ESRC sending millions of pounds to Sally Hines / Leeds Uni to research gender bollocks

[QuietContraryMary]

Ht (twitter.com/DaveDavidDave_/status/1064836550448619522)

There's £700k, for example, for 'Living Gender in Diverse Times'

This features a motley crew of gender cultists:

Helen [redacted] (credited only as 'Helen', and with the email adress of press@mermaids) (she's on twitter as @mimmymum and has an adoring audience of diaper fetishists & furries as she says how great puberty blockers)

Meg-John Barker (partner of Edward Lord, non-binary freemason & big-time TRA), previously featured here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

Anna Carlile - gender cultist lecturer at Goldsmiths and Mermaids advocate

Justin Hancock - is a double act with Meg-John Barker (above) megjohnandjustin.com/about-us/

Ruth Pearce - Leeds Uni gender cultist ruthpearce.net/

Emma Renold - professor of childhood studies, promotes transgender identity to children www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5932855/Transgender-muffin-challenge-young-people-reads-like-satire.html

Vanita Sundaram - intersectional feminist type, busy retweeting tweets from TW calling for Rachel Stock to be fired for transphobia twitter.com/VanitaSundaram

Liam Tielemans - works for some sort LGBT charity. Strangely, the emphasis seems to be on the T. www.lgbtconsortium.org.uk/node/3308

Strangely there does not seem to be any non-kool-aid drinkers among their number.

It's not really surprising this crap becomes law & public policy when there's a never-ending stream of cash, public (as here), semi-public (like BBC CiN), and private (Lloyds, etc.)

Follow the money.

Just popping by to let you know we've deleted a couple of posts and redacted some information about Helen's surname in the OP. It looks like this person does not use her surname for public events or online, and so we don't think it's fair to 'out' her here. If you could refrain from using her surname that would be great. Thanks.

To be clear Helen's surname was at one point attached to her Twitter handle and she made many thousands of tweets with it affixed, and it still appears online on many web pages along with her handle.

Hebe

She does use her name online, as that's where I have seen it. I wouldn't have known otherwise

Oo, look, Goldsmiths has been described as edgy. What could someone concerned about the worth of academic rigour possibly be concerned about if an institution is excited about being controversially cool?

for a functioning democracy we need voters who are politically aware and knowledgeable about what they're voting for.

Absolutely! Yes we do. Very much so.

Which is why it’s so peculiar that TRAs want women to shut up.
But I’m glad you think everyone should be better aware of the issues. I think that too. Man Friday have certainly got this out into the public domain. FPFQ as well. And of course this very board. All talking. All discussing, all making people aware of the issue so they can excercise their democratic right to discuss.

So -!Why do you think there’s such an effort to make women shut up on this issue?

Fpfw- not fpfq.

Excellent question, Bowl.

Bowl - because it's what men want. Men want to access our spaces, and so, it is happening.

Just like in Ireland they got equal marriage before abortion rights - because men wanted to get married to each other and weren't bothered about reproductive care. What men want happens.

Women's voices and opinions are just irritations.

(caveat, I'm in a foul mood today and so feeling dangerously close to committing misandry)

I put it to the assembled viper that far from wanting an open debate, public discussion is th last thing TRAs want. Because when the public understands exactly what the TRA line actually means, they will reject it.

They are relying on people having no clue at all and thinking along the lines of ‘oh oppressed? Well that’s bad. Like gay rights? Oh well I’m all for those? Oh those poor teenagers being bullied..’

As soon as people realise what the actual consequences are, they say no.

And so the GRA was snuck through quietly

Any debate has been frowned upon. There has been endless pr publicity stuff that has been shown and played on the radio, without any questioning, and then reports and parliamentary bills where the only people involved have been those who are pushing to make the changes. This is not democracy. No one can be 'informed public' just with one-sided glossy advertising to learn from. That is just telling people what to do. It is the sort of thing that used to happen after the law had been changed, like when the law changed on wearing seatbelts.

There was discussion, the decision was made then it was put into practice with public information before the law came into force. With this, it is being put into practice, then the decision is being made, and only then are there any smatterings of discussion, belatedly because no one really had a clue about any implications, and that has forced the general public to do something about it.

I put it to the assembled vipers

nobody does a PhD for the money. There are much more efficient, less painful ways to get a good salary.

Not if you're useless at everything except bullshitting.

I have extensive experience of academia and I know academics who wouldn't be a able to keep a job in the real world they're so rubbish at anything other than word salad.

I should also say I know amazing academics who are brilliant and who choose academia over what could be very profitable careers in the private sector (e.g. engineers and medics) - basically because they love what they do and don't want anyone else to direct their research.

But the idea that no-one does it for the money is laughable. No-one working in those disciplines which would actually get you a reasonably paid job in the real word do it for the money. There are a lot of disciplines where well-paid real world jobs simply aren't available.

There are a lot of academics in quite useful and relevant fields (e.g. antibiotic resistance, climate change) who struggle to get their work funded, so the fact that this sort of stuff is funded to such high figures is really shocking, particularly given there is no balance, no gc research funded, people like James Caspian denied an opportunity to investigate real concerns.

I am all for arts subjects being funded as well as science, I think it's important but there are those who have been quite vocal who think only subjects that have direct relevance to real world problems and tangible impact should be funded. Sometimes I wonder whether funding bollocks like this is actually a clever ploy from those who want to throw out most of the funding for the arts in favour of the sciences.

Doesn't this come under social sciences? Surely not part of the arts faculty?

Dear god, Helen is such a dreadful person. She's complaining to Mumsnet about her surname being used, but over on Twitter she's liking posts doxing GC feminists. (I won't link, pm me if you like.)

How does that work?

In my opinion the social sciences are not in any way science. But of course it comes down to definitions. They probably identify as scientists.

In my opinion the social sciences are not in any way science. But of course it comes down to definitions. They probably identify as scientists

If it helps you be less condescending feel free to think of the discipline as 'social studies'. Women's studies (different from 'gender studies') from which gender critical feminism came was a social studies discipline.

I think it's fine to say social studies and of course society needs good social studies (the research being discussed here is not that) but I think classifying things that don't use the scientific method as science is really misleading. Didn't Hines actually say on womens hour "we're not scientists"?

Note this research is funded by the economic and social research council NOT one of the science research councils.

twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1065769809894346755

That moment when you realise a Professor has received more than £1million funding from research councils but has not published anything REF-able in this cycle. In most universities that would be a red flag, and a reason for people to get off social media and focus on writing.

twitter.com/APatchOnCinamon/status/1065916208661348352

This, about Sally Hines, isn’t unexpected but should be a big deal in academia. She’s produced nothing her university can submit as an example of good quality research

There are so many things in society that need researching that would have profound effects on so many people! Spending so much on studying social effects of 40 people who say they are men when they are pregnant with so little result seems a bit of a waste of public money to me. It is not even studying the effects of taking testosterone on subsequent pregnancy or the child or anything.

Oh dear.

Marking thread