Max Planck (1858–1947), the German theoretical physicist, once said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” (Planck, 1950). Azoulay et al., (2019) had a somewhat positive appraisal of this eventuality, noting that “While outsiders appear reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive, the loss of a luminary provides an opportunity for fields to evolve in new directions that advance the frontier of knowledge” (p. 2889).

In this Special Section, the three essays by Meyer-Bahlburg, Lowrey, and Hooven, along with the Discussion piece by Pfaus, will, I hope, launch for discussion within the sex/gender community how scientific and intellectual discourse are possibly being affected by what has come to be known, colloquially, as “cancel culture.” For those interested in learning more about the concept, it would not be hard to find many books on the subject (e.g., Dershowitz, 2020). Just Google “cancel culture books.” As defined in a Wikipedia entry, “Cancel culture or call-out culture is a phrase contemporary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles–whether it be online, on social media, or in person” (Cancel culture, n.d.). By this definition, one might say, with a bit of sarcasm, a funeral is not required, only a nasty tweet. One drifts away from scientific and intellectual discourse into the murky world of personal attacks. It is not difficult to find examples of this. I list two here (it is easy to find many other instances):

1. A headline of an online article in Fox News reads: “University of Southern Maine students demand professor be replaced for saying only two sexes exist” (Sabes, 2022). In the article itself, it was reported that a “facilitated restorative justice meeting” was held. Students at the meeting alleged that the professor was “transphobic.” One student felt under “personal attack” because of the professor’s view that biological sex is binary. The article indicated that an “alternative” section for the class would be made available for students who desired it but that the professor wouldn’t be removed.

2. Another headline of an online article in Fox News reads: “Old Dominion University places professor on leave after interview defending ‘minor-attracted persons’” (Colton & O’Neil, 2021) (see also Web Staff, 2021). It should be made clear that the professor was not an advocate of intergenerational sex but rather that non-offending individuals required greater understanding and support. Nonetheless, one student said: “Honestly…it just sounds gross. Just because you’re not acting on it, to acknowledge it is weird and not [ok] at all. It feels uncomfortable to know that [someone] like that [is] on campus…” As noted in a subsequent article in The Washington Post, the professor in question resigned (Asbury, 2021) and an article in the Daily Mail reported that the individual was able to secure employment elsewhere (Hammer, 2022).

Then, there are instances in which an academic is critiqued not so much on a personal level, but on the research that they have chosen to do, which slides into a more complicated discourse on what the boundaries of academic freedom should look like. Two examples:

1. A graduate student published an article in which the aim was to understand how people who read shota (self-published Japanese erotic comics) experience sexual pleasure (Andersson, 2022). Andersson reported that he masturbated as an “ethnographic method” to deepen his understanding of how readers of shota comics think about and experience sexual desire: “For a period of 3 months, I would masturbate only to shota comics….in the same way that my research participants did it. After each masturbation session[,] I would write down my thoughts and feelings…a kind of critical self-reflection…” The paper went, as they say, “viral” and the journal retracted the article (Retraction Notice, 2022) (for critiques of the decision to retract, see Brienza, 2022; Grove, 2022).

The retraction of papers where the reason for it is not what some of us have, historically, understood to be the main justification (e.g., fraudulent data collection, clear statistical errors rendering the analysis/interpretation invalid) is becoming more common. In December 2022, a paper co-authored by a well-known sex/gender researcher was retracted by the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (Article on sexual orientation and psych disorders retracted–without the author’s knowledge, he says, 2022). The retraction notice stated: “This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor in Chief of Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews after concerns were raised with respect to the phrasing of comparisons drawn between humans and animal models. These comparisons were deemed unsupportable, and thus in the best interests of publication standards the Editor has concluded it is necessary to retract the paper. The authors disagree with the reason for the retraction” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421004310). So much for peer review or, instead of a retraction, publishing the concerns that were raised (and, perhaps, allowing the authors to respond to the concerns). Here, I will not delve into a discussion, also ongoing, about retracting “historical” articles, i.e., articles published several decades ago, which, by contemporary standards, would be deemed problematic (see, for example, Psychologists want to retract old paper about conversion therapy. Elsevier says no, 2022).

2. In Britain, a criminology professor at Open University was scheduled to give a lecture at Essex University about “placing transgender women in women’s prisons” (A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities, 2021). Students complained. The department under whose auspices the talk was to be delivered rescinded the invitation. Disinvitations (or “no-platforming”), as they are called, are part of the “cancel culture” landscape (Stevens, 2017). There are, to be sure, instances of individuals who have been disinvited to speak but they do not want to make this broadly known publicly or instances where individuals are intentionally not invited to speak (e.g., for a colloquium) because of concern that it would cause too much trouble.

To be clear, these kinds of developments are not unique to sex/gender discourse and, in my view, cut across the “left–right” political spectrum, although perhaps not equally. For example, in December 2022, it was reported that a Dean at the University of Houston lost his post, apparently because of his support for “abolitionism,” a movement that calls for the elimination of police and prisons (Zahneis, 2022). Contrast this with the decision by a philosophy professor in the UK to resign her post in 2021 because of the ongoing protests (online and in person) of her “gender-critical” feminist views about sex/gender (Cohen, 2022; see also Suissa & Sullivan, 2019).

“Cancel culture” discourse has resulted in some universities making a renewed effort to articulate some core principles of academic freedom (see, e.g., Powell, 2021), exemplified in the Statement on Faculty, Free Expression, and Diversity at the University of Chicago (see Zimmer, 2020). Prominent academic intellectuals have weighed in on the importance of this, including Noam Chomsky, a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see Chiu, 2020), who is probably better known for his pointedly left-wing critiques of U.S. foreign policy and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Although the Chicago Statement has been adopted by many other universities, it has, of course, not been spared of critique (Wood, 2015), but, in my view, critique is preferable to cancellation. As former U.S. President Barack Obama weighed in: “If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire, make them defend their positions….Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you’re too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they're not making any sense” (Tani, 2016).

The Archives is the official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research (IASR). As a member of the IASR since 1983 (I haven’t missed one meeting since), I have long been impressed with its openness to discussion and debate, not cancellation, of controversial topics. Three old memories come to mind: the spirited debate between Gunter Dörner and Louie Gooren in the symposium on “LH [luteinizing hormone] Regulation and Sexual Orientation” at the 1986 meeting in Amsterdam, the contrasting two symposia on biological models of sexual orientation at the 1993 meeting in Pacific Grove, California, and the debate between Leonore Tiefer and Raymond Rosen on “Sex Research and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Collaboration or Co-optation? at the 1998 meeting in Sirmione, Italy.

Perhaps it is the case that nowadays it has become more difficult to have these kinds of passionate, if not heated, discussions about our sex/gender science, but I hope that this Special Section will serve as a spark for sex/gender teachers, clinicians, and researchers to give some thought to how “cancel culture” discourse impacts the work that we do (or don’t do) and for reflection on how we should (or should not) move forward. Commentaries are welcome and should be submitted via Editorial Manager and tagged as a Commentary.