The Skeptic Community's Blind Spot for Gender Theory

[Mermoose]

One of the most disappointing aspects of the gender debate has been the response of the skeptic community. Apart from a few - Maria MacLachlan, Andy Lewis, Gia Milinovich - prominent skeptics have either been silent or supportive of gender theory. Which would be fine, if they could offer cogent arguments for it, but they can't. Robin Ince, who scoffs at people believing in homeopathy, disappears off Twitter when asked to explain his belief in gender essence.
I have a theory as to how this has happened.
I think I'm a skeptic but it's fairly common (and it's always annoyed me) to find skeptics not only debunking fallacies but sneering at those who believe them. One reason it annoys me is that I once believed in a lot of that stuff, and even though I've now changed my mind, I remember how it felt and why I believed in it. I don't think I was stupid, and likewise I don't think people who still believe in it are stupid. Also because I was wrong once, I know I will probably be wrong again, so I'm never 100% sure of my opinions.
Do a lot of skeptics - skeptics like Robin Ince, who can be quite condescending (albeit in a funny way) - believe that only stupid people get things wrong? That they, being clever, are sure to be right? Is that why they haven't put gender theory - something they want to believe in - to the same test they'd put some quack medicine?

@hoodathunkit can you give specific examples? I used to read de Botton's old website, The Philosopher's Mail, which seemed to be part of The School of Life. I thought it wasn't a million miles away from Aeon - some stuff was interesting, some not so much. Never noticed a great deal of woo.

I think that a possible problem with academia is that philosophers, for example, can build up pretty wild theories - which is good, I think, it's good to broaden the range of ideas that we consider - but then these ideas are never given the test of being useful in everyday life. And it's like Feynman said, if you can't explain something to a kid (or someone outside your discipline) you probably don't understand it yourself. A lot of flawed ideas hide behind convoluted language.

A person of interest is Brett Kahr, one time (current?) director of the School of Life's psychotherapy service and ambassador for The School of Life

He is the author of one of the chapters in the batshit insane publication Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, edited by Valerie Sinason

also

Academic Consultant to Confer Senior Clinical Research Fellow in Psychotherapy & Mental Health at Institute of Psychotherapy & Disability
Chair of the British Society of Couple Psychotherapists
Chair of the Professional Association of the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships
Ambassador to the School of Life, Holborn, London
Director of the School of Life's psychotherapy service
Consultant for Dynamic Change Consultants, London NW3
Consultant and narrator for mental health issues for BBC television and BBC Radio, including being the Resident Psychotherapist for Radio 2
Trustee of the Institute of Psychotherapy & Disability
Contributed The psychoanalytic concept of repression: historical and empirical perspectives to Memory in Dispute edited by Valerie Sinason, Karnac Books, 1998.
Contributed Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia: an interview with Professor Flora Rheta Schreiber to Attachment, Trauma and Multiplicity: Working with Dissociative Identity Disorder 2nd edition, edited by Valerie Sinason (Routledge - Informa PLC, 2010)
Has appeared on TV in shows such as Esther, Trisha, ITN News, Channel 4 News and BBC 1's Breakfast
He was the consultant psychotherapist for the first four seasons of Big Brother for Channel 4.
He was the on-screen commentator for I.T.N for their live coverage of the funeral of Princess Diana.
In addition he has served as Consultant Psychotherapist for BBC 1's Doctors and Channel 4's Wife Swap amongst other programs.

source: (scroll down)
dramatispersonae.nfshost.com

please note that the link is an old one some things may have changed

also, for a connection to Kids Company see

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100219215123/www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/child-prostitution-suitable-material-for-a-musical-976526.html/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20100219215123/www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/child-prostitution-suitable-material-for-a-musical-976526.html/

Kahr's connections to networks promoting SRA conspiracy theories, to the BBC, Channel 4 and other MSM outlets, to The Tavistock, to networks of philosophers, to various psychotherapy charities most or possibly all of which promote pseudoscientific conspiracy theories make Kahr a very interring person.

He is also widely published and consulted by the media on issues of sex, sexuality and gender.

His favourite books are listed here (note - there is a real stinker there - the Sinason)

web.archive.org/web/20190324084501/www.confer.uk.com/booksof2018.html

In the "Briefly Noted" section Kahr states:

"For those of you who wish to keep up to speed with the fast-changing world of non-binary approaches to sexuality and gender, one cannot do better than read Dr. Az Hakeem's wonderfully lucid Trans: Exploring Gender Identity and Gender Dysphoria - A Guide for Everyone (Including Professionals). I learned a great deal from this fine book".

Interestingly Hakim seems to have moved from a gender critical position to a woke one

"“My early published papers were reflective of a far more psychoanalytic approach to transgender which I have since moved away from having refined my understanding from both my transgender patients and also advances in our understanding of transgender from the areas of psychiatry, psychotherapy, psychology, social sciences, feminism, queer theory and other areas. Patients who have had professional contact with me will be familiar with my aim for them to explore what gender means to them and my encouragement for them to challenge and subvert normative binary frameworks of gender interpretation in themselves or which they perceive within society and replace this with an individually tailored authentic gender identity which they feel suits them irrespective of whether this fits in with a conventional binary gender framework.” – Dr Az Hakeem, 2015"

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160621180510/www.drazhakeem.com/specialist-psychotherapy-for-gender-dysphoria/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20160621180510/www.drazhakeem.com/specialist-psychotherapy-for-gender-dysphoria/

just a little link for those interested in the trajectory of Hakim's transition from GC to woke

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180525042418/drazhakeem.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20180525042418/drazhakeem.blogspot.com/

Re The SoL also see

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140910211752/lecturelist.org/content/view_lecture/6029" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20140910211752/lecturelist.org/content/view_lecture/6029

www.facebook.com/theschooloflifelondon/posts/at-his-kinky-sex-sermon-grayson-perry-remarked-that-the-stroking-action-for-the-/280276812042615/

Both Grayson and Philippa Perry have strong connections to the School of life and to an extremely controversial new age therapist Jerry Hyde

In fact Philippa Perry recommends Jerry Hyde's book Play from you Fucking Heart in her recent book

books.google.co.uk/books?id=YHxqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT224&lpg=PT224&dq=%22philippa+perry%22+%22jerry+hyde%22&source=bl&ots=CJknTzV-ud&sig=ACfU3U1dmwNw8XdfTqwN0DiOR3GyAzmulg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi22daWqvDiAhUVVBUIHVxaAgoQ6AEwC3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22philippa%20perry%22%20%22jerry%20hyde%22&f=false

Interestingly Sam Roddick is also an associate of Jerry Hyde

Hyde is also involved with a highly dubious new age druggie / neo-tantric project called Spirit Horse

www.facebook.com/SpiritHorseUK/posts/285075458232149

Interesting youtube channel featuring Jerry Hyde, Sam Roddick, and Grayson Perry amongst others

www.youtube.com/user/superbytimai/videos

Also, for the record, re the drug use in various new age projects;

I think that our drug policies need significant revision

I accept that many people find illegal drugs more useful and less harmful than pharmaceutical prescription drugs, especially for pain control

I believe that many psychedelic drugs may have therapeutic potential, especially for some mental health problems and for people facing life limiting illnesses

Our current situation is appalling in that the gatekeepers to many of these substances are dubious therapists who do not have the interests of vulnerable people at heart

also, while the skeptical / rationalist feminists are here

the Mail has an interesting piece on a new women's empowerment organisation

I am extremely concerned about this kind of women's organisation, the likes of which are opening everywhere and are infiltrating feminism with horrible new age bullshit and misogynist theories

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7147495/Can-new-women-club-really-make-alpha-female.html

I don't see the evidence that Az Hakeem has moved to a 'woke' position. This is from his current website.

For these people a specialist form of psychotherapy for issues relating to gender may be useful. Such patients may include those with autogynaephilia, those with non-binary gender identification, and those with intermittent fluctuation between gender dysphoria and transvestism. Other patients may have previously had physical gender reassignment procedures and have since changed their mind and once again find themselves with a gender identity incongruent with their physical body.

So he acknowledges both autogynaephilia and detransition, which seem to be ignored or denied by the totally woke.

Az Hakeem and his book were discussed on here last year on a number of threads. This is one of them, but if you search for his name you'll find more.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3303573-This-is-what-the-Portman-Clinic-had-to-say-about-Gender-Transition-in-2002

also see, re Sam Roddick and Jerry Hyde

Thanks Old Crone

I have a hospital appointment soon but will read later

So the main problem is that theories aren't being challenged critically, would you agree?

You've probably heard about the student-led campaigns in Economics in recent years. Students protesting that what's being taught is dogmatic and often doesn't accurately reflect reality. The outcome of economic dogma was, I think, the 2008 crash - the faulty logic that ignored private debt finally crashed into reality.

Do you think that this - dogmatism, theories increasingly detached from reality - just tends to happen in all fields, and what we're seeing is the outcome of it happening in philosophy and psychology?

just quickly

from his current website

"“My early published papers were reflective of a far more psychoanalytic approach to transgender which I have since moved away from having refined my understanding from both my transgender patients and also advances in our understanding of transgender from the areas of psychiatry, psychotherapy, psychology, social sciences, feminism, queer theory and other areas. Patients who have had professional contact with me will be familiar with my aim for them to explore what gender means to them and my encouragement for them to challenge and subvert normative binary frameworks of gender interpretation in themselves or which they perceive within society and replace this with an individually tailored authentic gender identity which they feel suits them irrespective of whether this fits in with a conventional binary gender framework.” – Dr Az Hakeem, 2015"

I think that this has me confused

The bit about "subvert normative binary frameworks of gender interpretation" sounds good to me. I am planning to read some primary sources on queer theory in the near future, however from the criticism of it I have read here, it seems to be a theory that undermines a GC position.

got to go for now but will read more later :)

Good thread, OP. Been discussing this with some atheist friends. They agree (more from a free speech than a feminism angle) but aren’t willing or able to go public with their views due to potential backlash.

I think a lot of ‘skeptics’, particularly those in the public eye, aren’t really all that skeptical or rigorous in their thinking. I think they are attracted to the prestige of being an intellectual, free-thinker and mocker of silly orthodoxies, but aren’t willing to take the flak from the present-day inquisitors in defending a deeply unpopular truth.

I think they are cowards and their posts ought to be screenshotted for posterity. Forgiveness is an irrational religious value, after all.

So, who is going to send this thread to Robin Ince, then?

Thanks @TirisfalPumpkin I can understand some people choosing not to speak up about this, but I think if you've called yourself a skeptic publicly, then you have a duty to, regardless of the backlash. It's really bad form to allow people like Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, etc, to take the flak. And to allow this ideology to harm vulnerable people.

As for self-proclaimed skeptics who are going along with this, I think maybe there are various things causing them to do so. Your description of some as not really being skeptics at all, I think that's true of some - certainly RationalWiki. But there are others who I don't think fall into that category. I'm fascinated to know what's going on with people like, for example, Steven Novella, who I really think is genuinely skeptical most of the time.

I'm all for screen-shots. The most hilarious is The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. It's just the most pompous title for any organisation, and they've fallen for this nonsense hook line and sinker. I honestly can't wait for the day they have to confront their own public delusions.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria the terrible thing is - I really like Robin Ince! He's been such a disappointment.

I do too, Mermoose, not that I've met the man! I've been to some interesting skeptics talks, they are good events.

It puzzles me that there's such a lack of critical thinking when this stuff is so obviously flawed and damaging to the trans community (transmen starting menopause through testosterone when if they were not describing trans feelings and having a natural early menopuase they'd be automatically getting HRT to protect their health; trans kids being given drugs without any rationale; and trans women who are clearly not all gender dysphoric and all the fun issues that brings) and women, and institutions alike.

My impression is that some people's vision of the world is set when they are children - whether it be sexist, or pessimistic/optimistic, or with a tendency to shortcut through plausible but scientifically risible claims, including religious ones (or UFOs, etc). A lot of the time, the risible claims come from an authority figure.

Then they grow up and part of their growing includes a certain amount of 'rationality' and completely refusing the irrational they held onto previously, and 'rejecting' authority. But this is a painful and unstable process - you need to be constantly reinforced in your new beliefs, convinced that you're doing 'right', or you are 'right', or - unfortunately the most common response - you can tell who's right and who's stupid. It's almost as if most people only have enough self-resources to go through this kind of mental readjustment once, when they're young. And of course they tend to then be very vocal about the one readjustment they did have: they have the zeal of the neophyte.

But we all know that neophytes are no good for nuance, be they religious converts or newly opened to the possibility of challenging authority. When they - or their peers - become 'the authority', there is no need to challenge it. They are challenging something external and which had power on them - not because it was intrinsically fallacious (though they like to think that that is the reason, as it makes them feel righter) but because it was powerful. One of the great successes of the genderist take-over is the claim of victimhood ... surely there is no 'authority' there, nothing powerful at all that needs to be challenged [ yes, that's the bit that really makes me see red: compelled speech and thought is the very essence of 'power', and these people are too preoccupied by their internal righteousness that they can't see that]

I had Novella's book as an audiobook in the car - practically every fallacy he mentioned would apply to genderism, and yet nothing. Well, he does start the book by saying he used to believe in UFOs and other such fun stuff.

Another person who disappoints on the blanket acceptance of genderism, who has that 'gullibility' (for want of a better word - I am trying hard not to judge) from childhood, and that you would expect better of, is Neil Gaiman. His father was big in Scientology.

Re Dr Az Hakeem

I am still unsure about what to think of him, however I notice with interest that his book, TRANS: Exploring Gender Identity and Gender Dysphoria

www.amazon.com/TRANS-Exploring-Gender-Identity-Dysphoria/dp/1911246496?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

includes a chapter by someone I am very familiar with Professor Kevan Wylie of the Porterbrook Clinic at Hallam University

Wylie keeps interesting company

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130427065018/www.baseuk.org/static.aspx?pg=AdvisoryBoard&m=aboutus" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20130427065018/www.baseuk.org/static.aspx?pg=AdvisoryBoard&m=aboutus

Wylie’s book the ABC of Sexual Health contains and interesting chapter worthy of scrutiny

books.google.co.uk/books?id=oH64CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=%22kevan+wylie%22+tantra&source=bl&ots=3BsX64pHRR&sig=ACfU3U05lAJ8B-u2pi8aO4rigZ0tLOdSZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSpoTx4fDiAhUMJhoKHQ0KAwsQ6AEwCXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22kevan%20wylie%22%20tantra&f=false

Wylie also invited various “tantric healers” and similar charlatans to promote their activities to an event named “Sexual Pleasure” at the Royal Society for Medicine in 2009, an event that doctors and surgeons and allied health professionals received CPD credits for attending.

The event was co-organised by Professor Kevan Wylie and the paedophilia apologist Tuppy Owens who operates the Outsiders and TLC projects. Outsiders and TLC claim to be “empowering the disabled” but their strategy seems to be to introduce vulnerable people to tantric sex workers and to then exploit them for PR and social engineering purposes. This has obvious parallels with the way that vulnerable people who identify as “trans” and people with false memories of sexual abuse and satanic ritual abuse are exploited as mascots for PR purposes by people with sinister agendas.

The event included a presentation from a woman called Sue Newsome who runs some dodgy sexual grooming operation called Shakti Tantra and also a strip-tease performed by a sex worker to a paraplegic man in a wheelchair. This event has mostly gone from the archive and from the RSM website - however I have screen shots of the whole thing.

There is a Times article about it here, but I do not have a share token - can any reader help with this?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-sex-for-the-disabled-the-last-taboo-t2xvzbmz2r6

also see this link to one of a growing number of dodgy “toolkits” (it may be that there are some good toolkits around but there are so many dodgy ones that I get anxious just seeing the word) - anyway, here’s the link

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190617141631/www.sexualrespect.com/about.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20190617141631/www.sexualrespect.com/about.html

on a tangent, Cassandra Lorius, a sex and relationship therapist with a long history of working at Wylie's Porterbook Clinic and with dodgy tantric therapists promoting genital massage as a therapeutic modality can be seen here addressing an audience at the Royal Society of Medicine in 2012

vimeo.com/40957046

also see

www.facebook.com/cassandra.lorius.3

and

I have no idea whether Kevan Wylie organised the 2012 event where Lorius presented her dubious ideas to doctors at the RSM, but given his past form it is fairly likely.

I telephoned the Royal Society for Medicine in 2009 to try to whistleblow about the cults and predators involved in the event but was told “You’ll have to speak to Kevan, the event is his baby”.

Obviously, given Kevan’s associations and activities, I did not want to talk to him.

For the avoidance of doubt, there is a lawyer called Kevan Wylie who is not the same man. The Kevan Wylie I am referring to can be seen in this video and is the first speaker

I have not watched the video, I have included it purely to identify Professor Kevan Wylie the tantric sex enthusiast from the lawyer of the same name whose opinions on tantric sex are unknown to me.

I am still none the wiser re Az Hakeem as I find his description of his stance a little contradictory (maybe just complex? - maybe queer theory is not as dangerous as some women are saying?) however I am concerned that he is associated with Kevin Wylie and would be very interested to know whether any GC posters here have read Wylie’s chapter in Hakeem’s book and if so what they thought about it

There was a fawning review of a talk on gender identity by a member of the Edinburgh Skeptics group (from a few years back).

It was on their website until a few months ago and then removed.

When it turns out that skeptics are not so, um, skeptical after all...

@beagadorsrock They are challenging something external and which had power on them - not because it was intrinsically fallacious (though they like to think that that is the reason, as it makes them feel righter) but because it was powerful. One of the great successes of the genderist take-over is the claim of victimhood ... surely there is no 'authority' there, nothing powerful at all that needs to be challenged

Yes, I think you're spot-on with that. If you subject gender theory to critical argument people react like you're grilling a small child about Santa Claus.

So the main problem is that theories aren't being challenged critically, would you agree?

Good question

I believe we really need to investigate the nature of the opponent when we consider a strategic response.

The opponent (for want of a better word) possesses a number of qualities that is going to make this an uphill struggle

It seems to me that we are a war with sinister forces who are extremely knowledgable about human psychology and skilled at manipulation, public relations and social engineering.

Human beings, in groups, are extremely easy to manipulate once you know the codes / narratives that affect them

Most human beings would rather take the easy route and not think about difficult things, people tend to take the path of least resistance and tend to sleepwalk into dangerous / oppressive situations.

The opponent has been targeting vulnerable minority groups and astroturfing such groups for decades possibly longer.

The opponent is able to act abusively and criminally - it it the nature of the beast - but we must act legally - this puts us at a disadvantage

The opponent makes use of the good, positive aspects of our society against us. Most noticeable to me is the way in which human rights legislation and human rights organisations can be used for oppressive purposes. This does not mean that human rights are bad or unimportant, just that we need to be aware of the complexity of the situation.

People prefer to believe in wondrous magical things than believe in science because it is more narcissistically rewarding and optimistic.

Teaching people about the wonders of science is, of course, important, but we also need to find ways to educate people, including children, about the danger of pseudoscience.

Just off the top of my head I think that the following are helpful weapons in our armoury; humour especially satire, theatre and performing arts, poetry, film, visual art.

There is so much more to write about this but this is all I can manage now

Yes, I think you're spot-on with that. If you subject gender theory to critical argument people react like you're grilling a small child about Santa Claus.

YY.

Just off the top of my head I think that the following are helpful weapons in our armoury; humour especially satire, theatre and performing arts, poetry, film, visual art.

They aren’t in ‘our’ armoury. They are 100% in the trans armoury.