“If sub atomic particles defy constructs why should we believe in fixed constructs of gender”

Exactly. You don’t need to rebuff every single piece of batshittery on the internet. Getting a physicist involved just gives legitimacy to the idea that there’s a debate to be had. That’s why NASA don’t spend all their time rebuffing Flat Earthers. Just let them spout their nonsense and let everyone see them for the fools they are.

I like this response to the original tweet Drag queens aren't subatomic particles.

I am not sure why s as anyone needs to be a physicist to respond to that nonsense.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong I listened to that yesterday. It has to go down as one of my all time favourite Joe Rogan podcasts.

I believe Mike Nayna is making a film about the Grievance Studies hoax. There is a clip about it on his YouTube channel. He also did a series of videos about Evergreen with Bret Weinstein which are very interesting.

Amen!

I’ve watched most of the Joe Rogan/James Lindsey (one of the 3 grievance hoaxers) interview today and it is absolutely bang on about all this PoMo bollocks.

Easy to listen to while doing other things, so don’t let the 3 hour length put you off.

At one point, Lindsay says this stuff prevents him sleeping at night, (paraphrasing- that the pulse in his eyelid twitches too much).

It’s funny, enlightening, terrifying and gives some practical suggestions on how to beat it. I will be making my son watch it before he returns to uni in September:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=FtNW3I1FZ5o

Short clip: m.youtube.com/watch?v=IqP0P62q4JY

Debbie Hayton has tweeted Krishnan offering, as an actual trans person rather than a drag artist and physics teacher, to come on C4 and set a few things straight in this topic. Krishnan has graciously asked Debbie to DM him.

Of course the cries of “wrong kind of trans” have already begun.

wrong thread - but actually it applies here equally well. Men can't cope with intelligent women, and think they will believe any old tosh.

Jane Austen - Northanger Abbey - 1803

The advantages of natural folly in a beautiful girl have been already set forth by the capital pen of a sister author; and to her treatment of the subject I will only add, in justice to men, that though to the larger and more trifling part of the sex, imbecility in females is a great enhancement of their personal charms, there is a portion of them too reasonable and too well informed themselves to desire anything more in woman than ignorance. But Catherine did not know her own advantages did not know that a good-looking girl, with an affectionate heart and a very ignorant mind, cannot fail of attracting a clever young man, unless circumstances are particularly untoward.

Weirdly, the 'reality doesn't exist' argument never seems to be used in discussions about poverty, global warming or the rights of any other group. Its just sex.

Oh God, not this guy again, he has already been on the BBC website a couple of years ago wanging on about this. Stop trying to make quantum gender identity bollocks happen, it's not going to happen!

Schrödinger’s Bunce: both simultaneously Philip and Pip at the same time.

Is it me or does Krishnan look like he is trying to stifle his mirth there?

Owen Jones has actually retweeted Shon Faye talking about this as well. How can anyone take this shit seriously?

Maybe they're meaning 'strong and confident' in the same way as 'brave and stunning'?

What is a drag queen's "gender", anyway? Is Amrou attempting to suggest that it's some form of "not man" in general? Cause there are going to be some other drag queens who won't be happy about that.

Absolutely, we shouldn't believe in fixed constructs of gender! Because gender is a social construct.

So a woman can wear whatever she likes, for example and wear her hair however she wants but her sex is still female. Clothes, hairstyles, behaviour, makeup, hobbies, academic interests, occupations don't change a person's sex.

Xkcd nailed it some time ago.
xkcd.com/1240/

Sir Ballsaac Newton

What I come here for.

And yet he's a drag queen, not a drag spectrum or a drag gender or a drag construct. His sexy feels still required him to dress up as a her. So binary, so dull.

Every time he opens his mouth he reveals his lack of understanding of physics.

Physical principles and analogies could equally be used to disprove all his points. An electron can have a spin of +1/2 or -1/2. There is no ‘in between’. But let’s just ignore anything that doesn’t fit the ideology.

Sir Ballsaac Newton

Schrödinger’s Bunce: both simultaneously Philip and Pip at the same time.

Sorry @Agrona, quantum physics does not ergo genderwang. Maybe we could give string theory a pop instead?

TwoHopes. You mean we haven’t reached Genderwang? Blast. All my hopes ruined.

Oh for god's sakes. How do they let this shit on TV?

"And then every now and again it goes through both holes at the same time. And we don't really know why"

Er...yes we do.

"And sometimes the same sub-atomic particle is in different locations at the same time"

Er...no it's not. No idea what he's trying to describe here. Either this is a complete misunderstanding of quantum entanglement or another misreading of the double split experiment.

And we haven't even got onto the genderwang yet.

In conclusion. No.

The thing that I still can’t understand is why the drag community insist they’re challenging gender when they’re actually espousing a very extreme version of the gender that is said to correspond to the opposite sex. They’re reinforcing gender constructs.