TikToker who exposed Jeffrey Marsh hounded bullied

That is, of course, why they can’t understand that just being published doesn’t make academic research unquestionably right. In fact, one of the reasons for publishing it should be so that it can be subject to critique by others.

This, and also sometimes the research is sound, but extrapolations are made from it and interpretations made that aren't justified, either deliberately or because the person doesn't really understand it, and the research is used to claim something it doesn't support.

That's fascinating and horrifying, in equal measure.

Lisa M always nailed this spot on:

Tbh it’s always a bit ‘tell me you don’t understand academic research without telling me you don’t understand academic research’ really.

just being published doesn’t make academic research unquestionably right.

Exactly.

Nor can you try to separate the 'should be believed and is right' from 'is wrong and should be discarded' using only the criteria of 'research that props up my personal beliefs'.

If someone posts content that states or implies they believe sex is immutable, in what way are they not "on the gender critical side"?

The average person would be really surprise to find that a belief in the immutable nature of biological sex put them on a "side' at all which is entirely understandable because anything else is utter batshittery.

If it was a middle-aged man (or woman) doing this it would be denounced. Because it’s a Jeffrey Marsh doing it, it’s transphobic to denounce him.

HTH

WarriorN · Today 09:01

Anyone with an ounce of safeguarding knowledge knows that everything marsh does goes against the fundamental rules to protect children from a wide range of harms.

Yes, yes! But apart from all that, what's he done wrong? I need a thousand links, please. And I still won't believe you, so neuuurrr!

Tbh, I’m not sure that people who don’t know the difference between journals and the articles published within them are well equipped to evaluate the quality of either the research or the journal itself (or even to know that, like newspapers, not all academic journals are equally authoritative).

That is, of course, why they can’t understand that just being published doesn’t make academic research unquestionably right. In fact, one of the reasons for publishing it should be so that it can be subject to critique by others.

That’s without even considering the ‘cultists’ stuff.

Since words actually mean something, I would really be interested in a break down of how 'GC' (and you would need to define what you are meaning by 'GC' for the purposes of your argument for it to make sense) fit the actual, easily Googlable criteria for the term 'cult'. Please do match up the evidence, it would be a most interesting read and I'm ready to be persuaded if you can prove it.

I've posted peer reviewed journals on mumsnet before only to be told by GC cultists that it "doesn't count" or something.

I think this post should stand so I'm not going to report, but if we posted about trans rights "cultists" it would be deleted in a flash.

In any other situation this encouragement would be red flags. The pic is from the bbc about romance scams this morning . But when it find to kids and the T, the same warning signs have to be ignored.

And anyone who's done the Prevent Duty training will recognise a number of key radicalisation techniques there.

Anyone with an ounce of safeguarding knowledge knows that everything marsh does goes against the fundamental rules to protect children from a wide range of harms.

☑️ communicates directly to children.

☑️ love bombs - various repetitive phrases about how much he loves them, targets their egos, makes them feel special.

☑️ gaslights and dismantles their red flag radars by telling them that he's not a 'strange man.' Sacred caste.,

☑️ a range of specific words and aesthetic dress to appeal to children and appear more 'feminine' and so 'safe.' Sacred caste

☑️ encourages them to ignore or leave their parents.

☑️ tells them he loves them and they can trust him.

☑️ creates a private message/ content account for children to contact him directly.

☑️ makes money out of children via private subscriptions. Children with additional needs are at greater risk of sexual and financial exploitation. These children are over represented in the trans community.

☑️ encourages denunciation of anyone who criticises him. Channels ideas around hate crimes and minorities. Jokes about killing critics. Sacred caste.

☑️ uses a social media platform very accessible and popular with children that works on algorithms that increase the viewing of similar content. Many parents allow its use below age.

☑️ encourages children to consider taking unproven and unlicensed drugs and mutilate and their bodies using unproven methods.

There will be more, please add.

He's waving more red flags than a team of labour morris dancers. (Visual reference only.)

Seasonofthewitch83 · 13/03/2023 15:13

No - but she chose to stitch a video about trans people and grooming. Why?

Because he's Groomy McGroomerface, grooming kids on the internet, that's why. I don't know why you're highlighting the fact that she's made a compilation video, as if that were some kind of gotcha. It's not, we can see him speaking his creepy, "Hi kids! Talk to me in private and don't tell your parents!" schtick.

We can watch and hear him condemn himself in his own words.

Then you claim not to have seen anything like it and ask for a link, despite there being linked videos a few posts before yours. Then you asked a gain.

Then, you seem to know all about one of the videos and pretend that, because it's a compilation, it's irrelevant. I mean, what's anyone to think of you? That you have an agenda to support creepy weirdos, who target kids and get them to keep it a secret from their parents? Or something else?

You're a sealion, among other things.

IdeoloGY not ideoloGISTS, sorry. Not enough coffee yet.

That ^^

There is also an absolute fetish on the part of gender ideologists for labels and boxes, particularly ones that enable 'them' and 'us' thinking. Psychologically it's pretty much splitting - everyone is either All Good And On My Side or Totally Evil and the slightest fault can stuff you and everything you've ever said or done into the Totally Evil side of perceiving the world.

There is incoherence in the whole 'don't coerceively assign labels that do not fit the person's often complex inner selves' - in that this means 'you may not dare to define a special person but they are free to assume and label (which largely means name call and dehumanise) you'.

And also a deep incapacity to cope with people who resist categories. Although really it's a deep incapacity to cope with people who are not compliant enablers.

MisogynyNonConforming

If someone posts content that states or implies they believe sex is immutable, in what way are they not "on the gender critical side"?

Believing sex is immutable does not equal being ‘gender critical’. They simply believe that sex is immutable and may share some other intersecting views.

I believe the term was initially coined for feminists or a little more loosely people who reject gender because it is another form of oppression and collectively fight women’s oppression. People may also believe sex is immutable because of religion, science and other reasons. However, they may not share many other beliefs feminism may have. Therefore should not be classed the same way as feminists under that label.

Too many people detach the term from feminism. Some people do it to shame feminists for the behaviour of others just because those others also believe sex is immutable.

it is why many feminists reject that label as well as terf.

Oops, meant to include a link: jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched

It is not unknown for peer-reviewed journal articles - a couple by Jack Turban come to mind - to be deeply flawed. Some authors and reviewers appear to be in thrall to ideology rather than science. Sci Am has made a laughing stock of itself by publishing deeply unscientific pieces on the sex binary, too. Sadly, the days when we could rely on articles published by erstwhile reliable titles are behind us, at least for now.

*The point

This point is, you said he's harmless. He's not.

I've posted peer reviewed journals on mumsnet before only to be told by GC cultists that it "doesn't count" or something.

Arguments on here tend to be better substantiated than that. It’s a pity you can’t recall the substance of the discussion you had - it might have helped you deepen your understanding of the issues!

Just so you are aware, peer reviewed journals are not intended to be taken as gospel. Peer reviewed papers publish their methodology precisely so that it can be critically evaluated. Even if you aren’t qualified to evaluate the methodology or evidence in a study- and it’s ok, most people aren’t, and many people shouldn’t try! - you should still be aware that others do have the knowledge to do so, especially on here, and you can’t just drop a study that you believe supports your position and expect people not to read it and analyse it and, if need be, challenge it. HTH! 😇

I don't disagree there. But let's be honest, this tik toker is very disingenuous.

That said, I don't let my kids anywhere near tik tok or other social media, and my kids know they can come to me with anything.