Future of legal gender and mumsnet

[Strangerthantruth]

Davina Cooper responds to Mumsnet critics.

futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/2020/04/30/responding-to-gender-critical-feminism-on-gender-sex-and-a-generous-feminist-politics-in-anxious-times/#more-1141

I haven't read it all as it's long and mostly unoriginal. I will try to go back to it but if anyone else wants to read cutting edge thoughts on why men can claim to be women, here you go.

... qualifying to apply for public funds again... with no guarantee that the future "services" (paid for by public funds) are any less fraudulent.

A scam, basically.

The project board includes Prof Sharpe who kindly said on R4 Women's Hour that 2nd wave feminists keep reappearing like the bubonic plague.

Alex Sharpe is awful. Lots of these women fawn over Alex, desperate to gain approval, which is pretty sad. Alex transitioned in mid 40s after becoming a professor as a white male so forgive me if I am not convinced they are an oppressed minority.

Lots of these women fawn over Alex, desperate to gain approval, which is pretty sad

I can very much imagine this.

Threads like this remind me what an obscene gravy train this lot are all on. Earning money that most people can only dream of to produce unethical, self serving, biased drivel all dressed up as "academic" research. And because of they're part of this 'sacred caste' nobody dares to challenge them for the most basic of errors and flaws.
That Julian Vigo piece How to stage a study that Ereshkigalangcleg linked to upthread is well worth a read - all the "inaccuracies", the bias and the influence of the usual suspects laid out in full :

medium.com/@julian.vigo/how-to-stage-a-study-the-transgender-lobby-in-british-academia-f196f4f686f1

Kings College London, like most universities has a research integrity statement of how their people will do research and details the governance around that.
www.kcl.ac.uk/research/support/rgei/research-integrity/research-integrity-statement

Honestly if I were them and had got the feedback (‘attacks’) that these researchers seem to have got on their survey from the public, I would probably be calling their local research office or the UK RIO for advice.... not calling for feminists to do their feminism differently.

ukrio.org/

‘ The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) is an independent charity, offering support to the public, researchers and organisations to further good practice in academic, scientific and medical research. We promote integrity and high ethical standards in research, as well as robust and fair methods to address poor practice and misconduct. We pursue these aims through our publications on research practice, in-depth support and services for research employers, our education and training activities, and by providing expert guidance in response to requests for assistance from individuals and organisations.‘

Part of the problem here that people are raising is a normative language point, an everyday comprehension point, a serious problem that becomes inevitable if researchers make their own rarified, politicised and not clearly explained concepts (here: of what ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ mean), inherent to their survey of the public on complex questions (here: of gender and sex).

Good research shouldn’t require survey respondents or MNers or random Twitter users to have to point out that conflating sex with gender means the results of their surveys wont be interpretable, and will be unsafe to be used as an evidence basis for this projects aim of influencing policy making.

It always has to be made clear to the participant of any survey what they are being asked to comment on. Getting that right is good research 101 and forms a basis of consent to participate. This basic stuff is not solved by ‘adjust your feminism’.

@RuffleCrow - You rang?