Academic Freedom, Harassment and GC academics - ask me any questions

Here are zillions of reports of women harmed.

That's not scienteefic. 😁

£50k? That's amazing.

@suggestionsplease1
Do just go away, you are so transparently asking all this in bad faith.

And... back to the topic in question. Prof Jo Phoenix has raised over £50k in 18 hours. Wonder why? 🤔😉🤣🤣

Suggestions : those of us who have lived our lives with female bodies, subjected body and mind to the oppressions of a patriarchy, know intrinsically that it is important we get to keep the safety of our female only spaces.

Women cannot be ignored, erased, forced to say that 2 + 2 = 5. It’s not ok.

Male bodied people have always oppressed female bodied people.

It astonishes me that liberal people supported the MeToo movement but cannot see that women deserve safe spaces - free of male bodied people - and the right to state who we are.

I am asking for the evidence - rigorous, robust, scientific evidence, that indicates that there has been a negative impact for women in those countries which have adopted gender recognition processes based on the principle of self-determination, and where these have been in place for several years.

But actual women being harmed don't count as evidence?

Still waiting for answers - just put all the evidence down - some will be problematic due to definitions no doubt, and we can work together to discount that.

You still haven't defined what you mean by 'evidence'. I posted links to several threads which had examples of women coming to harm from self-ID policies in other countries, but you said they didn't count because anecdotal data, whilst unfortunately persuasive to many in the general public, and used to justify discrimination, has very limited scientific value.

What sort of evidence are you looking for exactly if not examples of how women have been harmed?

Gah - apologies for all the autocorrect typos. Bedtime beckons…

Nah, I'm off to bed. If you don't know what a woman is there's no point engaging.

Can you really think of no examples in history where the oppressed have become the oppressors and vice versa?

Except that has no relation to your post, which was a rather bad faith and ill fitting pseudo analogy trying to compare Murray’s Bell Curve with women who are being publicly harassed and threatened for factual statements. You also don’t appear to know as much about Murray’s argument and it’s reception as you ought to, so I fear it’s not me who’s naive.

Keep your focus on the actual argument you yourself are making, and what I said about a false analogy - can you come up with a better one?

I am happy to consider any evidence at all - no matter what definition of women has been given, and no matter what subject criteria has been looked at.

I understand people may be unwilling to accept evidence that contains certain definitions and very happy for that to be considered.

Why do you think I am testing a hypothesis? Don't be silly - I have set no hypothesis - I have asked several questions.

you can't be clear what you're asking or which people you are asking about, but you will judge whether you think the response answers what you think you are asking (but won't define)?

🤣🤣

We're waiting for an answer to "what is a woman"?

Still waiting for answers - just put all the evidence down - some will be problematic due to definitions no doubt, and we can work together to discount that.

suggestions I don't know what you mean by 'nice try' - are you mistaking me for a different poster? The only thing I am 'trying' to do is clarify your question which contains wording that has shown to be defined ambiguously or in different ways. I find your reaction to this quite odd.

So just to be clear - you can't be clear what you're asking or which people you are asking about, but you will judge whether you think the response answers what you think you are asking (but won't define)?

Do you understand why that doesn't work?
Surely it would be simpler to just set out unambiguously what it is you are actually asking? Yet it seems like you don't know and just want 'any information' on 'any' group of people who may be male or female?

(That's not how you test a hypothesis. It's actually quite dangerous to do 'fishing expeditions' in this way to draw conclusions - you risk ending up with the Texas sharpshooter fallacy with your data.)

Can you really think of no examples in history where the oppressed have become the oppressors and vice versa?

I don't think we can get anywhere with this discussion with @suggestionsplease1 until she/he/they explains what the definition of a woman is.

Also "I have given complete freedom for Jo or any other academic to answer this question" comes across as both arrogant and patronising.

(this is an AMA, I did read the question correctly, right?)

Well, no. The title of the thread is:

"Academic Freedom, Harassment and GC academics - ask me any questions"

No, @suggestionsplease1, I think your post is a bogus reading of “intersectionality”. Oppression is not a top trumps switch about set of replaceable tiers with a “fluctuating and multidimensional hierarchical structure”: that’s treating real people as if you’re playing a computer game. I’s also an excellent example of the way current identity politics took the term “intersectional” right out of its original contexts and drastically misunderstood it.

The whole point of intersections of structural oppression is that you can’t just switch them in and out and invert them like a game. They aren’t all fluctuating and multidimensional. They’re real, not bits of game play to mess around with.

If you want to use an analogy between race and sex/gender, get it right and accurate, so it doesn’t just look like a silly debating point.

'or' if it should be rejected, not 'if'

There is complete freedom for Jo or any other academic to cite whatever evidence, however 'women' are defined in that particular evidence. dataset, study etc and we can explore how suitable it is from that point, of if it should be rejected from consideration because of problems related to definition.

But we need to see the evidence we're dealing with, right?

Just put it all down! Go for it!

Do you see no scope for multiple categories existing on a fluctuating and multi-dimensional hierarchical structure where the (for eg.) 2nd, 3rd, 21st category from the top may oppress the (for eg.) 15th, 18th, 21st category down (at that particular moment in time, in that country and cultural context?)

Are you all right, do you need a wee sit down, maybe?

we can take a look.

[quote foxgoosefinch]@suggestionsplease1 - it’s highly disingenuous to make that kind of comparisons with race, since you’re intentionally glossing over the fact that the structural analogy doesn’t work.

“White oppressor vs non-white people” very clearly does not map onto “female oppressors vs the non-female oppressed”. It’s been pointed out many times that this analogy which presents women as the oppressors of men is not only is highly offensive in terms of its racial politics, but rather obviously and glaringly shows up the falsities of that position.

No doubt you think it’s a very clever analogy, but as I recall Murray’s book was freely available in bookshops, reviewed in the press, and widely debated as an argument - I recall a PSE lesson in secondary school in which we were asked to debate and disprove the claims in it - since in those days people regarded controversial opinions as things to be disproved by rational argument, not mass hysteria and cancellation.[/quote]
Wow, how wrong can you be on the structural analogy?!

Do you think it is only possible for a 1st category to oppress a 2nd category?! As if they were linear items on a 2 item scale?!

Have you set yourself up as the determiner and definer of categories?!!

Do you see no scope for multiple categories existing on a fluctuating and multi-dimensional hierarchical structure where the (for eg.) 2nd, 3rd, 21st category from the top may oppress the (for eg.) 15th, 18th, 21st category down (at that particular moment in time, in that country and cultural context?)

and we can take a look.

We?!!!!

Perhaps you could share the academic credentials you and your buddies have to judge the merit of what is cited?

I am quite happy for Jo Phoenix / researchers of studies cited to determine the parameters for this question - more than happy for multiple datasets to be provided with different definitions - just put everything you have down on this thread and we can take a look.

Sorry, I don't understand this - when you asked the question about women, how were you defining women? It can't really be answered unless you determine the parameters of your own question?
It sounds like you're not sure what an 'acceptable' answer to you would look like - what group of people it would cover. That's not a good foundation for research - you need to know what you are looking for!