I think part of the problem has been that within organisations there haven't been strong formal groups representing the interests of women in the same way other groups are.

Interesting. I thought where there had been female groups advocating for women they were heavly and early targeted by activists and then after take over very muted on women's issues or worse actively hostle to any women's complaints.

It's partly why I'm so dubious about workplace interests in menopause. While I'm aware some women do suffer hugely I don't see why this isn't just seen as a medical condition for that individual rather than getting getting messaging that all women over 50 or as young as just 40 will have debilitating symptoms. So we all just get the well might get pg bit of life to the well she'll be subpar due to menopause. Sort of more how can we make the workplace seem supportive but actually ramp up subtle barriers.

The academica stuff is bizzare - it's one profession where glass ceilings and leaky pipeline proceding those are well known. I suspect it's less women and it's more "middle classness" like the arts or publishing is a more likely cause - or that it was a targeted area from the start. Schools were clearly targeted with ideology which TBH has probably backfire in last few years - my youngest couldn't eye roll harder about it all.

I very much disagree. As someone who has worked in academia and has had to deal with these ideologues first-hand and daily, you could not be more wrong in thinking that demographic diversity would produce that sort of ideological resistance. Gender identity theory and its institutional capture did not chiefly come from hard-nosed male medical conservatism (sorry FWR!), nor old-fashioned patriarchal university boards. Its most energetic transmission route has been through humanities departments, gender studies, education, HR, EDI bureaucracies, activists NGOs, therapeutic culture, student politics, and of course intersectional social justice frameworks. These are precisely the settings in which women are often heavily represented and (in many cases) ideologically influential.

Modern political doctrine that gender identity overrides sex has far more to do with poststructuralism, feminist theory, queer theory, social constructionism, and intersectional activism. Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble, Anne Fausto-Sterling’s ‘sex is a spectrum’ style arguments come from feminist science studies. Kimberle Crenshaw’s intersectionality is not itself gender identity theory (although she subscribes to TWAW), but it became part of the machinery thorough which gender identity claims were inevitably folded into institutional justice discourse.

More women in academia would not mean more resistance to gender identity ideology. In fact in many relevant academic an administrative settings, it’ll probably mean more of the same or faster institutional adoption, because the dominant professional culture among educated liberal women in these spaces has often been highly sympathetic to these ideas.

If anything, men should behave more like women. It's mainly men who've poured piss snd pink paint everywhere, smashed windows, threatened women with rape and murder, and deceived people en masse as exemplified by the Dentons document.

women, be more like men.

The privileged class women at NHS Fife and in Darlington and in universities up and down the land were being like men. They were putting their own career advancement ahead of doing what's right, like men in business everywhere. They were throwing "lesser" people under the bus, just like men in business everywhere.

It has been predominantly women who have stood their ground at personal cost, women who have donated to crowdfunders to support other women, women who have taken legal action. Yes, men have done these things too, but mainly it has been women.

I think an important point I learned from one of the Tribunals was that there was a LGBT group in the workplace but no eqiv group for women.

Also there was a comment on another thread from a woman who was working in an EDI role in a company and the lobbying was mainly from the gay and trans groups.

I think part of the problem has been that within organisations there haven't been strong formal groups representing the interests of women in the same way other groups are.

It is horribly and tediously reminiscent of Stonewall's

"No Debate!"

ie. Feminism is, for some, a mind-numbing Ideology.

As such, its tenets must not be questioned.

Anyone who raises the spectre of a question is therefore, by definition, an MRA and questions may be dismissed on that basis.

All that does, as with Stonewall's #NoDebate, is demonstrate that their belief in the adequacy of their analysis is an article of faith, rather than being based on evidence and rational argument.

IMHO this does not do feminism or feminists any favours.

Calling the OP names and disparaging anyone who attempts to engage with the actual question does not do anything to rebut the (IMHO dodgy) thesis described.

It does the reverse. It obstructs rebuttal and, remembering that we often engage with the specious arguments advanced by MRAs for the benefit of "lurkers", just gives the impression that we do not actually have any answers. It is playing a losing game. Just like Stonewall did with #NoDebate.

I'm sure you already have a solution. And it's going to be either, women get back to the kitchen and let the men do things right, or women, be more like men.
You're just looking for a problem to lend it a thin veneer of validity.
It doesn't matter that women are occupying positions of influence in institutions where TI has been embraced. Because women don't have sufficient power overall to have pushed it forward in the face of strong male opposition.
TI is a male rights movement. Created by men, for men. Men have driven it forward and obstructed or stood by while women have tried to hold it back.
And now its in retreat, are seeking to extract the last drops of benefit to men from it by claiming its our fault, because look what happens when you leave women in charge.

I never understand why people make comments like this.

Honestly, who cares who's talking point something is. Who cares whether it fits into this ideology or that one?

The question is, is it true? Could it be true, or possibly true? As a theory, does it seem to fit the evidence, does it have explanatory power, can we predict outcomes using it?

I really get the impression that there is a cohort of people who don't care if things are true or not, only whether they belong to the correct ideological positions.

FWR seems much less inclined that way than many, for obvious reasons, but even so I get the impression that some ideas are rejected not because they seem plausible but because they are morally suspect.

My username is a quote. I found it amusing in context. Glad you like it.

😂 For someone pronouncing a dependence on the literal over the metaphorical you have quite the line in usernames, Self-fellating Ourboros Of Hate 😆

"Gain the measure of me"? What does that even mean? Unless someone turns up with a tape, no one's gaining any measures of me.

I'm autistic, so use clear words with their actual meaning, not weird humpty dumpty code. I appreciate that this may be hard for you because you think that women can have penises, indicating that sticking to what words actually mean isn't natural for you.

Right. I'm just trying to interpret the article correctly. Not agreeing with it, and not making its argument for it.

😁 I have nothing more to say than to thank you for allowing readers to gain the measure of you tonight 😄 (or whatever time it may be in your region.)

Now you are being rude. Is this typical of people who make up meanings of words?

Shucks, you need to stop, you're just making yourself look worse 😂

I'm reading words as having their dictionary meaning. It's you that's in Humpty Dumpty land.

Yeah, you know, I don't think the OP is a line of code in your programming language choice. 🥱

But hey, the rest of us are running on common sense, even if you aren't.

“If this is the case" acknowledges that the author of the hypothesis may, in fact, be wrong.

The word "if" has a meaning. You talk about syntax. If I inserted IF into my scripts when I intended a statement, none of my models would run.

😂 you crack me up.

"If this is this is the case, what is the solution?" Has, as a matter of fundamental syntax, instructed answers in one direction only. It is not an open ended question. It has presupposed the problem, and directed answers to address that problem.

That's a lot of words to avoid saying that you did, in fact, infer a subtextual meaning that may not actually be present. Specifically, you misread a question as a statement.

Where possible, our research has a control group and a treatment group. The null hypothesis is that we will see no difference between the groups...

Maybe you should teach the OP how you do your research, because they don't seem to be in on the action.

You are obfuscating, and I believe you know it. If you don't know it, you have no business researching at a university (if indeed you do)

Of course there is a standard of proof. Campus sexual violence complaints are frequently dismissed.

rudimentary High School science class experiences

It's how we still do research at the uni I work at.

"If this is the case" was used by the poster as a synonym for "This being the case".

Please teach me your mind-reading skills. It would make my life a lot easier if I could see into people's head's and so determine when they are lying.

I may have misunderstood the article but I think the wider point was not about the particular standard of proof and more about whether there was a standard at all.

Whilst I'm thrilled for your rudimentary High School science class experiences "If this is the case" was used by the poster as a synonym for "This being the case".

Had they not intended that they would have asked an open ended question and invited perspectives on that. They did not. They asked for a solution to their hypothesis.

Which, as we all now know, is the well-rehearsed Mens Rights Activists refrain about the problems of women being in positions of power.