Regret risk is not consistently part of information sharing within informed consent. Yet two kinds of decisions that often invoke concerns about future regret, abortion and sterilization, raise considerations for the role of regret in clinical decision-making and informed consent, particularly regarding decisions about potentially transformative experiences. We distinguish between first-personal and second-personal anticipatory regret and argue that first-personal anticipatory regret can play a productive role, but second-personal anticipatory regret can function in ways that are pernicious. Introducing second-personal anticipatory regret into medical informed consent processes is, we argue, not only not required for informed medical decision-making, but impermissible within the clinical encounter. This view has broader implications for medical decision-making about potentially transformative experiences, and for empirical research on regret regarding healthcare decisions.

Emerging as a critique of the cultural paradigm in philosophy, new materialism has had a significant impact on the contemporary landscape of the humanities and social sciences, particularly since the 2000s. Following Donna Haraway’s 1988 critique of social constructivism, developed through her concept of situated knowledge, which invited feminists to make reality claims rather than merely addressing the extent to which this or that practice is socially constructed, new materialist feminisms proposed solutions for conceiving the agency of matter—as well as the body and the nonhuman—in its various entanglements with meaning and discourse. Most have criticized Judith Butler’s concept of performativity for reducing the body to either a sign or a fantasy, thus ignoring its agency. In this article, after positioning the new materialist critique of the cultural turn as a response to Haraway’s earlier call for faithful claims to reality, I argue that the underlying problem of the new materialists with Butlerian performativity is generally framed in terms of an objection to correlationism, as conceptualized by the French philosopher Meillassaux, which the new materialist feminisms themselves do not manage to evade either.

In most areas of philosophy, the typical paper is written impersonally, as if its author occupied what Henry Sidgwick calls “the point of view of the universe” or what Thomas Nagel calls “the view from nowhere” or what Donna Haraway (more skeptically) calls the “god’s-eye view.” In critical social traditions, however—feminist philosophy, philosophy of disability, philosophy of race—personal writing is widely embraced. I argue that there is more at stake here than mere style, and that we have good reasons, both political and epistemic, to abandon the “view from nowhere” pretense and write more openly about the ways in which our lived experiences inform our work. In the words of Eva Kittay, the personal is philosophical.

The study of hermeneutical injustice tends to restrict the category of “hermeneutical resources” to discursive resources: words, concepts, and expressive styles. This article foregrounds a diverse set of nondiscursive hermeneutical resources, including embodied skills, habits, comportments, and dispositions, and argues that such resources are vitally important for theorizing self-interpretative dysfunction. I reconstruct four accounts of gendered embodiment from Nancy Tuana, Bat-Ami Bar On, Iris Marion Young, and Simone de Beauvoir, and I argue that each implicitly treats embodied practices, comportments, and dispositions as hermeneutical resources. I also consider several implications of and objections to incorporating nondiscursive hermeneutical resources into the study of hermeneutical injustice, and argue that doing so complicates standard accounts of the relationship between hermeneutical injustice and epistemic injustice.

In this paper, I identify a distinctive type of epistemic injustice which I call “identification-based injustice.” In paradigm cases, a prejudiced interlocutor responds to a trans speaker’s gender self-identification (e.g., “I am a woman”) with disbelief or dismissal. This is an everyday form of injustice experienced by trans individuals, and frequently has severe practical consequences. It involves testimony with a particular kind of content, namely self-identification. I argue that because the relevant self-IDs express substantial self-knowledge, the injustice harms the speaker both in their capacity as a knower and in their capacity to be known, by themself and by others. This illuminates a distinctively epistemic obligation on the part of hearers to take trans speakers’ self-identifications seriously.

In recent decades, ethicists have engaged with new developments in human reproductive technologies from a variety of angles. Yet there has been relatively little effort to problematize the concept of reproduction itself. In this paper, we examine the question of what reproduction is and its relationship with biology. We show that reproduction is commonly assumed to entail biological parenthood—an assumption that we term “the biological reproduction paradigm.” Drawing on Sally Haslanger’s analysis of the biological/social division between sex and gender, we suggest that the concept of reproduction is socially constructed, despite its apparently biological nature. In turn, we argue that the supposed necessity of the relationship between reproduction and biological parenthood leads to a situation in which access to a variety of medical, legal, and social goods is constrained on the basis of spurious, inconsistent, and undertheorized assumptions. Finally, we note that, given the socially constructed nature of reproduction, we cannot take it for granted that the term “reproduction” signifies the same thing among different interlocutors and in different contexts.

The inclusion problem for theories of gender arises when those theories inappropriately fail to include certain individuals in the gender categories to which they ought to belong. The inclusion problem affects both of the most influential traditions in feminist theorizing about gender: social-position accounts and identity accounts. I argue that the inclusion problem can be solved by adopting a structured theory of gender, which incorporates aspects of both social-position accounts and identity accounts. According to the theory I favor, an individual’s gender is determined by their gender identity if they have one; otherwise, it is determined by their social position. My structured theory of gender offers a more direct solution to the gender inclusion problem than alternatives recently advocated by Barnes (2020), Jenkins (2023), and others. It also points the way to a simple solution to inclusion problems that arise at the level of gendered language.