thedominantknowerssuffertheir

ownhermeneuticlacunathroughtheirownresistancetoperceivingtheworldandits variousconfigurations.Whilstthissurveyoftheliteraturehasidentifiedimportant andvaluableturnsinthedevelopmentoftheorizinghermeneuticinjustice,itsstructure, andpossiblemeansofresistance,thediscourseassumesordependsonthepresenceofa lacuna inasetofresources.ThisismostexplicitinFricker(2007,161),inwhichthe conceptualgapiscomparedtoaholeintheozonelayerunderwhichprotection fromdiscriminationismostthin,ifnotabsent.Theselacunae-centeredanalysesare valuable,ofcourse,butinmyview,theyarenotexhaustiveofthevarietiesofhermeneuticalinjustice.

Falbo(2022,346–47),likemyself,contendsthatlacunae-centeredanalysesareinsufficientsincetheyprecludetheorizingabouthermeneuticalinjustices not causedbythese hermeneuticalgaps.Thecriticalissueisthatamajorityoftheoriesofhermeneutical injusticedonotconsiderthe productive poweroftheseresourcestosociallylegislate oppressiveattitudesandarrangementsthatrestrictaccessto “practicesofinfluential meaning-making” formarginalizedgroups(Falbo 2022,347).Bydrawingtogether Collins’ (1986, 2000)elucidationof controllingimages asperniciouslyproductiverepresentationsthatfunctionasbasesforracistknowers’ knowledge,andJenkins’ (2020,191) argumentthat onticinjustice befallsindividualsiftheyareconstructedasbelongingtoa socialkindbearing “constraintsandenablements,” Falbo(2022)underscoresthepower conceptshavetonotonlyinterpret,buttoactivelyformandshape,socialreality.Itis centraltomyargumentinthispaperthatthe presence ofconceptscanbejustasproductiveofhermeneuticalinjusticeastheir absence

Wemustthereforebeginthepresentanalysisfromunderstandingthesocialworldas parsedepistemically,whetherjustlyorunjustly,throughhermeneuticalresources. Hermeneuticalresourcesthatsociallysanctionagentialandstructuralracism,sexism, classism,andqueerphobiaarestillhermeneuticalresources;theyare,however,perniciousorharmful.Thatis,hermeneuticalresourcesarenotexclusivelyinertconduits thataidintelligibility,butcruciallytheseresources “servecrucial productive functions aswell” (Falbo 2022,348,emphasisinoriginal).Thus,echoingMedina ’scontribution above,thepresenceofanamedresourceisinsufficienttoensurehermeneuticaljustice; theresourcesneedtobeoftheright type,carefullyexaminedandcritiquedagainstthe historicalcontextsofoursocialworldtoprevent “afailureofconceptualapplicationor conceptualaptness” (Falbo 2022,352,354).

Mydefinitionofhermeneuticalbastardizationdependsontheexistenceofspeciesof hermeneuticalinjusticethatarenotcausedbyagapinourhermeneuticalresources, andthereforeIseektoframehermeneuticalbastardizationasaparallelphenomenon tothatof “hermeneuticalclash” (Falbo 2022).Inthenextsection,Iexamineperniciouslyproductivehermeneuticalresources,drawingondeLauretis’ discussionofthe distancebetweenrealwomenandtherepresentationWomanandCollins’ discussion ofthelogicofcontrollingimages.Thissubsequentlygroundsmyarticulationoftwo perniciousresourcesthatareaffixedtotheterm “transwoman” .

Representations,resources,andsexualization

Theprevioussectiondemonstratedthetendencytopresupposehermeneuticalinjustice asproceedingfromagapinhermeneuticalresources,andtoindicatetheneedforconceptualizingformsofhermeneuticalinjusticethatdonotdependonlacunae.Inthis section,Ifocusonthewaysinwhichhermeneuticalresourcesare productive;thatis, howsomeconceptshavethecapacitytoinfluenceanagent’sperceptionofthesocial

6MeganR.F.Drury

world,andhencetoinfluencethematerialrealitiesofmembersofmarginalizedgroups. Specifically,thissectionconcerns perniciously productiveimagesandrepresentations. Thoughthedeceiver/pretenderbinary(Bettcher 2007;McKinnon 2014;Serano 2016)isaconciseanalysisofsomeperceptionsoftranswomen,Iinsteaddevelopa pairoftwinimagesthatinterprettranswomenthroughasolelysexuallens6 such thatwebecomeeitherthegoodsubmissiveorthecarnal(wo)man-eater.Thisisto underscorethatcontrollingimagestwistafacetofagroup’sidentityandcentralizeit asemblematicoftheentiretyofagroup’scharacter.Thisoccurswithtransgender womeninthecaseofsexuality.Thoughwecancelebrateoursexualityandbeproudly sexpositive,certainepistemicgroupscentralizeoursexuality,transformingtrans womenintopurelyeroticbeings.Controllingimagesproduceaconceptof <Transgenderwomen>assexualcreaturesthrough-and-through.

Representationsandcontrollingimages

Tosituatetheproceedingdiscussion,itisnecessarytofirstdetailthekindofcasethat promptsthechargeofdisingenuityifanappealtoalacunaismade.Thefetishizationof transgenderwomen,inwhichrealexistingtranswomenareinterpretedandsubjectively constructedbydominantepistemicagentsaspurelyeroticcreatures,oughttobeconsideredacaseofhermeneuticalinjustice.Hermeneuticalinjusticeproducestheconstructionofanindividualassomethingwhichtheyarenot,accordingtothebroader perceptionofthegroupthattheyare(perceivedtobe)apartof(Fricker 2007,168). Transgenderpeople,especiallytransgenderwomen(Bettcher 2007,52),aretheobject ofpornographicfantasyorperceivedastransitioningfrom(male)subjectto(female) object(Serano 2016,256,258,261),aswillbedevelopedlater.Tosuggestthatthecommontransfeminineexperienceoftotalfetishizationresultsfromagapinhermeneutical resourcesseemsimplausible precisely becausetheprocessoffetishizationisdependent on an understandingoftheterm “transwoman.” Itis,however,aperniciousresource.

Theideathathermeneuticalresources(suchasimagesandrepresentations)canbe productive(forbetterorforworse)isbynomeansnew.Nonetheless,theemphasison lacunae,asFalbo(2022)established,foreclosedcertaingroundfortheoreticalengagement.TheworksofTeresadeLauretis(1984; 1989)andPatriciaHillCollins(2000), however,offergroundsfromwhichtotheorizethetypeofhermeneuticalinjustice thatobtainsduringthesecases.

First,wecanconsiderpernicioushermeneuticalresourcestobecharacterizedby their “removal” fromsocialreality.This slippage (deLauretis 1984,5)betweenthat whichisbeingrepresentedandtherepresentationcharacterizesthetensionbetween feminismandpatriarchy(1989,10).Thus,ontheonehand,thereexistfleshand blood women,andontheother,arepresentation Woman (deLauretis 1984,5–6; 1989,10).Thisrepresentationisapernicioushermeneuticalresourcedrawnfrom numerousWesternpatriarchaldiscourses(medical,legal,familial,andpolitical,for example)thatsustainshermeneuticalinjusticesagainstrealexistingwomenacrossvarioussocialandpoliticalaxes(race,class,andsexuality,forexample).7

Whilstitwouldbecorrecttoclaimthatthisinjusticeishermeneutical8 itwouldalso appearcontradictorytosuggestpatriarchalepistemicagentslackedahermeneutical resource(nomatterhownarroworpernicious)of “ women ” throughtherepresentation of “Woman.” Theirsetofhermeneuticalresourcesdoesnothaveagap perse,theyhave theterm “ woman ” andhaveasetofassociatedmeaningsthatcomprisetheirunderstandingofthatterm.However,thisproducesapatriarchalconceptualizationof

womenasWoman(adheringtodeLauretis’ terminology)thatisatoddswiththe knowledgesandself-understandingsthatfeministshavedeveloped.9

Second,Collins’ (2000)theorizationof controllingimages isaprimaryexampleofthe productivepowerthatconceptshaveoverindividualsandtheirparsingofthesocial world.Membersofamarginalizedsocialgroupengagedinformsofepistemicresistance todominantperspectivesandexpectationsoftenbecomenegativelystereotypedthrough disseminationofimagesthatconstructorshape(dominant)publicopinion.Thisisthe descriptionofthepunishmentthatBlackwomenhavebeensubjectedtoinresponseto “theiruseofeveryexpressionofracismtolaunchmultipleassaultsagainsttheentire fabricofinequality” (Collins 2000,69).Inthischaracterizationofthe reason forthe developmentofcontrollingimages,itisnotthatahermeneuticalgapexistsintheir own understanding,butthatwhitesocietyrejectsthepossibilitythatBlackwomen canbeunderstood.Thatis,itisacaseof willfulhermeneuticalignorance (Pohlhaus 2012)groundedinthefactthatamajorityofpeoplewho benefitstructurally from theracism,misogyny,andthepovertythereindonotwanttoconfronttheircomplicity inthisunjustsystem;thereforeitis “simpler” tomaintainignoranceandupholdperspectivesthey “hear fromoneoftheirown” thatalleviatethesenseofcollective responsibilitytheymayotherwisefeel(Collins 2000,70).

ThewillfulhermeneuticalignorancebroughtagainstBlackwomendeniesthisgroup theopportunityfor reciprocalcommunication becauseoftherejectionofepistemic openness.Consequently,Blackwomenareprecludedfromhavingtheirself-made meaningsrecognizedandunderstood.Thisleavesfunctionalintra-communalhermeneuticalresourcesfairlyimpotentoutsideofcertainepistemiccontextsowingtothe structuralrelationsofpatriarchalracism(Falbo 2022,347,347n.8).Whilstthereis notalacuna perse,thereisan(unjustandvicious)imperativeforstructurallyprivileged epistemicagentstonotonlymaintaintheirwillfulhermeneuticignorance,buttomake thisignorancetoinjustice “believable.”10 Thisagential/structuralimperativeforbelievabilityunderpinsthemanipulationofimagesofBlackwomentomakeracial,gendered, andeconomicoppression “appeartobenatural,normal,andinevitable” (Collins 2000, 69).Thepowerofcontrollingimages productiveresourcesastheyare isthatthey reduceliving,breathingsubjectstomereobjects,capitalizingonafacetofanindividual orgroup ’sexperiencesandidentitytoprotractandpolarizeparticularaspectsofthem (Collins 2000,70–71).

Thusfar,Ihavedescribedthewaythatcontrollingimagesorrepresentationsfunctionaspernicioushermeneuticalresourcesthataffixalternativemeaningstoaterm, resultingintheinterpretationofafleshandbloodindividualasamererepresentation orsimulacrumwhichinturnsignificantlyshapesthatindividual’smaterialreality. ThismightappeartotrackFricker’s(2007,163–64,167–68)analysisofthehermeneuticalharmsufferedbyEdmundWhite,whoauthoredanautobiographicalnovelonhis experienceasayounggaymaninmid-centuryAmerica.

Representationsandassociationsofhomosexuality(“TheHomosexual”)generated forWhiteasenseofdissonancewithhisstatusasafleshandbloodgayman.Hethereforefacedhisreconstitutionintheeyesofothersasdiseasedoras “anunnatural vampire-likecreature” (Fricker 2007,166)inmuchthesamewaythattranswomen areconstructedfromtheperspectiveofdominantpatriarchalknowersasinherentlysexual.Ifthisistrue,however,wefaceaproblem:Fricker’saccountofWhite’sentanglementwith “variousconstructionsofTheHomosexual” is lacuna-based (2007,164, 167).Thereasonforthis,itseems,isthattheharmderivesfromWhite’sexperiences ofisolation.Theagenthereispresentedassufferingfromaninabilitytoconnect

andcommunicatewithothers.Withoutanetworkcapableofarticulatingastheircommongroundthisexperienceofdissonancebetweentheirfleshandbloodrealitiesanda seriesofperniciousassociationsthatconstructthemassinnersorunnatural,theagent experiencesalacunaintheirsetofresources.This,Frickersuggests,isovercome throughconsciousness-raising.

Thereare,however,twoissueswithtakingthistypeofinjusticetobedependentona gapinasetofresources.First,theagenttowhomharmisdoneisdescribedasexperiencingthemselvesasinarticulablebecauseofisolationfromotherswhohaveformulatedthisdissonanceasa common experience.ThisiscertainlythecaseforWhite,given hisexistenceinaturbulenteraforgaycommunities,whoseembryonicformationinthe earlytwentiethcenturyonlygainedtractionduringthepost-warera(Meyerowitz 2002, 2,8,22).Thus,thesealternativeidentitieswerecommunicatedthroughcodesimperceptiblebythoseoutsidetheclosedsetofhermeneuticalresourcesofthetime.However, theterrainhasarguablyshiftedsubstantially.Theeraofquasi-instantaneouscommunicationandinformationtransfermarksadifferentepistemicerathanthatofmidcenturyAmerica.Theemergenceandincreasingaccessibilityto “asynchronous” consciousness-raisingmaterial(GleesonandTurner 2019,56)leadsustothesecond issue:itsupposesthattheconfrontationofmarginalizedknowerswithrepresentations thatinduceslippageordissonancewillceaseonceconsciousnesshasbeenraised. However,thisisnotthecase.

Thisisevidentwhenweconsiderthetransgender(trans*)community.Despitethe increasedvisibilityofthetrans*communityinthepastdecadeorso,thecontinued associationbetweentransnessaseroticism(i.e.,theproductionofTheTranssexualas aninherentlysexualisedbeing)hasonlybecomestronger.Recallthatthenamingor conceptualizationofahermeneuticalresourcetofillalacunadoesnotmarktheend ofaprocess,butthebeginningofaprocessofresistinghermeneuticalharms. Ithink,inlightofthisdiscussion,thatthefunctionofrepresentationscannotbedependentonagapinsharedresources precisely becausethosewhoperpetuatetheseharms dosoonthebasisofa hermeneuticalresource;albeitonethathasretainedthetermin question(e.g. “transwoman”)andaffixedanalternativesetofmeaningstoit,derived andsynthesizedfromthepublicimaginationandcirculatingrepresentationsofmedia. Thus,inthecaseoftransfetishization,bothpartiesknowthatatleastoneindividualisa transwoman,theterm,however,denotestwodifferenthermeneuticalresourcesfrom differentepistemicdomainssharingoneterm.

Thesubmissivesurpriseandcarnal(wo)man-eater

Theproductionandapplicationoftwinimagesthatopposeoneanothertomembersof amarginalizedgroup,isakeymethodin(i)managingwidespread(dominant)attitudes towardsmembersofthegroup,(ii)managingbehaviorandencouraginginternalized self-policingonthepartofmembersofthatgroup,and(iii)provides “conceptual ammunition” intheformofpoorhermeneuticalresourcesforuseby(competing)dominantsocialgroups.

Thisanalysisoftheroleofcontrollingtwinimagesisapplicabletothecontemporary debatessurroundingtransgenderpeople.Mydiscussionfocusesontranswomenfor tworeasons.First,Iamawarethattranswomenhavebeencriticizedforspeakingfor thewholecommunitywhilstfailingtoaccuratelyportraytransmasculineandnonbinaryexperiences.Ithereforeleaveopentheanalysisofsimilarcontrollingimages appliedtotransmenandnon-binarypeopletobeanalyzedintheirownvoicesdrawing 8MeganR.F.Drury

ontheiruniqueexperiences.Second,asatranswomanIammorefamiliarwiththerepresentationsthattranswomenarestretchedbetweenand,therefore,Iambetterplaced totheorizetransfeminineexperienceratherthanothertrans*identitiesoroftrans* experience ingeneral.

Althoughtherehasbeenasignificantamountofliteraturewrittenabouttransfemininestereotypes(Bettcher 2007;McKinnon 2014;Serano 2016;Howanskyetal. 2021; Anzanietal. 2021;Serano 2021),Iaminterestedinconstructingasetofinversetwin imagesthatparallelacommonsetofimagesfoundintheliterature.Thoughthe deceiver/pretenderdichotomyisanimportantdeparturepoint,Iarguethatthesubmissive/(wo)man-eaterdichotomyisdifferentinimportantways.Justastheimagesofthe mammyandthematriarchreducedBlackwomen’sidentitiestodeferentmotherhood (performedtodifferentdegreesof “ success ”)(Collins 2000,71–75),thetransfeminine twinimagesreduceouridentitiestosexualbeings,withoursexualitybeingperformed intwomarkedlydifferentways.Owningone’ssexualityitselfisnotaproblembutbeing reducedtoasexualizedcaricaturebasedonconceptscirculatingdominantpoolsof sharedconceptscertainlyis.

Thetwomediaarchetypesthatshapepublicresponsetoandopinionoftransgender womenarethe deceptivetranssexual andthe pathetictranssexual (Serano 2016,36). Importantly,thedistinctiontrackstheperceptionoftranswomenasbeingeithervisibly orinvisiblytransgender,resultingintheirclassificationaseithera make-believer oran evil-deceiver (Bettcher 2007,48–49).Theroleofpassing,orofbeing(in)visiblytransgender,isfoundationalinthisdistinction(Bettcher 2007;McKinnon 2014;Serano 2016).Theevildeceiverwhopassesexceptionallywellasacisgenderwomanisa threat preciselybecauseofunknowabilityofherstatusas “reallyaboy” (Bettcher 2007,48). Theimagedeclaresthatpassingtranswomentransitionedto “foolinnocentstraight guys ” ratherthanfortheirownidentityaffirmationandpersonalhappiness(Serano 2016,36).Itisassumed becauseofthedeceiverarchetype thattranswomenundertakevaginoplastytofacilitatepenetrativeheterosexualsex(Anzanietal. 2021,899).

Thedeceivertropeisaproductiveimagebecauseitmisrepresentsthemotivationsfor transwomentotransition,underscoredbyaperceiveddisparitybetweengendered imageandsexedrealitythatreducestranswomentopredatoryindividuals “stillfull of ‘male’ energy ” (Bettcher 2007,48;McKinnon 2014,858).Incontrasttothepredatory imageofthedeceiver,the pathetictranssexual garnerssympathybecauseofherpoor make-upskills,masculinemannerisms,inabilitytowalkinheels,andpooroutfit choices.Thepathetictranssexualportraystranswomenasan object ofsympathy thepitifulthing(McKinnon 2014,858;Serano 2016,37–39).Inspiringfearand humor/pityrespectively,thedeceiver/patheticimagesoperatetovilifyoppositionto thebinarysex-gendersystem;challengestoitareeitherfornefarious “male” gainor aredisarmedbyreducingtransfemininelivestoapunchline asSerano(2016,40) observes,both “validatethepopularassumptionthatTranswomenaretrulymen.”

Thoughunquestionablyvalidanalysesofpopulararchetypes,thefocusisonthe double-bindcausedbytheneedtopass;manycisgenderpeoplearetrainedthrough theserepresentationstobeawareofthewolfinsheep’sclothingandtoactivelyseek toperceive “clockableoffences.” Myinterestincontrollingimagesastheyapplytohermeneuticalresourcesisnotonpassing,butontheperniciousperceptionoftransgender womenasinherentlysexualbeings.Wherethemake-believer/evildeceiverdichotomyis concernedwithpassabilityandone’sacclimationtoaperceivedidealoffemininity generally,Iaminterestedinthe sexualization oftransgenderwomenandtheexpectedpracticesweareexpectedtodesireorenjoy.Iarguethatthedeceiver/pretenderandmy

submissive/(wo)man-eaterdichotomiesmaythereforebeconsidered inverse ofeach other,foregroundingpassingandsexualityrespectively. Itisthesexuality,orperceived sexuality,oftransgenderwomenthatformsthebasisofmyelaborationofhermeneutical bastardization.

Thesubmissivesurprise

ThecontrollingimageItermthe submissivesurprise blendsaspectsofthedeceiver and themake-believer asdoesthetwinimage, carnal(wo)man-eater.Bettcher(2007,52) discussesthe “whorification” oftransgenderwomenwhich,shesuggests,ispartly dependentontranswomenbeing “uncloseted” andacisgenderman’sdesireto “look past” the “pretense” intheserviceofhissexualfantasy.Similarly,Anzanietal. (2021,904)includetestimonyfromabisexualtranswomanwhodescribes “[b]eing talkedtolike[she]wasasextoy” andtheuseoftransgenderindividualsbysexualpartnerstoengageina “novelsexualexperience. ”11 Anothertransfeminineparticipant recordedthatdiscoveryofhertransstatusencouragedsexualpartnerstoreduceher toa “thingtobefucked,andnotinagoodway” (Anzanietal. 2021,906).

Twothingsoughttobenoticedinthisdiscussion:(i)thedehumanizationoftrans womeninvolvestheobjectificationandcontroloftheindividual, 12 the domination of theirbody,anddisregardfortheirsubjectivity;and(ii)dominationandobjectification arenot inherently negativeexperiencesfortranswomen,considerthequalification “and notinagoodway”—dominationcanbeempoweringandenjoyableexperiences undertherightcircumstances,forinstance,inBDSMcontexts(Grahametal. 2016). Thepowerofthesubmissivesurpriseimageisthatittakes(some)transwomen’senjoymentofsexandexpressionofsexualityassignalingthat alltransgenderwomenaremere sexualresources. Specificallyforthisfirstimage,transwomen’ssexualityispresentedas hypersubmissive(Robinson 2023,364–65),performingtheroleofthe “goodwoman” wholiesbackandthinksofEngland,ratherthanhavingcomplexsexualdesiresor sexualconventionsregardingtheirbodyandthepermittedsetofacts.13

Theimageofthesubmissivesurprise,then,renderstransgenderwomenas inmore thanoneway open tosexualencountersfromanyoneandatanytime.AsSerano (2016,256–57)notes,transwomenreceivedifferentialtreatmentdependingonwhether theyareperceivedascisgenderortransgenderwomenfromintrusiveandgraphicstoriesaboutaman’sprevioussexualexperiences,ortheirsexualfantasiesabouttrans women.Theseadvancescomeintheformofstrangersatsocialsituationsorfrom anonymousemailersonlinewho,whentheyreceiverejectionandcriticismfrom Serano,respondwithaccusationsthatshewas “misleading” orhadbeen “askingfor it”.Rejectingthe “exotic” or “ rare ” explanationasinsufficient,Serano(2016,258–59) arguesthattransitionfrommaletofemaleisreadasanopeninvitationforsexualobjectification,use,anddegradationbecause,fromthelessonsmediateachesyoungmenand women, whatelsearewomenfor?Thus,theideathatsomeonewhohadbeenperceived asamantransitionsistranslatedbypatriarchyintothemessage “firstcome,first served.” Passingbarelyentersthisconstructionoftranswomenas “outtobeobjectified” andforcedintosubmission(perceivedas “ woman ’ s ” role)givenSerano’s(2016,253) acknowledgmentthatsheexperiencedsexualizationandobjectificationwhenshe “wasstilldressinginboy-mode … tohide[her]developingbreasts.”

Thesubmissivesurpriseproducesanexpectationthattransgenderwomen must be submissive,notleastbecausepatriarchalconditioningleadsmanymenandwomen totheconclusionthatanessentialpartoffemininityismeeknessandsexualpoliteness. Thebasisfortheimageoftranswomenasinherentlysubmissive,orthataconditionof

theirtransitionbeing “successful” isanacceptanceofthissexualizedsubmissiveness, liesinthepatriarchalperceptionof whatwomanis (Serano 2016,328–29). Interestingly,whilstwomen’srightsmovementsandfeministactivismhavebeenpartly successfulincombatingwidespreadmisogynyandundesiredsexualadvances(partly through,itshouldbeadded,epistemicandhermeneuticallabor),therestillremains theviewthat thereatleastsometypesofwomen (amongthem,transgenderwomen) that are whollysexualbeingsandexistforthispurpose.14 Thisrepeatedexposuretocontrollingimages analogoustotherepeatedexposuretohermeneuticalharmsdiscussed byFrickerandMedina canresultinacquiescencetothe “role” thathasbeenfoisted uponindividualsinthisgroup:

Youstartsettlingforbeingawastebinobjectofdesireforanight.Eventually,you realizeyoumayaswellgetpaidforyourtroubles.I’mstartingtoseewhyallmy sistersareinthesextradenow (Anzanietal. 2021,903)15

Itisnotthattranswomenlackthehermeneuticalresourcesfromwhichtounderstand theiridentitiesandtheinfluenceofcisheterosexualpatriarchyonourmovementsand practicesintheworldthatputsusinthesesituations.Itisnot,therefore,thatthere existsahermeneuticalgapthatpreventstransgenderwomenfromrejectingtheview ofourselvesandourbodiesasopensexualresources,butthecontinualpressureexerted byproductiveconceptsgoverningourlivabilitymakestheepistemicandhermeneutical climateintenselydifficulttonavigatebecauseofwillfulhermeneuticalignorance. Cisgenderpeople16 whosubscribetotheimageoftranswomenasthesubmissivesurprisearemorecomfortablewiththeideaofa “goodwoman” thanwiththeradicalchallengetransnessmorebroadlyrepresentstothestatusquoofgenderrelations.

Thecarnal(wo)man-eater

Theaccompanyingsexualizingtwinimagetothesubmissivesurprise thegoodtranssexual isthecarnal(wo)man-eater,representingthebadtranssexual.17 Recallthatthe submissive/(wo)man-eaterdichotomyisnotpremisedonthedistinctionsofpassing/ non-passing,fear/pity,oracceptance/rejectionasthedeceiver/pretenderdichotomy is.Thisisbecausetheseimagesarenotuniformly feared or desired bycisgendermen andwomanbutinspirebothindifferentsubjects.

So,whatdoestheimageofthecarnal(wo)man-eaterrepresent?Similartothe deceiver,sheissexuallypowerful(McKinnon 2014,858;Serano 2016,37),however thisisnot solely becauseofherimaginedappearancebutbecauseofherconditioning asamanunderpatriarchy.Tingedwiththethemesofculturalfeminism,the(wo)maneaterrepresentstheinverseofSerano’s(2016,197)accountoftheformationofhersubmissivestreak.Barragedwithmediadepictionsofwomen,heterosexuality,and “the not-so-subliminalmessages” thatportraywomanhoodaslesser,inferior,opentodomination,theimageofthecarnal(wo)man-eatercarriestheimperativesofpatriarchy withinher.Whilstthesubmissivesurpriseinternalizesherroleasawomanasthe target ofpatriarchalpowerandsexualdomination,the(wo)man-eaterdoesnotdistanceherselffromtheselessons thereisno “submissivestreak … asdeepastheGrandCanyon” butthemarkofmasculinesocialization(2016,273).18

Paralleling,then,thepathetictranssexual’sinabilitytounlearnmasculinebehaviors, thecarnal(wo)man-eaterisrepresented athercore asembodyingamasculinesexuality,similartoHenrietta,apathetictranssexualcharacterin TheAdventuresof SebastianCole, 1998)who “overtly[ogles]awaitress” (Serano 2016,39).Other

examplesmightbetheactof “topping” (engaginginpenetrativesexwithone’spenis) whichsitsatoddswiththestandardperceptionofgenderedsexualrelations,andthe perceivedmotivationsfortransition(Anzanietal. 2021;Serano 2016).Note,however, thatthecarnal(wo)man-eaterandher(perceived)masculinesexualitydoesnotentail therejectionofheridentityasawomanorreifyaperceptionofher asaman.Rather, thereasonthe(wo)man-eateristhe badtranssexual isherfailuretoconformtogenderedexpectations notnecessarilythroughappearancesasinBettcher(2007), McKinnon(2014),andSerano(2016) butthroughherembodiment,personality, and,centrallyintheseimages,her sexuality.

Thus,theconstructionofthisimage,Iargue,isamutationofthe “transsexuallyconstructedlesbian-feminist”,whereinthe “problem” withtranswomenistheirclaimtoa feminineidentitywithoutfemininegenderexpression.19 Thesetranswomenrejectstereotypicalnotionsoffemininity,arguesRaymond,butfailtoshed “itsobverseside stereotypicalmasculinity” (Raymond 2006,133);throughreferencetoPatHynes, RaymondnotesthatbodilybehaviorsandmannerismsreflectideasofpatriarchalpossessionandOtheringoflesbiansthatisnotpresentincasesofstrongorbutchlesbians. ThespecificchangesIperceivefromthetranssexuallyconstructedlesbian-feministto the(wo)man-eaterare(i)thepotentialacceptanceoftheirfeminineidentification, and(ii)thereflectionofthispotentialacceptanceinwaystheimageistalkedabout. Forexample,whilstRaymond(1994, 2006)referstotranswomenusingexplicitlymasculinepronouns,Serano(2016,51)observesthat,despitebeingunconventionallyfeminine,shehas “neverbeenaccusedofexpressing ‘maleenergy’” andisdescribedinstead asbeing “butch” ora “tomboy.”

Theimageofthecarnal(wo)man-eaterserves,inmanyways,asamessagetotransgenderwomenthatiftheydonottakeupthepositionofthesubmissivesurprisethen theyareatfaultfornotembodyingthetypeoffemininesexualitypatriarchyexpectsof women.Thecarnal(wo)man-eater similarlytotheimageofthematriarch functions asa “normativeyardstick” (Collins 2000)withwhichtranswomencanbetrained,incentivized,orbeatenintoacceptingitsinverseimage.Theproductionofthesetwinimages thatcontrolandpolicetransfemininebehaviorsandpersonalitiestakeastheirparadigmaticsiteofdisciplineone’ s sexuality,similarlytohowtheimagesofthemammyand thematriarchcenterontheroleof motherhood.These facets ofanindividualorgroup’ s identitiesareprotractedintocentralandoverpoweringaffectsthatwemightnotwantto rejectwholesale,butequallymightnotwanttomakecentralinouridentityconstruction. Thatis,wantingtobeamotherandenjoyinglookingafterchildrenis notaninherently dangerousoroppressiveconcept,andneitherisexperiencingsexualdesire,cravingsubmissionordominance;thesebecomeareasofconcernwhenmembersofcertainsocial groupsare expected tobedeferentcarersoreroticresources.

Hermeneuticalbastardization

Willfulignorance,twin-images,andconceptualaptness

Letusreviewwhathasbeenarguedsofar.First,Isurveyedsomeoftheworkonhermeneuticalinjustice,focusingonMedina’s(2012, 2017)responsestoFricker(2007). IoutlinedFalbo’s(2022)criticismoflacunae-basedanalysesandstatedthatmyelaborationof “hermeneuticalbastardization” reliesontheexistenceofhermeneuticalinjusticesthatdonotdependonagapinourhermeneuticalresources.Second,throughde Lauretis(1984, 1989)andCollins(2000)Iarticulatedthewaysinwhichimagesandrepresentationsfunctionashermeneuticalresourcesthatproducefleshandblood

individualsassimulacra,resultinginmaterialharmstomarginalizedgroups.Iargued againstFricker’s(2007)analysisofsubjectiontocontrollingimagesasderivingfroma lacunainthesharedpoolofhermeneuticalresources.Theproblemwithsuchananalysisisthatmembersofmarginalizedgroupscontinuetobeconstitutedaccordingto pervasiveperniciousrepresentationsthatdependontheidentificationofthatindividual asbeingrelevantlyinterpellatedbyaconceptthathasbeendecontextualizedandpoorly operationalized.

Ithenreconstructedapairofcontrollingimagesoftransgenderwomen.Justas Collins’ (2000)discussionofthemammyandthematriarchimagescentralizemotherly careanddeferenceasintegraltoBlackwomen’sidentitiesinoppositionallyvaluated ways,theimagesofthesubmissiveandthe(wo)man-eatercentralizesexanderoticism thesecentralizationsconstituteaformofdisciplineorpolicingthroughreducing membersofthesegroupsto merefacets oftheiridentity,simplifyingand de-complexifyingthelivesandexperiencesofthesepeople.Thishastwopurposes: First,Iofferthetransfemininecontrollingimagesasapointofanalysistohighlight someofthesubversivemeansofsexualizingtransgenderwomeninthepublicimaginary, andsecond,Iwillusethetransfeminineimagestounderscorehowandwhydecontextualizationoughttoformthebasisforanaccountof hermeneuticalbastardization.

Thissectionrevisitsdefinitionsof “hermeneuticalresources” andforegroundsthe pointthat hermeneuticalresourceswillnotalwaysbeconducivetohermeneuticaljustice insofarastheseresourcescanbepernicious (Collins 2000;Dotson 2012).Following Collins(2000,69)Iemphasizethatperniciousresourcescanrenderinjusticeagainst hermeneuticallymarginalizedgroupsas “natural,normal,andinevitablepartsofeverydaylife.” Givingaworkingdefinition(orevolvingheuristic)tounderstandhermeneuticalresources,Iproceedtoconsiderhowtheseresourcescanbecomebastardized throughreferencetoFalbo’s(2022)notionofhermeneuticalclashes,ofwhichIpropose hermeneuticalbastardizationisaparallelprocess.Iarguethatfacetsofagroup’sidentitythatmightbepositivelycelebratedcanbedecontextualizedandundulyprotracted tostandforthetotalityofagroup’sidentity;thisdecontextualizationboth drawsfrom and reinforces theproductivepowerofpernicioushermeneuticalresources,suchascontrollingimages.Iwillgoontodiscusstheroleofdecontextualizationanddefenditasa centralcharacteristicofthisformofhermeneuticalinjustice.

Revisitingtheoriginaldefinition(s)of “hermeneuticalresources”

Asdiscussedattheoutset,ontheFrickerianmodel,hermeneuticalresourcesarethecollectiveconceptssharedinthepublicimaginarythatallowindividualstomakesenseof theirexperiences theyareprimarilyinterpretativeinsofarastheyallowustoparsethe worldintointelligibleconceptsandexperiences(Fricker 2007,1,6;Podosky 2019,145). Hermeneuticalmarginalizationoccurswhensocialgroupsexperienceadeficitofepistemicgoodsinthecredibilityeconomybecausepatternsoftestimonialinjustice caused bystructuralprejudiceorstereotypes leadtodifferentialdistributionofconcepts,credibility,andknowledge(Fricker 2007,30;Dotson 2012,29–30;Medina 2013,27–28; McKinnon 2016,440–41;FrickerandJenkins 2017,269–71).Notingthatstereotypes inthisstructuralcontextmaynotalwaysbenegative,noralwaysincorrect,wecan acceptthatcertainstereotypesthataidincorrectjudgementsaboutthereliabilityof speakersare inasense goodhermeneuticalresources,whilstthosethatunjustly deflatethecredibility,expectations,ormoralqualitieswewouldattributetomembers ofthisgroupare bad (or “biased”) hermeneuticalresources (Fricker 2007,31;Dotson 2012,29).20

WhilsttheFrickerianmodelmightentailthatthesebadresourcesaresimplyevidenceofa lackofproperhermeneuticalresources,thismightrequirethatweconsider marginalizedgroupstobe unable tomakesenseoftheirexperienceintra-communally (Podosky 2019,145).Thisinabilityisoftenframedasalacunathatpreventsdominant knowersmakingsenseofmarginalizedgroups becausethegroupisunabletomakeitself intelligible (Fricker 2007,162;McKinnon 2016,441;Falbo 2022,345).However,Iargue followingMedina(2013, 2017),Podosky(2019),andFalbo(2022),thatpoor,inadequate,orpernicious(PIP)hermeneuticalresourcesexistand insomecontexts hermeneuticalinjusticeresultsfromthe presence ofthesePIPhermeneuticalresources ratherthanthe absence ofhermeneuticalresourcesinthecollectivepublicimaginary.

Identifyingthreeprimaryepistemicvicesthatbefallthestructurallyprivilegedepistemicagents epistemicarrogance,laziness,andclosed-mindedness Medina(2013,31, 32–33,34–35)eloquentlyarticulatesthemannerinwhichthesethree epistemicvices contributetothesedimentationofepistemicattitudesthatpreventthepossibilityfor thecontinualrevisionofhermeneuticalresourcesandvigilanceagainst PIPhermeneuticalresources.ThoughMedinadoesnotrefertosuchhermeneuticalresources,his focusisontwoprinciples, acknowledgmentandengagement and epistemicequilibrium Iaminterestedinthelatterwhichseekstodeterminetherelevantfactorsinestablishing alevelplayingfieldforcognitiveforces ortheexertionofoneepistemicstandpoint overothers(Medina 2013,50).Anacknowledgmentandengagementwiththeinfluencesandfactorsthatcontributetoprivilegedepistemicagentsbecomingarrogant, lazy,andclosed-mindedenableustochallengetheseepistemictendenciesorvices withtheaimofestablishingbetterepistemicpracticethroughencouragingcritical reflection,tacklingprejudiceandbias,praisingthechallengingofone’sownbeliefs, andpayingattentiontocognitivegaps(Medina 2013,50).

Theanalysisoftheepistemicvicesofepistemicagentsandtheirinfluencing,and beinginfluencedby,thehermeneuticalresourcesavailableispresentinHaslanger’ s (2015)descriptionof schemas asthesharedframeworkofreferencethatallowsepistemicagentstonavigate,conceptually,theworldandto coordinate ouractions(Podosky 2019,145).Shapinghowweunderstandbehaviorandemotion collectively,hermeneuticalresources produce acommongroundforsociallife.Withouttheepistemicvirtues ofhumility,diligence,andopen-mindednessdeployedintheserviceofepistemicresistance,themeaningsproducedbyourhermeneuticalresourcesmightmisfirebecause theyfailtoadequatelyoperationalizetheconceptbeinginterrogated(Falbo 2022,348).

Thatis,thoughwemight have aconceptattachedtotheterm “transgenderwoman” (andthus,nohermeneuticalgapwheretheconceptshouldbe),themeaningappliedto theterm(i.e.,theconcept)misfiresbecause “[h]ermeneuticalresourcesarenotintroducedinavacuum” andthereforeweneedtobecriticallyawareofthehistoryofrelated conceptsorpractices(Falbo 2022,348).Forinstance,thevilificationandcriminalityof cross-dressingduringthetwentiethcenturyandthecontinuedassociationbetween gender-crossingwithsexandviolencecirculateswithinthe(decontextualized)concept of<Transgenderwoman>forarrogant,lazy,orclosed-mindedepistemicagents.Thisis notduetoa lackofresources butbecausemotivatedignoranceandstructuraloppression facilitatesthedevelopmentofepistemicvicesfordominantgroupsofknowers.

Fromthis,wecanestablishthebaselinedefinitionofhermeneuticalresourcesgiven atthestartofthisarticlethatfunctionsmoreasan evolvingheuristic thanitdoesa final definition oftheconceptofhermeneuticalresources.Inotethistentativelyandwith qualificationbecauseofthecomplicationsDotson(2012,25)observesthat “when attemptingtoavoidepistemicoppression,evenwhiledrawingattentiontoepistemic

formsofoppression” onecan “inadvertently[perpetrate]epistemicoppressionbyutilizingaclosedconceptualstructure.” Thereasonforprovidingsuchabaselineistobetterunderstandwhathappenstohermeneuticalresourceswhentheyundergo bastardization.

Withthisinmind,hermeneuticalresourcesareconcepts includingstereotypes, images,associations,narratives,andheuristics thatenableboth knowledgeacquisition and knowledgetransmission (McKinnon 2016,441;Podosky 2019,145).Itisimportant tonotethatknowledge acquired isnotalways(i)anadequatereflectionordescription ofexperiences(Falbo 2022,351–52),(ii)beneficialtoresistinghermeneuticalinjustice (Podosky 2019,145),(iii)nor constructedby thesocialgrouptheconceptsareperceived to “refer” or “belong” to.21 Theimpactonknowledgeacquisitionresultsinanimpacton knowledgetransmission.Therefore,hermeneuticalresourcescanbeboth aids inthe resistancetoepistemicandhermeneuticalinjusticebutcanalso hinder thisproject (Dotson 2012,29).ControllingimagesofthesortdiscussedabovearePIPhermeneuticalresourcesonthisdefinition.

Hermeneuticalresourcesbehavingbadly Whathappens,however,whenusefulconcepts(<Transgenderwoman>)thatenable membersofasocialgrouptoexploretheiridentityandexperiencesinasafe,therapeutic,andpositivewaybecomeweaponizedagainstthatgroup?Thatis,whathappens whenagood(intra-communal)hermeneuticalresourceismisrepresentedbyprivileged epistemicagents?Theguidingquestionfortheelaborationofhermeneuticalbastardizationis howdogoodhermeneuticalresourcesturnbad?

Contributoryinjustice (Dotson 2012,31–32)bringstogethertheideasofstructurally flawedhermeneuticalresourcesandwillfulhermeneuticalignorance(Pohlhaus 2012)to arguethatthereisaspeciesofhermeneuticalinjusticefosteredbytheobfuscationofthe existenceofmultiplesetsofsharedresources.Contributoryinjusticeoccurs,therefore, whenknowerswillfullyignoretheexistenceofalternativepoolsofconceptsthatmight containmoreapt,andthuslesspernicious,hermeneuticalresources.Iarguethatthe processofhermeneuticalbastardizationtakesplacewhenanadequateresourceis displaced fromitsintra-communal context and,throughthisdecontextualizingprocess, hasitslinguisticreference(“transwoman”)transplantedintothedominant(orpresentlydominating)setofhermeneuticalresourceswithoutitsreferent(s),thatis,itsrelevantmeaningsorassociatedconcepts(e.g.,acritiqueofthesexbinary,orof hegemoniccis-heterocentricsubjectpositions).

Thiscriticismofthesinglesharedsetofresourcesmodelmakespossibletheideathat anadequatehermeneuticalconceptcanbedecontextualizedandsituatedinadifferent setofresources.However,itispertinenttohighlightthedifferencebetween conceptual distortion (Falbo 2022)and decontextualization.Falbo(2022)usesBalkin ’s(1990) notionof nestedopposition andthedistinctionbetweenconceptualoppositionand logicaloppositiontounderscorecasesofwhatshecalls hermeneuticalclashes.Ahermeneuticalclashoccurswhenthereexistsaconceptintheprevailingsetofhermeneutical resources,andyetstructurallyprivilegedepistemicagentsareunabletorecognize(or arewillfullyignorant)ofthecorrectapplicationoftheconcept.Falbo’s(2022,349–50)illustrationofthisclashis conceptualdistortion producedbythesupposedoppositionbetween<goldenboy> and<rapist>andthecaseofBrockTurner22 thatledtothe fracturedabilityoflegalprofessionals,friends,andfamilytoapplytheconcept<rapist> toTurner.Thekeyideaisthat havingtheconcept doesnotentail correctapplication of theconcept:TurnerrapedMiller,andyetbecauseofthedistortingimagesthatcan

accompanytheconceptualresource<rapist>,Turnerwasperceivedby some epistemic agentsnottobearapist,butinsteaditsperceivedopposite,thegoldenboy.

Iproposethathermeneuticalbastardizationisatypeofhermeneuticalclash,but whereasthelatterentails conceptualdistortion,theformerentails conceptualdecontextualization.Whereconceptualdistortiondependsontheconstructionofconceptual oppositionsandpoorlyappliedconcepts,conceptualdecontextualizationdependson thedisplacementofahermeneuticalresourcefromtheintra-communalsetofresources, resultinginaninadequate,poorlyredefined,andoftenharmfulconceptualization withinthecurrentlydominantpoolofresources.Inbothhermeneuticalclashesand hermeneuticalbastardization,faultyoperationalizationofahermeneuticalresource occursbut,Iargue,fordistinctreasons.Hermeneuticalclashesareproducedbydistortionbecausethoughtheconceptisavailableforusein “thecollectivestockofhermeneuticalresources,” itsmeaningisstillsubjecttoalterationanddistortionbycontrolling images(Falbo 2022,350–51).Hermeneuticalbastardizationsareproducedbydecontextualizationbecausetheconceptinquestionis fairlynew tomanydifferentsetsofhermeneuticalresources,andmaynotbeuniformlypossessednoruniformlyunderstood, andisthusliabletorepeatedredefinitionbyagents removedfromtheoriginalconceptual context.

Bothtypesofnon-lacunae-basedhermeneuticalinjusticedisarmacriticalconcept, wherethisdisarmamentdependsinpartonculturalassociationsorcontrollingimages. Itisthemeansofdisarmingtheseresourcesthatisdifferent.Inbothcases,however, perniciousstereotypeshelpshapeandperpetuateideologicallydominantmodesof parsingsocialreality(e.g.,cis-patriarchalorandrocentricperspectives).

Fearandfetish:anuneasytransgenderdialectic

Abastardizedhermeneuticalresource,then,isaconceptthat,despiteoriginallyfacilitatingintra-communalintelligibilityandunderstanding,issubsequentlydecontextualizedthroughitsmovementfromamarginalizedcommunity’ssetofresourcestoanew locationinadominatingsetofresources.Iarguethathermeneuticalresourcesofthis sortcanbeinstrumentalinthe production andthe maintenance oftwincontrolling images.Thatis,controllingimageswillbeinterpreteddifferentlybydifferentepistemic agentsowingtotheexistenceofmultiplepoolsofsharedconcepts;thecontrolling imagescirculatethepublicimaginarybutwillbereceivedinvaryingways.Ielucidate thispointthroughdiscussingthedifferentialinterpretationsofthesubmissivesurprise andthecarnal(wo)man-eaterbypatriarchalepistemicagentsontheonehand,and exclusionaryradicalfeministepistemicagentsontheother.The potency ofhermeneuticalbastardizationtoreifyandstrengthenaspeciesofhermeneuticalinjustice not formedbyalacunaliesinthedialecticthatoccursbetweentwoexternalepistemic groupsandthecontrollingimages.Forexample,thetrans*debateinpopulardiscourse ispremisedonthediscussionof merecontrollingimages (typicallyoftransgender women)thanonrealexistingtransgenderpeople.Thetermsofthedebatearesetby patriarchalandradicalfeministdifferentialinterpretationsofthetwincontrolling images thisismadepossiblethroughtheexistenceofbastardizedresources.

Theterm “transgenderwoman” ispoorlyconceptualizedbycertainepistemicagents (onegroupengagingwithradicalfeministhermeneuticalresources,andanotherengagingwithacertainarrayofpatriarchalhermeneuticalresources).23 Thoughbothgroups havethe concept,the use oftheconceptisoften inadequate.Thisinadequacy,Ihave argued,iscausedby hermeneuticalbastardization:theconcept<Transgender

woman>hasthemeaningsproducedbyintra-communal(trans*)resourcesexorcised becausetheconceptisplacedwithinanothersetofresourcesandsubsequentlydecontextualized.Throughdecontextualization,thetermisopentobeingdefineddifferently byradicalfeministorpatriarchalsubjects.Iproposedthatpartof hermeneuticalbastardization wasthisdecontextualizingmovementofaresourceoutofonepoolofconceptsandintoanother.Whymakedecontextualizationpartofthisdefinition?The processofdecontextualizationmakespossibleanexplanationofhowthesamesetof controllingimagescanbeinterpretedasbearingdifferentmeaningsdependingon thesetofhermeneuticalresourcesonehasaccessto.Inparticular,theinterpretation oftransgenderwomenasaforcetobefearedontheonehand,andasaresourceto befetishizedontheother.

Takethosepatriarchalagentswhounderstand<Transgenderwoman>asaconcept tobeatleastpartlysynonymouswitheroticismandsexualpractice.Thiskindoffetishization(similartothatdescribedinAnzanietal. 2021) derivesfrom butalsohelpsto reproduce theimagesofthesubmissiveandthe(wo)man-eater.Theimageofthesubmissivesurpriseasdescribedaboveisthetransgenderwomanquaopensexualresource meek,polite,andreceptive,shegraciouslyreceiveswhatisbeinggiven.Thefeaturing ofthiskindoftransembodimentincis-orientedmediasuchaspornography,film,and televisionpromotestheuptakeofthisconceptanditsapplicationtoreal-worldtrans womenasembodyingthissexualizedcaricature.Similarly,theimageofthe(wo)maneater orthetranswomanwho “knowswhatshewants”—isthesexuallyforward woman.Again,sexualinnature,thisimageisalsoafeatureofcis-orientedmedia andisrepresentedastheawakeningof(cisgender)desireratherthanthesubmissive’ s satisfactionof(cisgender)desire.Inbothimages,whatisbeingtwistedisthecelebration ofsexandsexualitysuchthatanysexpositivityisinterpretedasthe core oftransexperienceandtheonlythingwearegoodfor.Thecontrollingimages,wheninterpretedby certainpatriarchalepistemicagents,undulyfetishizetranswomenandencouragecomplicitywithcisgendersexualdesireratherthanembracingourowndesiresandexploringourownrelationshipwithsexandsexuality.Expressionofsexualitybecomes somethingthatcanmarkoneoutasbeingopentosexualadvancesortheonewho doesthesexualadvancingandforthissetofepistemicagents,eithercaseisunderstood assomethingdesirableandprovocative: transgenderwomenfulfillingtheirsocialfunctionassexualresource.

Ontheotherhand,theverysamesetofimagescanbeinterpretedassomething dangerous and threatening.Nolongeremblematicofsexualityandhiddenornaughty(by cisheterosexualstandards)desires,<Transgenderwoman>comestobesomethingthat oughttobetreatedwithcautionwheninterpretedthroughasetofexclusionaryradical feministhermeneuticalresources.Whatforsomepatriarchalsubjectsisaninvitationto exploreeroticfantasy(thesubmissive)isfortheseradicalfeministsubjectsaconcerning caricatureof “ woman”—thecentralizationofsexandsexualityintheseimagesissubsequentlyinterpretedasanewinstanceofpatriarchalcontrolormaledominancethat seekstoreifytheideaof “ woman ” asnecessarilysexuallysubordinate.The(wo)maneaterrepresentsthemoreovertlydangeroustranswomanthroughher(supposedly) malesexualityandmasculinetraitsthathavenotbeencastoff(suchasin Raymond’sdescriptionoftheconstructedlesbianfeminist).Interpretedthroughunderstandingsofmale/femalerelationsandgenderinjusticeasbeingduetothedispositional andculturaldifferencesbetweenmenandwomen,theseradicalfeministepistemic agentsconceptualize<Transgenderwoman>throughthelensofculturalfeminism andits(often)essentializingviewsofgenderandsexdifferences.

Betweenfearandfetish,then,theconceptof<Transgenderwoman>issuspendedin debatebetweencisgendervoices.Whilstthereisnolacunawheretheconceptoughtto be,poorlyoperationalizedconceptsarepresentdependingonthesetofresourcesutilizedinitsconceptualization.Crucially,theseconceptualizationsdonotdrawfromthe breadthofintra-communalresourcesavailablewithinthetransgendercommunity. Instead,cisgenderconceptualizationsconstitutethetermsofthetrans*debate: Istransnessjustasexthing?No,it’samaliciousforceofpatriarchy!Theycanhavesexwithwhoevertheywantaslongasnoonegetshurt!Butthestructuralforcesofgendermakethat impossible,womanismorethanasexualobject! Theconceptisoverlysexualized becauseofthenarrowconceptualizationthatresultsfromhermeneuticalbastardization and,consequently,thedebaterageswithouttransgenderwomenbeingincludedwithin it.Itistheprocessofdecontextualizationthatmakesthissilencingandphantomdebate possiblebecauseofthedifferentialmeaningsproducedbytheinterpretationofcontrollingimagesfoundinthemediaandthepublicimagination.

Hermeneuticalbastardizationasaspeciesofhermeneuticalinjustice

Thispaperproposedaformofhermeneuticalinjusticethatdoesnotrequirealacunain ourpoolofsharedresources.Akeyaimofthepaperwastoconsiderhowgoodhermeneuticalresourcescangobadwhenusedbyprivilegedepistemicagents.Following Falbo(2022)Iexploredhowhermeneuticalconcepts make meanings,ratherthansimplyoffermaterialforinterpretation.Iarticulatedtworepresentationsthatoperateasa binarypairofcontrollingimagesfollowingadiscussionofdeLauretis’ andCollins’ accountsofhowrepresentationscanworktoeffectoppressivesystemsofthought andaction.Isuggestedthatthefetishization(desire)anddemonizingsexualization (fear)oftranswomenarenotconnectednecessarilytoone’spassingstatusbutregard theconceptualizationof “transwoman ” asatermdenotinganinherentlysexualperson orsetofpractices.Transgenderwomenareconsidered essentially sexualoreroticwhen thetermisdecontextualizedandreconceptualizedoutsideoftheintra-communalpool ofresources(i.e.,queerepistemologies).Whenmembersofasocialgrouparemadeinto essentially sexualcreatures,suchthatsexualforthcomingnessorsexualdepravityis expectedaspartandparcelofone’sidentity,theabilitythesegroupmembershave tobewellunderstoodand seen forwhotheyare(complexindividuals)isnullifiedby simplisticcaricatures.

Theproductionofthesecontrollingimagesisasymptomof hermeneuticalbastardization.Resultingfromaformofwillfulhermeneuticalignorance,epistemicagents rejectorareignorantoftheintra-communalconceptualizationofcertaintermsbyhermeneuticallymarginalizedcommunities,butthey do acquirethetermandavagueconceptionofitsuse.24 Thatis,thereisnolacunaintheirconceptualpool,butratherthe conceptfailstooperateinanadequatecapacity.Theexampleusedinthispaperhas beentheterm “transgenderwoman ”;it’snotthatotherepistemicgroupslacktheconcept,butthattheydonotadequatelyconceptualizeitinaccordancewiththeunderstandingsdevelopedbythetransgendercommunity.25 Thereasontermsthatundergo thisprocessare bastardized isbecausethereconceptualizationattachedtothemby externaldominantgroupsare illegitimate andfailintheiroriginaltaskofmaximizing understandingoftheexperienceoridentitythatthegroupengineeredtheconceptto referto.Thesehermeneuticallybastardizedresourcesare unjust foratleasttworeasons. First,thewillfulhermeneuticignorancethatmakesbastardizationpossiblesignalscertainepistemicvicessuchasarrogance,laziness,orclosed-mindedness;andsecond,the

poorlyredefinedconceptscanbecomeharmfulandfurthermarginalizethecommunity fromwhichtheconceptwasdecontextualized.Iillustratedthiscapacityforhermeneuticalresourcesto swingbothways throughtheperceptionoftransgenderwomenas either sexuallyavailableresources or subversiveoppressivepatriarchs dependingon thesetofhermeneuticalresourcesthatthetermistransplantedinto,andthecontrolling imagesusedtoredefinetheconcept.

Thisanalysisofbastardizedhermeneuticalresourcesisintendedtohighlightthe waysinwhichhermeneuticallymarginalizedgroupshavetheiridentitiesandunderstandingsdebatedwithouttheirinput.Agentsfromtwoconflictingdominantepistemic domains patriarchyandradicalfeminism debatethevalidityandintelligibilityof transfemininecaricatureswithouttransfemininelivesenteringtheconversation. Thiskindofhermeneuticalinjusticethereforederives,notfromagapinourcollective hermeneuticalresources,butfromtheinteractionbetweendominantsetsofresources andthebastardizationofintra-communalresourcesdevelopedbymarginalizedgroups.

Acknowledgments. IwouldliketothankDrJonRobsonforhisinvaluablediscussionandfeedbackand ProfessorPhilipGoodchildandDrKoshkaDuff,mydoctoralsupervisors,forcontinuallyencouragingthe developmentofmythinking.

Notes

1 Anoteonterminology:Ireferto “hermeneuticalresources” todenoteconceptsthataidintheparsingof thesocialworld.Assuch,ahermeneuticalresourcemightbeastereotype,aheuristic,ora “just-sostory.” Forthisreason,attimesIuse “concept” tomean “hermeneuticalresource” forthepurposesofreadability.If Iuse “concept” inanalternativesense,thiswillbemarkedappropriately.

2 InthispaperIfocuson<Transgenderwoman>.

3 Iidentifyhereaconcernabouttheallegedunivocalityof “ women ’sexperiences.”

4 Women’sliberationmovementsofthelate1960sandearly1970sfoundthemselvesembroiledindisputes overrace,class,andsexuality.Themovementsoftheperiodwerelargelywhiteandmiddle-class,leadingto amyopicconceptualizationof “ women ’soppression” (Echols 2019,106–07).Theemergenceofgayand lesbianmovementsinspiredsuspicionandaccusationswerelevelledtowardslesbianwomenthatthey wereretreatingfromthe “goodfight” sotospeak(2019,155–56).ThesuccessoftheRedstockingsledto internalcriticismsregardingthesuccessofprominentleadingmembersofthegroupandtheirmotivations forparticipation(2019,150,206).

5 Namely,thatbydevisingandgivingconceptualcontenttoatermthatthelacunacanbefilledandthus thathermeneuticalinjusticewillcease.Forexample,thatbydevising “Transwoman” withinthecontextsof queeractivismandcommunities,anamelessexperiencewillbecomeidentifiableandunderstandable beyondtheconfinesofthosewhohavethisexperience.

6 Ratherthanthelensofpassability,withwhichthedeceiver/pretenderbinaryisprimarilyconcerned.

7 Toillustratethispoint,considerthewaysinwhichthistotalizingrepresentationiswhite,middle-class, bothvirginalandexperienced,heterosexual,thin,andsoon.DeLauretis’ theorizationofTheWomancan beunderstoodthroughLorde’s(2017,96)conceptofthemythicalnorm:thatwhichrealexistingindividualsareunlikelytoachieve,andyetwhichstructuresthesocialrealitiesinwhichwemove.

8 Insofarastheepistemicagentinquestionisconstructedbyanotherasthatwhichtheyarenot(Fricker 2007,168).

9 HereweseetheinsightofDotson(2012)atwork:patriarchalepistemicagentsandfeministepistemic agentshavedifferingsetsofhermeneuticalresourcesthatstructureandparsesocialrealityindiverseways.

10 Through,e.g.,ideology,rhetoric,orstorytelling,whichonthisaccountarehermeneuticalresources.

11 Anzanietal.(2021)focusedontransmen,transwomen,andtransnon-binaryindividuals,notexclusivelytranswomen.

12 Whichthestudydemonstratesisnotuniquetotransfemininepersons.

13 Genderdysphoriacanrequireindividualstohavein-depthconversationswiththeirpartnersaboutwhat isandwhatisnotpermittedintermsoftouchingorfeelingvariousbodyparts.

14

ConsiderRobinMorgan’s1973addressinwhichshedeclaredthatatransgenderwomanwhoexperiencescat-callingorphysicalsexualassaultwould enjoy theexperiencebecauseoftheallegederoticcoreof transgenderpractices(Samek2016).

15 Notethatthereisabigdifferencebetweenindividualswhoworkinthesextradebecauseeitheritis theircareer,theywantto,orbecausetheyenjoyit,andthosethatdoitbecauseitissomethingthey haveacquiescedtoorbecomeresignedtofromrepeatedpoortreatmentinsexualcontexts.

16 Anzanietal.(2021)observethatTGNBparticipantsrecordedfetishizationbybothcisgendermenand cisgenderwomen.

17 “Good” and “bad” heretrackswhethertheindividualissexuallyreceptiveorsexuallyactiveandtraces conventionalsexualexpectationsofwomenunderpatriarchy.

18 TherelationofthetwinimagesasdescribedherereflecttheBlanchardiantypologyof “homosexual [straight]Transsexuals” and “heterosexual[lesbian]Transsexuals.” Blanchard’sworkonautogynephilia mightbeconsideredaprecipitatingfactorintheformationofthesetwinimages.Blanchard’sresearch intotranssexualityanditsetiologywasfocusedonsexualorientation,practice,andmostsignificantly,sexualarousal.Blanchardianstudiesintotransfemininepersonscentersthesexualcharacterofsubjects,rather thantreatingitasonlyafacetofone’sidentityorinterests.(FormorecriticismanddiscussiononBlanchard seeSerano 2010, 2021.)

19 Which,forRaymond,wouldalsoconstituteaproblembecausethefemininityoftransgenderwomenis aproblematicuptakeofanoppressivesocialconstructbyindividualsperceivedtobepartofthepatriarchy.

20 Dotson(2012,29)observes: “Theproblemofbiasedhermeneuticalresourcesisdiscussedofteninthe workofwomenofcolor.Forexample,PatriciaHillCollinsidentifiesstructurallyprejudicedassessmentsof knowledgethatworktosuppresstheknowledgeofBlackwomenintheUnitedStates.”

21 SeePodosky(2019)forin-depthdiscussionregardingthecomplexitiesofwhetherconceptualresources arebornebysocialgroups.

22 Iwillnotdiscusstheintricaciesoftheexampleinthispaper.SeeFalbo(2022)foraninterestingexpositionofhermeneuticalclashesinthiscontext.

23 Iamreferringtoaspecificsetofradicalfeministagentsandaspecificsetofpatriarchalagents,however foreaseIuse “radicalfeminists” and “patriarchalagents” totalkaboutthesespecificgroupings.

24 E.g.,of “amandressedasawoman,” or “amanwhothinksheisawoman.”

25 Whichhas,ofcourse,drawnonanddevelopedthemeaningofthetermfromthepathologicalcategoriesof “transvestite” and “transsexual.” Iacknowledgethisforcompletenessandleaveopenthequestionof whetherreclaimingtermsisareversedprocessofbastardizationoranotherprocessentirely.

References

Anzani,Annalisa,LouisLindley,GiacomoTognasso,M.PazGalupo,andAntonioPrunas.2021. “Being talkedtolikeIwasasextoy,likebeingTransgenderwassimplyfortheenjoymentofsomeoneelse” : FetishizationandsexualizationofTransgenderandnonbinaryindividuals. ArchivesofSexualBehavior 50(3):897–911.

Balkin,Jack.1990.Nestedopposition. YaleLawJournal 99(7):1669–1705.

Barnes,Elizabeth.2016. Theminoritybody.NewYork:Routledge Bettcher,TaliaMae.2007.Evildeceiversandmake-believers:Ontransphobicviolenceandthepoliticsof illusion. Hypatia 22(3):43–65.

Blanchard,Ray.1989.Theconceptofautogynephiliaandthetypologyofmalegenderdysphoria. Journalof NervousandMentalDisease 177(10):616–23.

Collins,PatriciaHill.1986.Learningfromtheoutsidewithin:ThesociologicalsignificanceofBlackfeminist thought. SocialProblems 33(6):14–32.

Collins,PatriciaHill.2000. Blackfeministthought:Knowledge,consciousnessandthepoliticsofempowerment,2ndedn.NewYork:Routledge DeLauretis,Teresa.1984. Alicedoesn’t:Feminism,semiotics,cinema.Basingstoke:Macmillan. DeLauretis,Teresa.1989. Technologiesofgender:Essaysontheory,film,andfiction.Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Dembroff,Robin.2020.Beyondbinary:Genderqueerasacriticalgenderkind. Philosophers’ Imprint 20(9): 1–23. 20MeganR.F.Drury

Dotson,Kristie.2012.Acautionarytale:Onlimitingepistemicoppression. Frontiers:AJournalofWomen’ s Studies 33(1):24–47.

Echols,Alice.2019. Daringtobebad:RadicalfeminisminAmerica1967–1975,2nded.Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Elzinga,Benjamin.2018.Hermeneuticalinjusticeandliberatoryeducation. SouthernJournalofPhilosophy 56(1):59–82.

Falbo,Arianna.2022.Hermeneuticalinjustice:Distortionandconceptualaptness. Hypatia 37(2): 343 –63.

Federico,Luzzi.2021.Deception-basedhermeneuticalinjustice. Episteme (FirstView):1–19. Fricker,Miranda.2007. Epistemicinjustice.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Fricker,Miranda.2016.Epistemicinjusticeandthepreservationofignorance.In Theepistemicdimensions ofignorance,ed.RikPeelsandMartijnBlaauw.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Fricker,Miranda,andKatharineJenkins.2017.Epistemicinjustice,ignorance,andTransexperience.In The Routledgecompaniontofeministphilosophy,ed.AnnGarry,SereneJ.Khader,andAlisonStone. Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge. Gleeson,Jessamy,andBreanon,Turner.2019.Onlineactivismasperformativeconsciousness-raising:A #MeToocasestudy.In #MeTooandthepoliticsofsocialchange.,ed.BiancaFilebornand RachelLoney-Howes.Basongstoke:PalgraveMacmillan. Goetze,TrystanS.2018.Hermeneuticaldissentandthespeciesofhermeneuticalinjustice. Hypatia 33(1): 73–90.

Graham,BenjaminC.,SarahE.Butler,RyanMcGraw,ShelbyMarieCanes,andJoannaSmith.2016. MemberperspectivesontheroleofBDSMcommunities. JournalofSexResearch 53(8):895–909.

Hänel,HilkjeC. 2020.Hermeneuticalinjustice,(self-)recognition,andacademia. Hypatia 35(2): 336 –54.

Haslanger,Sally.2015.Socialstructure,narrative,andexplanation. CanadianJournalofPhilosophy 45(1): 1–15.

Howansky,Kristina,LeighS.Wilton,DanielleM.Young,SamanthaAbrams,andRebekahClapham.2021. (Trans)genderstereotypesandtheself:Contentandconsequencesofgenderidentitystereotypes. Self andIdentity 20(4):478–95.

Jenkins,Katharine. 2020.Onticinjustice. JournaloftheAmericanPhilosophicalAssociation 6(2): 188 –205.

Lorde,Audre.2017. Yoursilencewillnotprotectyou.London:SilverPress. McKinnon,Rachel.2014.StereotypethreatandattributionalambiguityforTranswomen. Hypatia 29(4): 857–72.

McKinnon,Rachel.2016.Epistemicinjustice. PhilosophyCompass 11(8):437–46. Medina,José.2012.Hermeneuticalinjusticeandpolyphoniccontextualism:Socialsilencesandsharedhermeneuticalresponsibilities. SocialEpistemology 26(2):201–20. Medina,José.2013. Theepistemologyofresistance:Genderandracialoppression,epistemicinjustice,andthe socialimagination.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Medina,José.2017.Varietiesofhermeneuticalinjustice.In TheRoutledgehandbookofepistemicinjustice, ed.IanJamesKidd,JoséMedina,andGailePohlhaus,Jr.NewYork:Routledge. Meyerowitz,Joanne.2002. Howsexchanged:AhistoryoftranssexualityintheUnitedStates.London: HarvardUniversityPress.

Podosky,Paul-MikhailCatapang.2019.Whatdefinesaconceptualresource? Ergo 6(6):143–67. PohlhausJr.,Gaile.2012.Relationalknowingandepistemicinjustice:Towardatheoryof “willfulhermeneuticalignorance.” Hypatia 27(4):715–35.

Raymond,JaniceG.1994. Thetranssexualempire:Themakingoftheshe-male.NewYork:Teacher’sCollege Press.

Raymond,JaniceG.2006.Sapphobysurgery:Thetranssexuallyconstructedlesbianfeminist.In The Transgenderstudiesreader,ed.SusanStrykerandStephenWhittle.NewYork:Routledge. Robinson,BrandonAndrew.2023.Transamorousmisogyny:Masculinity,heterosexuality,andcismen’ s sexistdesiresfortranswomen. MenandMasculinities 26(3):356–75. Samek,AlyssaA.2018.Violenceandidentitypolitics:1970slesbian-feministdiscourseandRobin Morgan’s1973WestCoastLesbianConferencekeynoteaddress. CommunicationandCritical/ CulturalStudies 13(3):232–49.

Sarachild,Kathie.1978.Consciousness-raising:Aradicalweapon.In Feministrevolution.Abridgeded.,ed. KathieSarachild,CarolHanisch,FayeLevine,BarbaraLeon,andColettePrice.NewYork:Random House.

Serano,Julia.2010.Thecaseagainstautogynephilia. InternationalJournalofTransgenderism 12(3):176–87. Serano,Julia.2016. Whippinggirl:Atranssexualwomanonsexismandthescapegoatingoffemininity,2nd ed.Berkeley,CA:SealPress.

Serano,Julia.2021.Autogynephilia:Ascientificreview,feministanalysis,andalternative “embodimentfantasies” model. SociologicalReviewMonographs 68(4):763–78.

MeganR.F.Drury isadoctoralresearcher,teachingassistant,andresearchassociateattheUniversityof Nottingham,UK.Herdoctoralthesisarguesforanalternativesexualontologytothesex/gender distinctiondrawingonfeministphilosophy,trans*andqueertheory,thephilosophyofscience,and Europeanthoughtofthetwentiethcentury.Megan’sbroaderresearchinterestsincludecriticalanimal studiesandthephilosophyofArtificialIntelligence.HerPhDresearchisfundedbytheUKArtsand HumanitiesResearchCouncil.

Citethisarticle: DruryMRF(2024).ConceptsandContexts:TowardsaTheoryof “Hermeneutical Bastardization” Hypatia 1–22.https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2024.32 22MeganR.F.Drury