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

So a man writing a book about "gender" in sport has not followed the puberty blockers debate at all, including the Cass Report, despite the importance of puberty in shaping our bodies and thus our adult sporting capabilities? Despite various sports organisations across the world mentioning going through male puberty as a criterion for exclusion from the female category?

Pull the other one.

Maya wasn't overtly asking Rutherford to 'pick a side' even, she was asking him to use his science communication skills to explain systematic reviews to Billy Bragg. She asked this after TwiX took action on Emma Hilton/Fond of Beetles' account so her explanation wasn't available.

Good point. But we now know how saying 'gender' renders normally very opinionated Reasonable Men into coy refusals to state facts.

Fry is on 6 Music every week talking to Lauren Laverne. 6 Music who refused to platform Roisin Murphy after she spoke out against medicalising kids with hormones... Lauren Laverne who had Marina Abramovic on Dezzy Island Discs and couldn't wait to correct her for referring to 'Anoni' as 'he'. Practically whined like a primary school kid with their hand up, desperate to get in there with the correct pronoun. (Still annoys me when I think about it, particularly as a fellow Northerner.) I really hope Hannah hasn't bought into it either but if she hasn't, she's probably being very quiet.

Didn't know that re Wakefield/Cass review. Of all the people you wouldn't want on your side eh? Not that Cass would give a shit what he thought. Fucking charlatan that he is.

Yes. Ben Goldacre used to be one of my heroes. Now it seems he’s fearless against easy targets such as new-agey dimwits, but scared to tackle the much more seriously harmful proponents of gender woo.

Disappointing. He could have done so much good.

There was a fairly long, and useful, thread back in 2019 about the sceptic community’s inability to criticise gender identity ideology.

I have (female) family member who is deeply into the UK sceptic scene and she says this topic is studiously avoided.
Good to see high profile proponents having their feet held to the fire a little. Hopefully will encourage others to question more too.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/3613657-The-Skeptic-Communitys-Blind-Spot-for-Gender-Theory

She asked this after TwiX took action on Emma Hilton/Fond of Beetles' account so her explanation wasn't available.

What happened there?

I'd always assumed Lauren Laverne was sensible on this. She has the brilliant Sophie Scott on her R6 programme regularly.

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

It makes me completely unable to take them and their "skeptic" schtick seriously. No of course god doesn't exist, what sort of idiot believes in that, but do you know liking spinny dresses and being crap at maths means you have a female soul in your male body.

Sceptical so long as it's safe to be so.

Indeed, and his background in critiquing both new age woo and big pharma would have given him some powerful tools here.

As for Rutherford, no respect for him at all. All Maya was asking him to do was to explain clinical studies to Billy, not to take a side, but he was so craven he wouldn’t even do that. Science communicator my foot.

Speaking of, Suranne Jones posted an image of her self reading hags the other day.

Exactly. Implied in their performative scepticism (more so Rutherford, than Goldacre) is, "How could so many idiots have believed in religion for so long? I would never be that stupid."

It's quite hard to hold that line convincingly, when you have fallen head first into a new cult.

I disagree with Richard Dawkins' approach to atheism, despite not being a believer myself, but at least the man has the guts to be consistent. He shows up Rutherford for the snivelling coward and intellectual minnow that he is.

Remember Billy Bragg attempting to debate Julie Bindel and Ayan Hirsi Ali?
The man has no shame and no ability for critical self reflection. He's nailed his colours to the mast - and has chosen to live or die by them.

Don't want to start a whole new thread, but sorry to write slightly irrelevant post on this one... about Bragg. Can't keep up with his fast-moving, unbounded idiocy. What is he saying about JKR and the Streisand effect??? TIA

It's this:

https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1779942549391921185

I'm not sure of the cause but it might relate to this:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767912990366388735

which I think was an ill-advised tweet open to all kinds of misinterpretations, most of them extremely uncharitable.

Anything JKR says will be wilfully misinterpreted. She has realised that, and sensibly decided to say what she wants.

The trans attempt to appropriate the Nazi persecution of gay people is grotesque, and I am delighted that JKR had the guts to call them out on it.

This may also be worth noting:

https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1779878392805945428

It would be interesting to see how the various tinfoil grifters react to Cass. Many TRAs would be believers in WEF , chemtrails and whatnot theories . But I'm not sure how of a 'read across' there is.

I wonder if Rutherford’s employer, UCL, are aware that he doesn’t know how systematic reviews work. It seems like a major gap in knowledge for a senior academic scientist.

See image 4 in OP…

bloody hell… GENDER in sport. I wonder what he’ll actually say then?

i’m also sure Ben Goldacre was always incredibly and yes performatively sanctimonious anyway.

In fairness, Goldacre did a lot to raise public awareness of how pharma companies manipulate medicine, but that was 15 years ago.

These men get elevated into Experts by the media, fêted, never challenged, and it goes to their heads. I can't think of a single woman scientist who is given uncritical admiration, or even expert status, in the same way.

Hmm. I know a few fans of Goldacre and Rutherford..... They're a range of very sensible, logical people of varying politics but definitely not gender idealogues! If Rutherford has genuinely fallen for this shit, his book about "Gender" in sport is going to be a bit embarrassing and seem extremely dated.

Is it possible he's using "gender" in the very old fashioned synonym for "sex" way? And I suppose his book could be completely scientifically accurate without mentioning trans issues at all (which, being truth based, would still support gender critical arguments and thus be inadvertently transphobic - oops!!). Lots of people choose to work like this and whilst it seems cowardly I can fully understand why.