AIBU to think we should be funding this BS?

Well we'd be great friends then!

If you'd typed it once I would have assumed typo, but yes of course a headache counts as mitigating circumstances. 😀

It's interesting how the author links modern day classifications to binary distinctions imposed by colonialist/colonialism. That's another way of looking at how western - what we might now call global North - ideals and norms were imposed on other cultures and societies, something which resonates to this day. Do you think AI poses a risk to academic exclusivity?

Yes, I'm dubious about all these "identity degrees" where you basically get a masters or PhD in your own lived experience and are taught/supervised/examined by those with the same or similar lived experience because they are necessarily the only ones with the relevant qualifications to become lecturers in these areas.

Even something as un-niche as Women's Studies - do (m)any men take these courses?

What on earth makes you think you're funding Cambridge (or any) University? Unless your child wrote that thesis and you paid their fees?

Cambridge contributes far far more to the economy than it costs so I'm struggling to understand your point, which I think actually boils down to "I don't like and/or understand this so I don't want other people to think about it"

BBC News - Cambridge University is UK £30bn 'economic powerhouse' says report - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64992999?app-referrer=deep-link

😂 I love annoying pedants! I actually thought I'd typed 'train' but I typed 'chain' - twice! Can I blame my headache? 🤕

I don't mean to be an annoying pedant, but it's gravy train, not gravy chain.

So no there shouldn’t be funding for this tripe unless there is also as much funding for research into crimes committed, motivation for transitioning and AGP.

I had to put that through chat gtp to understand it; my response is that trans is over represented in pride news etc on the bbc and the media do not have a correct social representation at all, and he ahoo be careful what he wishes for.

As, for example, well over half of trans people in prison are convicted of sexual abuse/ assault crimes. That definitely doesn’t come through on algorithms. If anything it’s the opposite.

By creating that research article and forming the false conclusion it has, it’s contributing to the algorithm that says trans people are poorly rep represented in the media.

chat gtp response below:

In layman’s terms, it’s basically saying:
Algorithms aren’t as neutral or objective as we often assume. They can inherit and reproduce society’s old ways of categorising people—especially the idea that everyone must fit neatly into “male” or “female.” For trans people, this can lead to being misclassified, monitored, excluded, or treated as a problem by digital systems.
A few of the more academic phrases mean:

• “Critical genealogy” → Looking back at the history of an idea to understand where it came from and how it developed.
• “Colonial classificatory violence of binarity” → The historical practice, particularly through colonialism, of forcing people into rigid categories, such as male/female, and treating people who don’t fit those categories as abnormal or inferior.
• “Bureaucratic administrative violence” → Governments and institutions turning those categories into official systems: passports, IDs, forms, databases, healthcare records, etc.
• “Automation in contemporary algorithmic violence” → Computers and algorithms now automatically making decisions based on those same categories.
• “Technooptimist ‘objectivity’” → The belief that technology and algorithms are naturally neutral, fair, and objective simply because they’re mathematical/computerised.
• “Necropolitical” → A complicated term referring to systems of power that determine whose lives are protected, valued, or allowed to flourish and whose lives are exposed to harm, neglect, or even death.
• “Cisnormative” → Assuming that being cisgender (identifying with the sex/gender assigned at birth) is the normal or default state.
• “Trans body is classified and translated as information” → A person’s identity gets reduced to data fields and categories in a computer system.
• “Marked-as-different” → The system identifies someone as outside the assumed norm.
• “Binary valorisation of life itself” → Society treats the male/female binary as the legitimate or preferred way of organising and understanding human life.

Much academic research is utter tripe, frankly. Zero impact on the majority of the population yet attracts serious funding for said navel-gazing.

To what end? A super fancy hat and gown at a graduation ceremony? An extra line on an email auto-signature? Whilst the fellows swan around campus barely acknowledging the plebby undergrads who are mostly funding their existence.

It's infectious isn't it, by the end of that you'd invented the word 'unentangle' when the perfectly good word 'untangle' already exists.

I dunno everyone's got to do something. It's terrible meaningless shit but perhaps it'll evolve to the point where a whole bunch of other people are paid good money to mock it. Maybe they already exist, too? I'm just pissed off that I missed the gravy chain. Everyone should have a gravy chain!

You're right of course. But it's the world. I listened to More or Less on R4 dissecting how much of the world's money Elon Musk has and it's complicated (of course) but by the first metric they examined he has 1% of the world's wealth. 1%! And he's gender critical. So we're all fucked, whichever way you look at it, up, down, sideways.
I have a headache. I don't think I have a point. I wanted to respond but I genuinely have a headache and cannot sort out a coherent thought now, sorry. 😬

I don't understand your premise - could you say a bit more about the funding aspect?

I do have an issue with the way in which academic language is often used to make interesting concepts difficult to understand. I think it's exclusionary, perhaps deliberately so. Underneath it all though, the abstract points to some interesting questions. You don't have to agree with what the author is saying for it to be food for thought!

A lot of academia is pointless long-winded shoe gazing, especially the soft subjects. I’m surprised you didn’t already know this. And yes it’s frustrating we’re paying for it.
Not a criticism of you, but are you particularly offended by this one due to the TRA author ?

Should NOT be funding?