Expert professional Dr Ray Blanchard's twitter account has been locked

[kesstrel]

twitter.com/BJontry/status/1127388515606482944

I should just point out that OBVIOUSLY I have changed Zoe and Martins names for this to protect both their privacy and mine, just in case that is bothering the Witch Monitoring Detail on duty this afternoon.

No, I got that, doctoress, DP’s post didn’t seem deletion worthy to me. It actually highlighted some real concerns.

But seriously??
I mean,

The company will treat this person as male when it comes to pay grade and promotions.

They will treat this person as transgender when it comes to any utterance that someone believes this person is male while they are in womanly persona.

If this person were to, not saying they will, but if they were to commit any typically male misdemeanor you can guarantee it will be reported as "female employee commits whatever misdemeanor". They will be treated as a woman.

This person will be free to use their male privilege to win women-only awards if there are any not saying there will be any.

We all know it!

I got deleted for pointing it out?

^i tried again with gentler language

We don't think there's a need for that Sophocles. Can we just remind everyone that while it's fine to question deletions - rudeness towards moderators isn't tolerated.

Sophie, I don’t mean you and the other mods, I mean the people who like to watch and report, then screenshot and brag on Twitter. I think mods have got a really tough job and a difficult line to try to maintain between allowing conversation and responding to reports, and I absolutely did not intend rudeness to MNHQ. apologies if that wasn’t clear.

We don't think there's a need for that Sophocles. Can we just remind everyone that while it's fine to question deletions - rudeness towards moderators isn't tolerated.

She didn't mean the mod team, Sophie! It's the long-running Eve and the Monitors joke: not a dig at you guys.

Cross post. Soz for speaking for you, Sophocles.

X post Lang! It hadn’t occurred that my post could be read in that way.

OH! Sorry, Sophocles. Thanks for explaining - we misunderstood. (obviously)

No worries I know modding is a thankless task, and I can imagine you all play rock, paper scissors to decide who gets the feminist beat on any given day...!

Am lol that peer reviewed papers are Gammon’s conduit of the one true truth. Because the fact that universities are refusing to allow research on anything except pro-transgender ideology (Caspian etc), plus Sokal squared and the Pluckrose et al grievance studies hilarity wouldn’t complicate that at all, eh?
Oh Gammon. Try harder. I can hear the disingenuous tittering from here.

I do think generally you (as in the modding team as a whole, not you personally @sophielmumsnet although you may well be!) are generally very even-handed and I appreciate it's a tough job a lot of the time :)

But I also know that if the the system is 'lots of reports = deletions' then it's one that is very easily gamed. It would be very interesting to know the proportion of reports made by people who rarely if ever post.

Hi 50shades. Apologies if my posts come across as tittery. I'll try to be more formal. I just want to check that the position is that universities reject proposals concerning AGP? Do they provide reasoning? Naturally such a situation would be extremely controversial so that's pricked my ears right up. Do you have an example of the sort of pro transgender ideology being falsely platformed instead of the truth?

Gammon ... suggest you do a Google search "James Caspian research" which tells the story of Bath Spa University.

Do you have an example of the sort of pro transgender ideology being falsely platformed instead of the truth?

A minute ago, you thought that AGP might apply to women, due to you deliberately misreading my post.

What is your interest in AGP?

Like I mentioned earlier I did some reading a few years ago when I was getting out of some poisonous ideologies that I've since been able to leave behind. It made a lot of sense to me, like, intuitively. You might say I could feel it in my chromosones.

I can't say I appreciate the suggestion that I deliberately misread your post. We've already had that discussion and the circling back feels a lot like an attempt to "catch me out" which feels a little disingenuous though I'm sure that's not the intention.

It seems that you're quite unhappy with my reliance on particular sources along with close reading and I can only apologise for that. As I mentioned I have gone down a few rabbit holes in my time and this approach saved my life, though it was extremely unpopular, to the point that I was subject to intimidation and aggression by my peers.

I'm really glad that you've been somewhat more patient than the others, religious groups and conspiracy theorists I associated with in the past.

I can't say I appreciate the suggestion that I deliberately misread your post. We've already had that discussion and the circling back feels a lot like an attempt to "catch me out" which feels a little disingenuous though I'm sure that's not the intention.

Yeah, no it absolutely was the intention.

Nice reversal the point to address rather is your faith that the peer reviewed research currently allowable is the ‘truth’. How can we possibly know that when research into any aspect of gender ideology that could detract from the party line isn’t allowed to proceed? You don’t find it concerning that even voicing a gender critical ideology in academia leads to calls for sacking? You find it inconceivable that there is bias into the research that is allowable? Huh. And with all that background in conspiracy theories too.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. Are you an AGP advocate ?

The vast numbers of academics trying to keep their jobs would find your view naive.

Sorry - my post was to gammon.

Hi 50shades that's precisely it! I find it extremely concerning! I've certainly been called naive in the past, and it might be one of my sins, but it is one that recognising and embracing finally got me on the right track, so thank you for your patience.

You might find it hard to believe but I held some very superstitious beliefs a few years ago and understanding that I can be easily talked around, but that rigorous sources exist was something that gave me the bravery to leave a very dangerous situation. I'm open to the idea that I've simply moved from one set of manipulations to another in the form of peer reviewed studies etc, but the-admittedly rather entry level at times- feminist materials I'd read and the conversations that lead me to AGP had me convinced I was still on the same track.

Hearing that there are coverups, and that I might need to discard a reliance on science is just a little frightening for me given my own specific circumstances and experiences. I'm sure I will come round but please don't expect me to turn the whole car around in the space of a quiet Sunday chat if you can. I've really knackered the wheels already and I thought I was finally on a rational road!

Gammon Perhaps researching the work of Dr Anne Lawrence will be fruitful for you with regard to autogynephilia.

Thank you Jacky. I am looking forward to sitting down with some reading. Now please bear with me on this one folks because I know it won't sound good. But I have to apply falsification to things to avoid being manipulated etc. If I were to come back with questions would you be able to engage with them in good faith, even if I find, say, her most recent 2011 paper lacking, or would I be assumed to be a sort of diabolical troll genius again in that situation?