Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan: “Politicians are using trans rights as a bartering ram for something else”.

303 replies

RandomGel · 20/09/2020 15:23

More light. In this podcast Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray discuss many issues but there is a great discussion on identity politics.

Quite rightly Douglas Murray describes politicians as using trans rights as a battering ram for something else.

Joe Rogan refers to the TRA mantra “there is no such thing as biological sex” as ridiculous.

It’s heartening to see Abigail Shearer and Debra Soh referenced and praised for taking a stand, living their truth and refusing to go along with the crowd.

It is longer than 2 hours long but it is really is worth a listen. I certainly don’t agree with everything but much sense is spoken particularly around identity politics and the medicalisation of children as being something we will look back on with abject horror. I am so glad that these debates are happening and on such a large platform.

1.7 million views,18,000 comments from a posting of 2 days ago.

OP posts:
Goosefoot · 26/09/2020 19:15

[quote TheRealMcKenna]Someone has managed to convince progressives across the west that good progressive left people support these kinds of agreements and structures! And people who are suspicious of them are right wing, or fascists.

Reminds me of this clip...

[/quote] That's hilarious!

I especially like "left wing people voting for the EU isn't so much like turkeys voting for Christmas - it's like turkeys plucking themselves, climbing in the oven, and anally penetrating themselves with sage."

queenofknives · 26/09/2020 20:12

Hi HarriedHarriet!

queenofknives · 26/09/2020 20:31

the idea that it's self correcting can be dangerous.
That's interesting. I'm not a scientist but I did read quite a bit of Popper when I was at university, and he does a lot to explain how science self-corrects and why it's our best method for understanding the world. I'm not sure what the objections to the scientific method are - obviously I'm familiar with the woke objections and the rejection of the concept of objectivity etc. Also familiar with the replication issues and the way academic and corporate interests can corrupt the process. So that's what I thought the objections to science were about, rather than there being valid objections to science itself.

What is a better method than science for understanding the world? I always thought it isn't perfect and can fail, but it's the best method we've got, and the best method we've ever come up with. Oh and also listening to Bret and Heather who talk a lot about science and how it works, they have reinforced those ideas for me. I'd be very interested to learn what would be better. I'll have a listen to that science show - maybe not all of it!

Yes, I agree there's a kind of underlying lack or absence in art and literature. I've stopped reading much contemporary literature and just keep going back into the past to find work that feels more substantial and important. I think there is a kind of spiritual or 'meaning' gap but I'm not sure from where it arises. I think the problem particularly with literature (the area I know best of the arts) is the same as the one John describes in academia - it's all fake. Writers have learned to put words together in pleasing arrangements and follow the beats of a story, but there isn't any there there. There isn't anything underneath. It's a shell. And to my mind this also explains, or is connected to, the way that writers have been such massive proponents of woke ideology, the biggest terrorists when it comes to calling for censorship and book burnings.

(Btw, I'm not defending utilitarianism as a moral philosophy and certainly not as a societal design. Sorry if I gave that impression. I do think everyone should read and consider On Liberty. But Mill's essay on Utilitarianism is a separate piece of work from that and a different set of ideas that in some ways is in conflict with his ideas about individualism and freedom. So yes - up with On Liberty and not so much with Utilitarianism!)

queenofknives · 26/09/2020 20:36

Hahaha that clip made me laugh @Goosefoot! Especially liked the reference to Mumsnet Grin

queenofknives · 26/09/2020 20:39

Ooh sorry The RealMcKenna, you posted the clip. And Goosefoot I liked that bit too, but didn't mean to tag you, just bold. Ignore me, just having a senior moment here.

TheRealMcKenna · 26/09/2020 20:46

No worries queenofknives.

I must say, this has been one of the most fascinating and thought provoking threads I’ve ever been on.

I feel like a bit of an intellectual lightweight, but its been a privilege to be part of this discussion.

queenofknives · 26/09/2020 20:54

I've enjoyed it so much too! Everyone has so many interesting things to say and I feel like I can learn so much from all of you. I'm definitely no intellectual heavyweight myself, just super-curious and want to know everything.

I was wondering whether maybe any of you would be interested in a MN book club - maybe read Cynical Theories or another book that's been mentioned in the thread or another one you think is worth an in-depth look, and really try to get to grips with it?

TheRealMcKenna · 26/09/2020 20:59

I was wondering whether maybe any of you would be interested in a MN book club - maybe read Cynical Theories or another book that's been mentioned in the thread or another one you think is worth an in-depth look, and really try to get to grips with it?

I’d definitely be interested. I’ve been waiting for Cynical Theories to come out on Audible, but it has no pending release date on there yet. I think I’m just going to have to bit the bullet and get it on Kindle and cope with the eye-strain. It is better for bookmarking and highlighting I suppose.

But, yes, I’d definitely be interested.

Goosefoot · 26/09/2020 21:08

@queenofknives

the idea that it's self correcting can be dangerous. That's interesting. I'm not a scientist but I did read quite a bit of Popper when I was at university, and he does a lot to explain how science self-corrects and why it's our best method for understanding the world. I'm not sure what the objections to the scientific method are - obviously I'm familiar with the woke objections and the rejection of the concept of objectivity etc. Also familiar with the replication issues and the way academic and corporate interests can corrupt the process. So that's what I thought the objections to science were about, rather than there being valid objections to science itself.

What is a better method than science for understanding the world? I always thought it isn't perfect and can fail, but it's the best method we've got, and the best method we've ever come up with. Oh and also listening to Bret and Heather who talk a lot about science and how it works, they have reinforced those ideas for me. I'd be very interested to learn what would be better. I'll have a listen to that science show - maybe not all of it!

Yes, I agree there's a kind of underlying lack or absence in art and literature. I've stopped reading much contemporary literature and just keep going back into the past to find work that feels more substantial and important. I think there is a kind of spiritual or 'meaning' gap but I'm not sure from where it arises. I think the problem particularly with literature (the area I know best of the arts) is the same as the one John describes in academia - it's all fake. Writers have learned to put words together in pleasing arrangements and follow the beats of a story, but there isn't any there there. There isn't anything underneath. It's a shell. And to my mind this also explains, or is connected to, the way that writers have been such massive proponents of woke ideology, the biggest terrorists when it comes to calling for censorship and book burnings.

(Btw, I'm not defending utilitarianism as a moral philosophy and certainly not as a societal design. Sorry if I gave that impression. I do think everyone should read and consider On Liberty. But Mill's essay on Utilitarianism is a separate piece of work from that and a different set of ideas that in some ways is in conflict with his ideas about individualism and freedom. So yes - up with On Liberty and not so much with Utilitarianism!)

It's not so much objections as such - it's more a matter of understanding limits. There are limits to that kind of self-correction and also it has inherent issues that haven't always been recognised. Peer review is not as formidable as people sometimes think for example. Science also isn't as wedded to the scientific method as we like to imagine, a lot goes on that isn't really categorisable in those terms.

The radio series I posted starts off with an interesting discussion of the book Leviathan and the Air Pump, which is about the controversies around the distinct adoption of the experimental method in science. Which was a change, because previously it had tended to prefer reasoning from first principles. The book itself was notable for not taking for granted that the experimental method had won the argument and was obviously better - it tried to look at the controversy from a neutral perspective. Anyway - Thomas Hobbes was the main person saying that a first principles method should win out - he suggested that otherwise science would never ben able to win people's trust. An idea that's often been discounted - but gosh, doesn't it ring a few bells about the current state of trust in the public sphere, or how we evaluate pseudo-science.

Anyway - the series looks at these and a lot of other questions, places where science seemed not to work as we expected, or people who were pushed out for wrongthink, that sort of thing.

I'm with you on contemporary lit. Interestingly it's worst in literary fiction I find - genre fiction often seems to have more to say.

Goosefoot · 26/09/2020 21:13

@queenofknives

I've enjoyed it so much too! Everyone has so many interesting things to say and I feel like I can learn so much from all of you. I'm definitely no intellectual heavyweight myself, just super-curious and want to know everything.

I was wondering whether maybe any of you would be interested in a MN book club - maybe read Cynical Theories or another book that's been mentioned in the thread or another one you think is worth an in-depth look, and really try to get to grips with it?

I'd be interested in a book club. I usually do one this time of year at my church but it's been kiboshed due to covid. It's also been flooded with students in the last few years and while they are nice enough, they tend to be a little wide-eyed and earnest for me, the first year we did it it was mostly stay-at-home mums, which was actually much better IMO, and think the guy running it thought so too. It's hard to find a book club that picks interesting books.
TheRealMcKenna · 26/09/2020 21:29

As a former science teacher, one of my biggest regrets was that I had too little time available to explore what used to be included in the curriculum as How Science Works and far too much knowledge content to get through.

I used to love exploring how the idea of continental drift was proposed, rejected and how evidence over decades led to plate tectonic theory. Likewise, the combination of observable trends in chemical behaviour with atomic weight which led to the development of the periodic table is a fascinating subject.

It is true that there is a political and historical context in scientific development that cannot be ignored. There are numerous examples from the crediting of the discovery of oxygen through to the Wakefield controversy which demonstrate how flawed human intervention and bias in the scientific method can be. It’s definitely no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, as some anti-scientists would prefer we do in reaction to past injustices.

MalcolmTuckersBollockingface · 26/09/2020 21:37

I’ve spent a lot of time dipping in and out of this thread today and reading the comments with interest. I have broken cover to say I would be up for participating in a book group too. Interestingly (or not) I have started reading Cynical Theories this week and will definitely bookmark the podcast and reading suggestions listed here.

nepeta · 26/09/2020 22:08

Science (or research, more generally) is only self-correcting when the institutions, rules, and rewards created to make it self-correcting continue to operate. So the process is not automatic.

I have seen it fail in some fields which are ideologically isolated and which accept no criticism from researchers working in adjacent fields. Peer reviews then consist of like-thinking brothers patting each other on the back.

The general publish-or-perish incentives, when combined with the kinds of studies academic journals seem to favor can also cause a failure of self-correcting (or at least a slowing down of the process). I'm thinking of the file drawer problem here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias), but other reasons for selective publishing also exist.

JohnRokesmith · 26/09/2020 22:15

When I see this, I always start to think about my grandfather, who was a sailor in the Navy, and never went to university. He was, however, an educated man. Not in the university mode, but a type of person that I haven't encountered for some time but which seems to have been common. He had practical skills, but he knew his history and political theory cold, he was well read (Kipling was his favourite author, and Burns, but he read everything,) he was a beautiful writer and a stickler fr grammar, and he wooed his wife by writing her not bad poetry. And he wouldn't let anyone get away with less than a watertight argument which made him annoying.

This used to be very common within working-class communities, where education was seen as a form of intellectual development which you acquired, rather than an externalised process which was imposed upon you. This massively shaped both working-class communities, and society in general, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Mechanistically, this is a very open-ended approach to education, which has a significant effect on what you do learn. If, for instance, you study within a formal educational setting, such as a school or university, the direction and scope of your learning is shaped by formal curricula or course requirements. You learn what you need to, and generally no more, and once you have finished a course, you have no need to return to it. For those not familiar with theory in this area, this is generally called the inoculation theory of education.

If you are, instead, going down the autodidactic route, there are no sharp definitions to what you are looking at, and no inherent end point. People who take this approach will invariably learn more and, perhaps more importantly, make connections between different types of information that will not occur within formal educational settings, where knowledge is sharply delineated by subject.

There's a really good book about the history of working-class autodidacticism; "The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes", by Jonathan Rose. Reading the book makes it clear how heavily the notion of ownership of learning and information has shifted in the last century, and suggests (in my mind at least) one of the reasons for some of the problems in institutions we face at present.

Harriedharriet · 26/09/2020 22:32

I am learning so much from this thread - thank you all very much. I would love a book club.

Goosefoot · 26/09/2020 22:50

There's a really good book about the history of working-class autodidacticism; "The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes", by Jonathan Rose. Reading the book makes it clear how heavily the notion of ownership of learning and information has shifted in the last century, and suggests (in my mind at least) one of the reasons for some of the problems in institutions we face at present.

In the first half of the 20th century was a strong movement in my province in fishing and agricultural communities to have study groups, usually directed towards improving problems in the community or local industry, but also anything else of interest.

I've felt the big advantage to a university education is the community of scholars, and in fact really, that's what constitutes education in that setting. It can allow for a kind of practice in a different method of thinking that isn't easy to teach oneself. In that setting the idea that you are "finished" learning shouldn't really occur, The move to credentialism, these sense of the university as a vocational school, very large classes, online and distance learning - all of these really undermine that community and mentoring element that is at the heart of it.

Stripesgalore · 26/09/2020 22:57

I love Rose’s book too. Do we want to start on something related to Murray’s main concerns - as that is what brought all of our disparate approaches together?

One of the books on the American Mind maybe?

We could start a thread on the feminist book club board perhaps, as it is kind of an abandoned board.

Antibles · 26/09/2020 23:04

Ha McKenna I like the cassette tape and placard theory! And that video is very funny.

I would be interested in the book club.

I like it when JS Mill turns up on a thread and I will go away and read On the Subjection of Women again as it always makes me feel better to read a man who gets it.

Antibles · 26/09/2020 23:07

The Rose book sounds very interesting.

Siablue · 27/09/2020 06:56

I would be interested in a book group. I have learned a lot from this discussion. I have started reading the Coddling of the American Mind and it is really interesting especially the concept of anti fragility and the idea that humans need some exposure to adversity to develop resilience. I do agree with that and I think that a lot of my empathy for others comes from the tough experiences I have in my life.

I have listened to a couple of podcasts with Helen Pluckrose about Cynical Theories. I am interested in reading that book. Jane Clare Jones said it was throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to analysis of inequality with I agree with so far but have not yet read the book. I do think their idea that the theories are being applied out of academia is true. It is quite like communism in a way. Socialism as an idea has a lot of benefits but Communism has been incredibly oppressive and resulted in the murder of millions of people. I think that the SJWs are trying to apply the theories in that way.

NonnyMouse1337 · 27/09/2020 07:17

I've really enjoyed lurking on this thread. Lots of different topics and fascinating insights and perspectives from different posters. Smile

I hope you won't mind if I lurk on a book club thread as well. I'm usually unable to read an entire book within the timeframes required for book clubs, but I am interested in following discussions about some of the titles mentioned.

If there's ever any opportunity to discuss well written online articles and papers, or audio/video episodes, that might be more feasible for me. I feel like an intellectual lightweight though, so happy to lurk and absorb other posters' analysis.

ALittleBitofVitriol · 27/09/2020 07:33

Thanks for the book rec JohnRoke right up my alley as a homeschooler.

GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman · 27/09/2020 08:04

This is a brilliant thread, and has helped me articulate some of the issues that have bugged me and has made me feel much less alone.

Someone upthread (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned a lack of something - depth possibly - in modern literary fiction. I thought it was just me who had gone off it. I found it harder and harder to read from about 8 or 9 years ago and attributed it to menopause/ PhD study etc etc. But I'm through both of those and still not reading it. It seems to lack authenticity, there is too much writing to an agenda. I'm still reading, but it's all factual stuff.

As for science, peer review isn't what it was. I found a paper recently where I couldn't track down one of the references and I eventually found the the title was given wrongly. Sometimes numbers just don't add up. But reviewers are not paid while the companies that publish the journals charge a mint to view the articles, which puts scientific enquiry out of the reach of ordinary interested people who lack academic affiliations.

queenofknives · 27/09/2020 08:33

I found it harder and harder to read from about 8 or 9 years ago and attributed it to menopause/ PhD study etc etc. But I'm through both of those and still not reading it. It seems to lack authenticity, there is too much writing to an agenda.

Yes, Grumpy I've been exactly the same. I don't read in all the genres, but SF/F&horror are particularly terrible, and Goosefoot says lit fic is the worst. I've read a few good lit fic novels in the past few years, but only a few I thought were genuinely excellent and heavy in that sense of being substantial. (Would highly recommend The Milkman by Anna Burns.)

queenofknives · 27/09/2020 08:45

Excellent, I'm glad so many are up for book clubbing! So I guess we just need to choose a book and start a thread? Someone mentioned a feminist book club board on here - that sounds perfect! Obviously we can keep going and read however many books we want, and if people think it's a good idea, we can divide books into sections or chapters so we can take our time.

Books we've talked about on this thread:

The Madness of Crowds - Douglas Murray
Cynical Theories - James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose
The Coddling of the American Mind - Jonathan Haidt
The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes - Jonathan Rose
On Liberty - JS Mill

I'm thinking there are others I've missed but had a skim through the thread and didn't see them.

I'd be quite keen to read the Coddling followed by the Intellectual Life, but I think any of these will be interesting to read and talk about.

Swipe left for the next trending thread