Alex Byrne

The transgender child is a familiar and polarizing trope in the present century. Some, such as the writer J. K. Rowling, take transgender children to be cultural fictions: there are no trans kids, as there are no mermaids or leprechauns. Others, including prominent figures in pediatric gender medicine, hold that some children are transgender, just as some children have brown eyes or are naturally outgoing. The only difference is that transgender children require special support, unlike brown-eyed or outgoing children. Instruction manuals are needed, for instance Brill and Pepper’s The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Parents and Professionals. And when puberty commences, medical interventions may be recommended. A third view is that transgender children are examples of “making up people” in the sense of Ian Hacking’s eponymous 1986 essay: transgender children are brought into existence by a social process that involves (in part) naming or classifying children as transgender. This paper defends the third view: there are trans kids, but they are made, not discovered.

This chapter approaches some fundamental questions in perceptual epistemology through a dispute between McDowell and Wright about external-world scepticism. The dispute turns on what McDowell means by claiming that we have ‘direct perceptual access to environmental facts’. On the recommended interpretation, if we do have ‘direct perceptual access’ then the relevant sceptical argument fails. It fails anyway for other reasons; moreover, these reasons provide materials for defending McDowell’s claim of ‘direct perceptual access’.

Color is an endlessly fascinating subject to philosophers, scientists, and laypersons, as well an an instructive microcosm of cognitive science. In these two anthologies, Alex Byrne and David Hilbert present a survey of the important recent philosophical and scientific writings on color. The introduction to volume 1 provides a philosophical background and links the philosophical issues to the empirical work covered in volume 2. The bibliography in volume 1 is an extensive resource for those doing philosophical work on color. The scientific selections in volume 2 present work in color science that is relevant to philosophical thinking about color; the material is comprehensive and sophisticated enough to be useful to the scientific reader. The introduction to volume 2 is an overview of color science; the volume also contains suggestions for further reading.

Sex used to rule. Now gender identity is on the throne. Sex survives as a cheap imitation of its former self: assigned at birth, on a spectrum, socially constructed, and definitely not binary. Apparently quite a few of us fall outside the categories ‘male’ and ‘female’. But gender identity is said to be universal – we all have one. Humanity used to be cleaved into two sexes, whereas now the crucial division depends on whether our gender identity aligns with our body. If it does, we are cisgender; if it does not, we are transgender. The dethroning of sex has meant the threat of execution for formerly noble words such as ‘woman’ and ‘man’. In this provocative, bold, and humane book, the philosopher Alex Byrne pushes back against the new gender revolution. Drawing on evidence from biology, psychology, anthropology and sexology, Byrne exposes the flaws in the revolutionary manifesto. The book applies the tools of philosophy, accessibly and with flair, to gender, sex, transsexuality, patriarchy, our many identities, and our true or authentic selves. The topics of _Trouble with Gender_ are relevant to us all. This is a book for anyone who has wondered ‘Is sex binary?’, ‘Why are men and women different?’, ‘What is a woman?’ or, simply, ‘Where can I go to know more about these controversies?’ Revolutions devour their own children, and the gender revolution is no exception. _Trouble with Gender_ joins the forefront of the counter-revolution, restoring sex to its rightful place, at the centre of what it means to be human.

Similarity claims about the colors, for instance that blue is more similar to purple than to yellow, are Sometimes held to pose a serious problem for physicalism about color: the view that colors are physical properties of some kind. I examine various responses to this problem, find them wanting, and give my own solution, which appeals to the way colors are visually represented. Finally, I argue that the proposed account removes the principal motivation for Lewis's and Walker's response to Kripke's Wittgenstein, in terms of “natural” properties.

The Dangerous Book for Boys Abstract: Seventeenth and eighteenth century discussions of the senses are often thought to contain a profound truth: some perceptible properties are secondary qualities, dispositions to produce certain sorts of experiences in perceivers. In particular, colors are secondary qualities: for example, an object is green iff it is disposed to look green to standard perceivers in standard conditions. After rebutting Boghossian and Velleman’s argument that a certain kind of secondary quality theory is viciously circular, we discuss three main lines of argument for the secondary quality theory. The first is inspired by an intuitively compelling picture of perception articulated by Reid; the second is that the secondary quality theory is a conceptual truth; the third line of argument is presented in Johnston’s influential paper ‘How to speak of the colors’. We conclude that all these arguments fail, and that the secondary quality theory is unmotivated. Keywords: color, secondary quality, disposition, vision, perception..

This chapter surveys the varieties of disjunctivism concerning perceptual experience. Disjunctivism comes in two main flavours: metaphysical and epistemological. Metaphysical disjunctivism is the view usually associated with the disjunctivist label. After some initial discussion of (metaphysical) disjunctivism, epistemological disjunctivism is explained. The rest of the chapter is solely concerned with explaining and assessing metaphysical disjunctivism, a theory of the nature of perceptual experience. The main conclusion is that although there is considerable insight in the vicinity, metaphysical disjunctivism is false.

In a companion paper (Byrne and Green 2023) we disentangled the main characterizations of naïve realism and argued that illusions provide the best proving ground for naïve realism and its main rival, representationalism. According to naïve realism, illusions never involve perceptual error. We assessed two leading attempts to explain apparent perceptual error away, from William Fish and Bill Brewer, and concluded that they fail. This paper considers another prominent attempt, from Craig French and Ian Phillips, and also sketches the case for representationalism.

The “affirming” healthcare model for gender-distressed youth is endorsed by the medical establishment in the United States, but many European nations have retreated from it. This controversy would be expected to attract the interest of philosophers and bioethicists, with a diverse range of opinions appearing in academic articles. However, when philosophers and bioethicists have ventured into print, they have almost invariably endorsed the affirmative approach, which involves life-changing medical interventions on children with psychological problems. This is a sign that the process of academic research and writing is not functioning as it should. We recount the failure of philosophy and bioethics to address the issues raised by gender-affirming healthcare. We also offer an explanation of this failure, and in the final section make some recommendations for improving academic integrity.

Different authors offer subtly different characterizations of naïve realism. We disentangle the main ones and argue that illusions provide the best proving ground for naïve realism and its main rival, representationalism. According to naïve realism, illusions never involve perceptual error. We assess two leading attempts to explain apparent perceptual error away, from William Fish and Bill Brewer, and conclude that they fail. Another leading attempt is assessed in a companion paper, which also sketches an alternative representational account.

In Colour for Architecture, published in 1976, the editors, Tom Porter and Byron Mikellides, explain that their book was “produced out of an awareness that colour, as a basic and vital force, is lacking from the built environment and that our knowledge of it is isolated and limited.”1 Lack of urban color was then especially salient in Britain—where the book was published—which had just begun to recoil at the Brutalist legacy of angular stained gray concrete strewn across the postwar landscape. Perhaps because the most urgent need was to inject some hue into this architectural dystopia, one of the main innovations illustrated in the book involves nothing more than cans of paint. Dull unfinished concrete façades, the interior of a subway station, a cement works, and so on, are shown enlivened by fields of bright color.

When we open our eyes, the world seems full of colored opaque objects, light sources, and transparent volumes. One historically popular view, _eliminativism_, is that the world is not in this respect as it appears to be: nothing has any color. Color _realism_, the denial of eliminativism, comes in three mutually exclusive varieties, which may be taken to exhaust the space of plausible realist theories. Acccording to _dispositionalism_, colors are _psychological_ dispositions: dispositions to produce certain kinds of visual experiences. According to both _primitivism_ and _physicalism_, colors are not psychological dispositions; they differ in that primitivism says that no reductive analysis of the colors is possible, whereas physicalism says that they are physical properties. This paper is a defense of physicalism about color.