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?

This is a really good example of how to educate people about a prevalent cause of societal problems, in the case "positive thinking".

An intelligent and well considered discourse illustrated by entertaining animation

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

I don't understand

We have artists, satirists, film makers etc. in out communities and if we don't we'd better get busy and rectify the situation :)

Yes - exactly like Santa Claus!

The arts world has been massively infiltrated / appropriated by the opponent, this is quite apparent

However that creates an opportunity for those with the relevant skills and abilities to start our own movement :)

I'm only posting again to object to the labelling of all continental philosophy as pomo bullshit It really, really isn't. A lot of continental philosophy is the absolute opposite of that. (I'm saying that as a huge Hegel fan)

Yes yes. Not all continental philosophy is postmodern. I know and speak to quite a few philosophers and none of them have time for gender theory.

Skeptics aren't in my experience nearly as knowledgeable about philosophy or science as they think they are. They generally have no real knowledge of epistemology or metaphysics, and dismiss any kind of attempt to look at the limits of science as postmodernism (which it isn't.) They tend to bias certain cultural ideas too, if you look at American skeptics thought on midwifery for example, they consider it to be obvious woo, not supported by their obstetrical associations. The fact that many other nations consider it best practice notwithstanding.

@hoodathunkit we are a war with sinister forces who are extremely knowledgable about human psychology and skilled at manipulation, public relations and social engineering

This is where we diverge. I don't see the prevalence of gender theory as being necessarily more sinister or mysterious than any other illogical, harmful idea that takes hold - various religions, quack medicines, the anti-vaxx movement. I agree with some of what you say about many people preferring a magical view of the world to a materialistic one (I see the appeal myself). But that's precisely why I don't think we have to see this as a conspiracy. It's caught on because it appeals to subconscious beliefs and biases that we probably all have to some degree: the belief in mind/body dualism; deep-seated, subconscious sexism; political tribalism. There's no secret council directing this. It's an idea that appeals to a lot of people. And, we're living at a time when people use marketing-type strategies to push political messages, and marketing by-passes debate and critical argument, and aims at emotions and biases. This goes for a LOT of political messages, both good and bad.

I agree that the woke is big with the Skeptic Community.

They are as fanatical about the vagaries of homeopathy and anti vax as those that purport to either sell or are against them.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm all for vaccinations and think homeopathy is junk science.

I know that biology dictates that there are two sexes for reproduction. Gender is a social construct. The two, sex and gender should never be conflated because, biology.

The worst examples I've seen of wokeness is on Badscience, ironically.

This is where we diverge. I don't see the prevalence of gender theory as being necessarily more sinister or mysterious than any other illogical, harmful idea that takes hold - various religions, quack medicines, the anti-vaxx movement.

I would argue that it is more dangerous because it is an attack on logic, rationality and thinking. I am writing an article about this at the moment, too long to post here

I agree with some of what you say about many people preferring a magical view of the world to a materialistic one (I see the appeal myself). But that's precisely why I don't think we have to see this as a conspiracy.

I agree that we should not believe in conspiracies unless there is evidence of them. I also think that people have a natural tendency to believe in corruption and conspiracies rather than in say, incompetence and everything being overwhelmingly complicated.

It's caught on because it appeals to subconscious beliefs and biases that we probably all have to some degree: the belief in mind/body dualism; deep-seated, subconscious sexism; political tribalism.

This I have no argument with, well said in fact

There's no secret council directing this. It's an idea that appeals to a lot of people.

I cannot claim that there is one secret council, I believe there is evidence of at least one, but there may be many.

And, we're living at a time when people use marketing-type strategies to push political messages, and marketing by-passes debate and critical argument, and aims at emotions and biases. This goes for a LOT of political messages, both good and bad.

Here is the crux of the matter. We live in a "post truth" world and powerful people are using psychology and marketing-type strategies to influence elections, undermine democracy and asset strip entire nations.

This has been well reported in this excellent book which I recommend

www.amazon.co.uk/Nothing-True-Everything-Possible-Surreal/dp/1610394550?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

It is a beautifully written account, from a former insider (someone who worked within the system and reported his observations very eloquently), with many insights into how the system works

ooh just seen that Peter Pomerantsev has a new book out later in the year

This is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality

www.amazon.co.uk/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventures-Against/dp/0571338631/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_sims?tag=mumsnetforu03-21&ie=UTF8

I can only say that I found Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: Adventures in Modern Russia to be very informative and helpful.

Others may disagree of course :)

Ta hood. Deep reading for me tbh but I do read what you write and is very informative

However that creates an opportunity for those with the relevant skills and abilities to start our own movement

I have to disagree. If people can’t even put on The Vagina Monologues without genuflecting to the mighty girl cock I don’t see how the performing arts can help.

It’s really up the the science and skeptical community to say, stop, this is bullshit.

It would make a massive difference if Cordelia Fine stood up. The liberal press lavished praise in Delusions of Gender and Testosterone Rex. Having conceded their is no gendered brain when talking about men and women they can’t backtrack on that if Fine explicitly links that same argument to trans-identity.

@hoodathunkit I think that the conspiracy angle is counter-productive. Conspiracy theories, for many people, sound nutty. It's already difficult to get people to listen to the gender critical view, and if it seems to be aligned with conspiracy theories, it'll only be more difficult, IMO.
Yes, as you say, powerful people use psychology and marketing-type strategies to influence elections (and referendums). So do not-so-powerful people. Everyone uses marketing strategies. What's important, I think, is persuading people to examine things critically, to support open debate and free speech.
Say that there is some shadowy group masterminding this. What does that change, really - how would it make any practical difference? And how could you ever prove it anyway?

@Mermoose

Apologies for the late reply

I was very busy yesterday and am also today so this is going to be quick

Conspiracy theories sound nutty because bizarre conspiracy theories are all over the internet and people are, quite rightly skeptical of them

I recommended a book in my above post because it details the experience of a journalist and media professional with first hand personal experience and who can provide insight into how fake news and conspiracy theories are used for social engineering.

The book is not "the answer", it is not magic and will not prove or solve everything but it will provide useful material for anyone interested in how society became so batshit crazy.

I do not understand why you would dismiss the book when you have not read it.

Dismiss David Icke and other similar loons by all means, crack on and I'll join in, but the writer is articulate and credible and has something to offer.

Also, one of the problem with the insane conspiracy theories is that they ensure that real conspiracies are likely to be dismissed.

I read an article today in the BBC that, if true, has some resonances with the current trans situation

It is a short article and does not take too long to read. I would welcome your thoughts

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734

That's it from me for today :)

Are you thinking that article is evidence of a conspiracy?

I think its a little dodgy myself.

@hoodathunkit
I do not understand why you would dismiss the book when you have not read it.
I didn't dismiss the book.

I read an article today in the BBC that, if true, has some resonances with the current trans situation
What are the parallels? I read the article but I don't see anything in there about a conspiracy.

My earlier point was this: You've said "we are a war with sinister forces who are extremely knowledgable about human psychology and skilled at manipulation, public relations and social engineering" and "I cannot claim that there is one secret council, I believe there is evidence of at least one, but there may be many." I think this kind of thing would be a turn-off to people who are on the fence about the whole gender critical position. I think it makes it more likely that people won't give us a fair hearing, if we appear to be pushing conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter if those theories are true or false, they sound barmy.

I have been intensely frustrated that more of the skeptic community isn't speaking out but someone did just post this. I haven't had time to watch it all yet and didn't agree with everything he says but some of it seems to be good.

I was listening to a podcast I really like earlier on- Griefcast, by Cariad Lloyd. She was doing a thing for her sponsor, The Economist, and said something like “Facts are so very important, especially these days” and I wanted to shout “So why do you think that people can be born in the wrong body when there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that view!!!!”

Arrgh just been reading twitter. I can see why I don't have an account, this stuff makes me cross.

The Natural History Museum are busy doing the "sex in humans isn't binary because intersex and clownfish" thing.

twitter.com/NHM_London/status/1140263163247636480

Meanwhile Prof Alice Roberts is tweeting Guardian articles about how sex isn't binary.

twitter.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1141091857193156608

What people who are all into rationalism sometimes fail to remember is that you can logically support any idea so long as you start with the right premises. Empiricism doesn't save you from that, facts have to be connected together to make a theory and how you do that depends on what questions you ask.

Prof Alice Roberts is just so depressing. "there has never been scientific (or philosophical, or sociological) consensus that there are simply two human sexes, that they are easily (and objectively) distinguished, and that there is no overlap between the two groups". We have always been at war with Eastasia.

This is a woman who wants to take religion out of schools. But only the religion she doesn't like.

This is a woman who wants to take religion out of schools. But only the religion she doesn't like

Not to go all conspiracy theory, but I have wondered if there is an agenda there.

The nice thing about a religious school is they are up-front about their belief system. Not only with others but with themselves.

Secular schools believe they don't have a belief system, somehow the things they teach are all objective. Of course that is completely false. There is no such thing as an objective system of thought with no assumptions.

If you wanted to inject your own agenda into one of these two types of institutions, where would you have the most luck? The one who will examine it in terms of their own coherent system, or the one that thinks it doesn't need too?

..doesn't need to

I am having problems with language today.

I'm very grateful my DSGC attend a Catholic school. My DSD hopes this will reduce any genderist nonsense. The Pope has said people can't change sex, so Catholics can refer to him.