Epistemic Injustice and Credibility Deficits

Sor Juana faced systematic challenge to her claims—accusations that she was merely repeating men's ideas, that her learning was unnatural, that her gender made her inherently unreliable. Contemporary epistemology terms this 'testimonial injustice': the denial of epistemic authority based on identity rather than evidence. This concept applies Sor Juana's historical struggle to map credibility deficits cisgender women experience across domains—professional, academic, medical, political. Women's knowledge claims are scrutinized more heavily; women experts are interrupted; women's experience is reframed as opinion. The framework acknowledges that this isn't individual prejudice but systematic epistemic inequality. For cisgender identity examined, this concept illuminates how gender shapes not just access to knowledge but recognition as a knower. It invites reflection on contexts where one's knowledge has been dismissed, where one has internalized doubt about one's own expertise, and how institutions either reproduce or interrupt these patterns. It positions knowledge-claiming as an act of justice.