The Symposia started with a focus on Gender, Race and Philosophy. There were many reasons why we focused on those. In my last post about this, I added "sexuality" because I had just come from an interdisciplinary retreat that included a long discussion on the various new names for "Women's Studies". At MIT we changed our name to "Women's and Gender Studies" a few years ago; many people at the retreat felt that it was important for Women's Studies to include - in the name, not just in the work - 'Sexuality". It was with this discussion rolling around in the back of my mind that I included 'sexuality' in my original post, but not other categories that, of course, are worthy of attention. But I did this without consultation with the other editors. I now think it was a mistake. I am already worried about this blog keeping up with the literature on gender and race; adding disability and sexuality, class and various other categories will be impossible for me. I also believe that it is permissible to have different focus groups that take some social categories as a primary concern, although others are always going to be important and relevant. So here is my proposal. This blog, being connected to the SGRP, will work to list articles and books in philosophy and closely related subjects that take up gender and race. Articles and books on sexuality, class, disability, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc. should be included if they also deal in some way with race or gender. There isn't going to be a sharp line here. We'll have to play it by ear. If we get to the point where there's a lot of controversy about whether something should or shouldn't be listed, I'm going to opt out. Life is short, volunteers are few. This is a service we are providing, and if others can do it better, I'm happy to let them. It would be fabulous if others put together a blog or blogs that list work entirely on other related topics (disability, class, sexuality...) as it appears. Sorry if this sounds insensitive. We all do what we can, and I'm doing more than I can at the moment and can't do more.

So many come to mind. I'm including more than one or two because the areas I find most interesting are not well-represented in the suggesions so far. A few in reverse chronological order: Rae Langton's *Sexual Solipsism* (Oxford, 2009) brings together and expands her work on feminism and philosophy of language, showing how each enriches the other. Tamina Stephenson has a paper called "Judge Dependence, Epistemic Modals, and Predicates of Personal Taste" Linguistics and Philosophy 30:4 (2007): 487-525 which is a valuable contribution to intricate debates in philosophy of language. Liz Anderson's "Integration, Affirmative Action, and Strict Scrutiny," NYU Law Review, 77 (2002): 1195-1271 is impressive and is the basis of an important forthcoming book on integration. As always, Anderson is brilliant in incorporating social scientific research into philosophical argument. Bernard Boxill's *Race and Racism* (Oxford, 2001) is a fantastic collection on the issues bringing together core readings that define the debate. Cheshire Calhoun, Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of the Closet: Lesbian & Gay Displacement, (Oxford 2000) remains significant and timely. Calhoun works hard to present her opponents arguments clearly, and they are much stronger in the form she gives them than they were in the original. The result is a meaningful and insightful discussion. --Sally Haslanger