Mumsnet campaign on VAWG includes men in their definition of women

[Luno]

I'm not sure if/how I can link to it but under Mumsnet campaigns Women in data have published a survey about violence against women and girls.

It talks about "ALL women", asks for sex assigned at birth and says you can answer on the basis of your "gender identity".

How can any organisation purported to be for the benefit of women include men in their definition of women? All of the data will be inaccurate, unscientific and u representative.

I just looked at DSs birth certificate from 2006. It didn't mention "sex assigned at birth". I'll have to ask my grandad what his one from 1934 says.

Off to finish reading the thread now.

I am a regular toe-dipper, must get braver!

Are we really at a point where we are pretending "observed" is a term that was never used and it's always been "assigned"?
That's the most brain washed thing I've seen this year...

If nothing else, you have to admire that poster’s dedication to proving themselves unable to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

If nothing else, you have to admire that poster’s dedication to proving themselves unable to grasp even the simplest of concepts

Indeed.

Their understanding of Boolean and AND/OR/NOT etc operators is clearly deficient....

"Assigned" implies a decision is made, not a reality recorded.

There is nothing factually incorrect about it. It’s already been normalised and accepted by the majority of people.

No.

Absolutely - putting together a basic search string and interpreting the results correctly is obviously way beyond their abilities. I suppose that’s what happens when the crazy meets the science though.

I think "majority" is another word @GuanYinShanxi is wildly misunderstanding.

IIRC tagging MNHQ doesn't do anything. You'd need to report the thread to draw it to their attention. Or tag the mods if you know their user names.

"there is no reason to do a scientific study on the sex assignment of a perfectly normal male or female with no DSD. "

Correct, because their sex has not been assigned to them.
In cases of DSD, a decision is made between the two options.
There is no need for that decision at all in normal males or females with no DSD's.
That is the exact thing people are trying to point out to you.

"This is not because the procedure was only to assign sex for only those with DSDs. That is simply ahistorical and illogical."
What makes you say this? You don't need to "figure out" someone's sex and assign it if it's obvious from observation what sex they are. Assignment just is not needed.

Genuinely baffled how these things are the same to you :S

Your own evidence, which you seem to think others have skewed for some reason, doesn't back up what you're saying.
I've followed your own link and looked for myself, the other posters are correct when they say you did not search for a phrase, but rather individual words.
Check your own link. Go further than the first few pages.

The people here aren't looking for a "gotcha" moment, they're looking for evidence from all sides and making their judgements accordingly. I've seen people have their minds changed all the time on these boards.

If you have any good evidence that this term has been in use "literally" since the 30's, I'd love to see it.
And it would be ideal if the evidence provided is independent of anything to do with John Money.

Words fail me! Shame on you MNHQ

@GuanYinShanxi

Frankly you are a case study in confirmation bias.

Something respected researchers go to great lengths to avoid.

You wanted to find something specific and set your search parameters to achieve that goal.

It's pretty easy to find "proof" of anything if your starting point is to achieve that objective.

It's akin to telling a research cohort "don't think about a pink elephant" just before a survey then declaring that 100% of respondents thought about pink rather than grey elephants - thus elephants are mentally deciphered as pink by the whole population.

I mean, it's not as if they thought that the women on here wouldn't notice?

The people who out the survey together must have heard of the Prosecco Stormfront right?

Every survey I see that turns their own data into mincemeat really makes me cringe. When I did survey design in psychology I had to make sure every single question was clear on why I was asking it. This is such garbled nonsense.

Just do a belly flop off the driving board straight in.

Annoyingly this was one of the things I knew how to do back in the day of early internet and dial up connections. But as time has gone on I've forgotten how to do it and have to phone IT support (AKA my sister) to ask how to do it! So there is a chance there is whole sections of society out there who don't even know it's a thing you can do.

I remember doing my dissertation in such a way that I didn't need to do any surveys, and watched the lads who had used surveys get their dissertations ripped to shreds as the questions in their surveys had shown bias or hadn't asked what they thought they were asking!

It truly its a science yet people think they can just whip up a survey and get decent data from it!

It's nuts!

Definitely - but when someone doesn’t understand an instruction (which was explained in very simple terms) the best thing for them to do is to admit they don’t get it, rather than ploughing ahead and coming up with utter nonsense in order to try and prove a point.

Boiled - I get it.

Being able to create great search strings is a bit of an art imho....(I'm a self confessed nerd so like this stuff).

Thing is you are not making claims on the basis your research methodology unlike a certain poster.

We can all type random words into google or academic search engines like WOS and "manufacture" results.

The "art" is in creating focused but neutral strings that return relevant results whilst not excluding relevant results.

I spent hours and hours tweaking search strings(when doing my masters dissertation) to find that "sweet spot" 😂

Well that was quite a hill for PP to choose to die on. Blimey.

Beliefs are much stronger than than facts, aren't they?

We can all type random words into google

You been looking at my search history again?

Quite.

They can claim their hill.

I've summited Everest 😂

I'll not mean though. Happy to wave from the peak 👋

I can only assume they likely won't be back?

This is the funniest post I've seen in a long time. 15,000 vs 350... Thanks Fenlandia 😂

Beware of my extraordinary IT powers 😂

I think some people are just programmed to double down even when they realise they are wrong!