The conceptual penis is the operative representation of the penis in society as it obtains via a variety of performative acts and statements related to and concerning gender. Conceptualization is the best way to understand the penis, as the notion of “penis as a male anatomical organ” suffers typical androcentric and meta-scientific limitations and errors as it is both overly reductive, in failing to represent the full reality of penis-bearing human experiences, and incoherent, as the penis itself has little or nothing to do with gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Come on, Perfesser, can you really read this and not know somebody's yanking yer chain? Which is, after all, a conceptual penis itself?
So I read both the paper and the explanation. I also enjoyed Fashionable Nonsense when it was released. The problem is that the true believers will believe whatever nonsense is tossed their way if it has enough references. One can state virtually anything these days if it sounds familiar and you can provide 3 references to it.
It is interesting that Boghossian is a “facts and reason, not faith and tradition” atheist. If one thought too hard about this one might conclude that he thinks that gender studies and theology are cut from the same cloth, ie. invented for the reassurance of the believer. He might be afraid to come out and say that. He is, after all, a professor.
I don’t agree with the thesis, I’m just pointing it out.