Maya Forstater has challenged Adam Rutherford and Ben Goldacre to set Bragg straight about Cass and systematic reviews

[RethinkingLife]

Maya Forstater challenged Rutherford and Goldacre to set Billy Bragg straight on his misunderstanding of systematic reviews in re: Cass because FondofBeetles' explanation has seen her put on naughty step by TwiX.

There are a rash of people like Billy getting horribly confused about systematic reviews.

AdamRutherford bengoldacre you might want to step up now as neutral science communicators and explain how this works.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1779422767781118224

No response from Goldacre but Rutherford responded to deny any relevant knowledge. And, yes, this is the Rutherford of Rutherford and Fry fame and the books and radio programmes ] Rutherford's TwiX bio: "I'm a scientist. President of Humanists_UK Lecturer in Genetics UCL Genetics, race, eugenics, history of science, movies, books, cricket"

It's not something I know much about.

https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1779478504930779315

To which somebody else responded with a clear Rutherford prior intervention about methodology etc.

https://twitter.com/JustMisogyny/status/1779580934448095682

And there's an interjection from Gurwinder Bhogal to Rutherford.

https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1779593609387421785

I was surprised that Rutherford doesn't know much about how systematic reviews work. I'd have thought he'd have needed at least an inkling for his job.
Never mind the genetics stuff.
Another Alice Roberts situation I guess - isn't he a humanist too?

Rutherford's TwiX bio: "I'm a scientist. President of Humanists_UK Lecturer in Genetics UCL Genetics, race, eugenics, history of science, movies, books, cricket"

ETA: one of the BBC's favourite science commentators.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dx75g

Adam Rutherford used to do a BBC podcast with Hannah Fry, the data scientist & mathematician, where they answered questions about science. I used to like it.

I really really really really hope Hannah Fry gets it.

She 100% doesn't. Sorry.

Arse.

No!

I really like Adam Rutherford. Very disappointed to find out that he's another cowardly man.

Another Alice Roberts situation I guess - isn't he a humanist too?

He took over from.her as president of Humanists UK.

Hahahaha. That’s brilliant.

“Have you considered writing it about sex in sport instead? It seems more pertinent for a scientist.
^^
(If you're unsure of the difference between sex and gender, you probably should reconsider the book)
^^
It would be like not knowing the difference between astronomy and astrology.”

Or as the DC would say: oof, that’s cold.

Then why the fuck did he block Emma Hilton?

Which I now can't find

I wrote an essay about Andrew Wakefield for a course I was doing; I used a lot of Ben Goldacre's book and online articles to refer to how all that had happened. He did a lot of work into that.

And now Wakefield is signing a letter condemning Cass.

Interesting times.

No way can Goldacre ever support that shit.

He is incredibly cowardly. Debunking homeopathy is easy - talking about this is difficult, but that’s what prominent science broadcasters have to do. As soon as he has to talk about something his own side support he runs a mile. I am incredibly disappointed tbh. All these men are such cowards

Ben Goldacre really doesn’t do public stuff of this sort much at all any more so I sort of forgive him for not coming out on TwiX.

It wasn't Wakefield, the letter writers didn't carry out basic checks or validation, it seems.

I like your description of Rutherford!

I now have a mental image of an angry misogynistic crab scuttling around pinching gender critical women's toes for not being "woke" enough to understand that magic bit of science that makes men who call themselves women suddenly become women.

Because thoughts, feelings and ideas over material reality also magically become science when they're about gender. It's religion identifying as science, using the Reasonable Man Crab as its costume 🦀

Oh no. I thought she did when she wore the woman t shirt!

Relevant article here by Victoria Smith - the sadness of Sceptical man.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-sadness-of-sceptical-man/

In fairness, I have not listened to her R4 show, or followed it on socials for a couple of years, so maybe she has changed her mind. Before then, though neither she nor AR addressed gender woo directly, there were definitely remarks suggesting they were following the blue-haired path of #BeKind.

Someone got to all those Skepto Lads (and Roberts) early on, in the same way the Lib Dems were captured.

And yes, I know it sounds tinfoil hat but I've read the stuff Whittle & Burns wrote, plus Morton in Scotland. The whole social movement was designed and implemented quietly, and capture of key groups was part that.

He may not even have been aware of it, but Rutherford was nobbled.

And I AM disappointed with Goldacre, although I understand not wanting to risk your livelihood and reputation (hence the attack dogs to reinforce that message if anyone's tempted). I do wonder if he'd spoken out early and clearly if he could have swayed things. There may be another opportunity coming round just now.

No! What makes you say that @MissLucyEyelesbarrow ?
I love Hannah Fry.

Don't believe for a minute that either Rutherford or Goldacre believe in gender woo.

That Rutherford is such a disappointment should be no surprise after the godawful Inside Science podcast episode he presented following the Caster Semenya case. His sanctimonious manner was starting to grate before that anyhow, but to hear him present such a misleading report whilst he holds himself out as so rational & ethical was infuriating. That man doesn't give a flying feathered fuck about women.

episode here

To be fair, if you aren’t engaged with this issue, it probably sounds a bit mad to care about Billy Bragg’s views on this kind of review.

They don't look at it as a scientific question. To them it's part of the lgbtq+ movement.

Many people who are big into allyship are not any more interested either in the biology of sexuality, and the fact is we don't know much about it. The idea that sexuality is inborn and unchangable isn't a scientific statement, it's a moral position taken by certain people because they believe it supports their political views. Maybe it's true, or true for some, but science doesn't really know.

These same people would likely resist scientific evidence they felt undermined that particular talking point as well.

I'm not all that surprised they are secular humanists - their faith in human possibilities, without any underlying support structures in terms of first principles, fits right in.

Ah, so that's why Rutherford feels emboldened to write a book about 'gender' and sport…

🙈