I’m always disappointed when I see Canadian feminist philosophers contribute to and reproduce the significant role that philosophy in Canada and Canadian bioethicists in particular play in the legacy of eugenics in Canada and the exclusion of disabled philosophers and philosophy of disability that this legacy requires and sustains. Given the systemic and structural character of eugenics in Canadian philosophy and in philosophy elsewhere, however, I am no longer surprised when I encounter a feminist philosopher/bioethicist who implicitly or explicitly promotes the agenda of eugenics which, in essence, is at the heart of bioethics.

It’s a reminder to me that many feminist philosophers who seem to have an astute analysis of how philosophy enables and reinforces the constitution of asymmetrical gender and gendered power relations do not necessarily hold a sophisticated understanding of the apparatus of disability; these feminist philosophers do not necessarily understand how disability is mutually constitutive with gender (among other apparatuses); and they may likewise fail to acknowledge philosophy’s role in their mutual constitution. I say ‘feminist philosophers who seem to have an astute analysis of gender’ because, by definition (for me and other disabled feminist philosophers of disability at least), any understanding of gender that does not adequately address (the apparatus of) disability is an inadequate understanding of gender too and should not be endorsed. For disabled feminist philosophers of disability, that is, an analysis of gender that fails to account for disability is really only about nondisabled people and is therefore ableist.

So, needless to say, I was disappointed, but not surprised, when I saw prominent Canadian feminist philosophers promote the CBC’s extended coverage of Arthur Schafer in the past week. Like Udo Schüklenk, Schafer is an established bioethicist in Canada and thus, by definition, is a proponent of MAiD. (A disabled philosopher who openly opposes MAiD would never get hired in a Canadian philosophy department. That’s academic freedom for you!) Like Schüklenk and other bioethicists, Schafer misrepresents most of the arguments against MAiD (and its expansion) that opponents advance. Like Schüklenk and other bioethicists, furthermore, Schafer articulates his claims about various groups that oppose MAiD in a manner that is disrespectful, condescending, and dismissive, especially given that these groups primarily comprise disabled, Indigenous, racialized, and other marginalized people.

It’s difficult to imagine that feminist philosophers would be willing to overlook this arrogant and dismissive demeanor from nondisabled white male philosophers if it were directed solely at a group of nondisabled people, or more specifically, groups that comprise nondisabled white gender minorities. Nevertheless, if you spend enough time in Canadian philosophy, you will begin to recognize the (conditional) universality and normalization of these ad hominem tactics and the ways in which they have been thoroughly depoliticized, standardized, and occupy a central place in the curricula of both general and specialized bioethics courses in Canada (and an increasing number of other geopolitical contexts).

Indeed, philosophers who wish to advance claims according to which my arguments about the eugenic impetus of bioethics “sound like conspiracy theory,” that is, any philosopher who doubts the claims that I make in various publications (for example, here and here) about the fundamental role that bioethics plays in the exclusion of disabled philosophers, the expanding rationalization of eugenics under the guise of philosophical argument, and the relation between these phenomena should spend some time in deep reflection and deliberation about Schafer’s remarks from the past week. That these remarks have been disseminated by the CBC is not surprising given the broadcaster’s unofficial status as the propaganda arm of Trudeau’s Liberals. (Every effective ideology encompasses a population-wide system for its dissemination.) Nor is it unpredictable that the CBC deemed it appropriate to title the IDEAS segment on Schafer “How Philosophy Plays a Vital Role in Canada’s Biggest Ethical Debates.” Nevertheless, we—that is, astute philosophers of disability—can point out the pernicious nature of this Trump-like “both sides” characterization of the so-called ethical debate about eugenics in Canada, while simultaneously recognizing the generative and essential role that philosophy has served as a resource for its very formulation.