First, Dr. Krasnoff falsely claims that “Gaslighting as Epistemic Violence” and “Luck and Norms” were not peer-reviewed: they were.
Both Routledge and Rowman and Littlefield are respected academic publishers with rigorous review processes. Articles published in edited volumes in philosophy undergo preliminary peer review by the volume editors...
This is an interesting little dodge. Rhys is claiming that the "review" provided by an encyclopedia editor is the same as academic peer review. This is academic work, the editors are my peers, and they're reviewing it, therefore it's academic peer review. Right?!
Third, I underwent tenure review in 2018.
Rhys has this weird habit of making "points" out of facts that aren't in dispute, or of his personal opinions.
Fifth, from what I can discern, Dr. Krasnoff has not denied this request to any other faculty in the Philosophy Department since his time as chair. That is, I am the only tenured faculty member who has had a request to rollover their performance evaluation ratings from their most recent full performance evaluation or major evaluation.
Throughout, Rhys expects to be treated just like all his colleagues even if his performance and actions are nothing like his colleagues.
You can also swap in "women" for "his colleagues".
In fact, it is entirely normal for a faculty member to shift their research focus post-tenure. That is no justification for denying a request to rollover evaluation ratings.
The actual policy simply states that the chair must either accept the request or give a reason why not, it's left entirely up to the chair's discretion. The notion of an "invalid justification" doesn't exist in the rules.
Seventh, Dr. Krasnoff has not published any work in my areas of research in epistemology, feminist epistemology, metaphysics of luck, trans philosophy, and sports ethics.
As discussed above, Rhys denies anyone's authority to judge his work unless they published in his particular fields.
Tenth, my 2019 “Luck and Norms” chapter is a third of a trilogy of articles I have published on the metaphysics of luck
This is somewhat absurd. His first two luck papers were published in
2013 and 2014 when he still went as "Rhys", and there's no mention of them being planned as a trilogy. In fact, the latest paper gives no indication that it's the culmination or conclusion of anything. It's a trilogy only in the "ever-expanding" way "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was. The 2019 paper is also mostly a rehash (with many direct quotes and paraphrases) of the earlier papers, as Dr. K points out - even its cavalier claim that some Gettier cases are knowledge was originally floated in the 2014 one.
I reject both characterizations that this paper is “highly derivative of the earlier two essays published on luck” and that “given its relation to the earlier work, [its quality is] nothing special either.”
12th, Dr. Krasnoff’s use of “nothing special either” is inflammatory and inappropriate
How is it "inflammatory and inappropriate" to say that
given that a paper is highly derivative, it is nothing special? That's practically tautological.
My chapter has been cited 68 times thus far.
This chapter has more citations than any of Dr. Krasnoff’s individual works in the past 20 years.
So? It's not a contest and Dr. K's not up for review.
18th, I am a world-leading expert on the topic of epistemic injustice, and particularly gaslighting. Within philosophy, I was commissioned to write the Philosophy Compass article on “Epistemic Injustice” in 2016. Philosophy Compass’s ‘Overview’ reads as follows:
Unique in both range and approach, Philosophy Compass is an online-only journal publishing peer-reviewed survey articles of the most important research from and current thinking from across the entire discipline. In an age of hyper-specialization, Philosophy Compass provides an ideal starting point for the non-specialist, offering pointers for researchers, teachers and students alike, to help them find and interpret the best research in the field.
Why is he citing their ad copy?
23rd, thus
(...)
23th, therefore
23nd: you suck.
23th, therefore, my 2019 publications “Gaslighting as Epistemic Violence” and “Luck and Norms” clearly falsify Dr. Krasnoff’s claim “that the focus of [my] research has shifted from issues in epistemology and pragmatic philosophy of language to a particular area of applied ethics, the participation of transgender and intersex athletes in women’s sports.”
Here, Rhys creates a diversion with a bit of rules-lawyering over a previous evaluation, and hopes you forget that the two papers in question were insubstantial. The existence of these papers doesn't prove you're still focusing on these topics if they're nothing papers.
27th, the use of first-person account case studies is industry standard in applied ethics
Note that the "first-person account" they're talking about here is
not actually first-person! The case study they're discussing is ostensibly about a transgender cyclist named "Victoria". Both RM and Dr. K see no need to keep up the pretense that this is about anyone other than himself.
But I'm glad Rhys follows all industry standards. Perhaps he'll become the first ISO 9000-certified philosopher.
31st, Dr. Krasnoff seems to have wholly overlooked the prestigious presentations of my research that I gave in 2019.
So? At a tenure review, who cares if you read a PowerPoint to a bunch of non-academics?
38th, in his 2019 evaluation, Dr. Krasnoff substantially misunderstands and misrepresents the ‘argument’ in this line of work: it is categorically not about “challeng[ing] the view that the normative basis for the distinction between men’s and women’s sports rests on the physiological differences between men’s and women’s biology.”
39th, in fact, my work on this topic is about how such physiological differences, insofar as they even exist, are largely irrelevant to the real issue: whether trans women have the right to compete in women’s sport as women.
Aaaaaand he dodges the question that Dr. K suggested he not dodge
Good luck with that.
44th, I suspect that Dr. Krasnoff has not made such comments in any of his annual evaluations for other members of the Philosophy Department.
If this is true, then I am likely receiving unfair disparate treatment. One can only speculate whether it is because the work that Dr. Krasnoff calls “of questionable scholarly quality” involves a case study of harassment that a trans woman athlete received, and that I am a world-famous trans woman athlete.
Remember back at "27th" where everyone agreed that this is a first-person account? Now he's back to arguing that it's
not a first-person account and his case study could've been about
any perpetually aggrieved trans woman cyclist
47th, in 2019 I published ten (10) pieces in high-profile media outlets. I placed articles in The New York Times, Newsweek, Newsweek, NBC News, VICE, DIVA Magazine, Chatelaine, Pinknews, OutSports, and Compete Network. All of these articles were published as an extension of my scholarly work on fairness and trans inclusion in sport, and on general issues of transphobia. And all of these were listed on my CV as part of the evaluation documents sent to Dr. Krasnoff for the 2019 evaluation.
48th, in his evaluation, Dr. Krasnoff makes no mention of these high-profile public articles. These would be more properly classed as “public philosophy.”
Here he argues that public articles are "public philosophy" (that is, service)
56th, I ask, if three peer-reviewed articles/chapters in respected outlets, ten op-ed popular media articles in outlets including The New York Times, NBC News, Newsweek, and VICE, two keynote addresses, three additional invited scholarly speaking engagements, and the dozens of popular media interviews I completed in 2019 is insufficient to acquire a rating of ‘Excellent’ in research, what are the standards?
... but
here he says they're research!
nyuk nyuk nyuk. 
