Abstract: The recent literature on epistemic injustice has given a reasonable amount of attention to characterising the primary harm of testimonial injustice: the intrinsic epistemic and ethical harm done to a speaker when one prejudicially dismisses their testimony. Parallel questions concerning the primary harm of hermeneutical injustice have been comparatively neglected, and have proved even more difficult to answer. In this talk, I’ll review the attempts found in the literature so far, and I’ll argue that little progress has been made to date. I’ll close by thinking about what lessons we should draw from this discussion, and how we might move forward in a more productive way – though this will fall far short of a positive proposal, or even an assurance that such a proposal is what we should be looking for.