Sally Hines

[WandsOut]

https://x.com/sally_hines/status/1836778288112370076?s=46

"I wish I knew whether the high profile GCs who have a political and policy background and a level of legal knowledge, and yet repeatedly use mantras such as ‘sex based rights’ and ‘GC beliefs as protected’ are wilfully engaging in disinformation practices or are wildly ignorant.

The first is shocking and the latter pitiful. I’m not thinking about the shock jocks and grifters such as KJM, but GCs with a policy, research and/or academic role. Do they make things up knowingly or get things very wrong?

I’m not talking about theoretical or political understandings or perspectives which are to be invested and believed in - or not. But substantive factors. For eg, whether or not there should be ‘sex based rights’ is an opinion, a normative question.

Stating that these rights exist though is wrong. And this is why there is so little GC research published in academic journals. It’s not silencing, it’s incoherence and falsehoods. The ideal public arena for GC thought is the shock, and tease, tabloid opinion pieces.

But if one wants to be active in research, policy…

You really can’t go around just making things up and get a reputable publication. You can fool the Tories and you can be used by the far right, but you can’t get past Reviewer 2"

Is she fucking stupid?

Thanks, DialSquare!

Sounds like the sort of book a spectacularly lazy, arrogant 14-year-old would produce. The sort of teenager who has been spoiled since birth and thinks the sun shines out of her arse. And that hard work, detailed research and critical thinking are for plebs.

Haha!!!!

Really enjoyed reading these. Thank you @DialSquare
the caption “18th century men wearing corsets” makes me want to see this masterpiece

She's an absolute genius and poor Hines comes off like a fool.

Who even is Sally Hines?

Yes, she is.

And one of the most dangerous things they believe from their own propaganda is that they are the smart ones.

The Hines JKR X debate is continuing and getting more glorious.

You can't post that and not provide any screenshots....

Imagine waking up in the morning and remembering that you're Sally Hines, what an awful start to the day

Hines has a senior position, tenure, a decent salary and pretty much no recognisable performance standards.

I'd not be too surprised if there's a special song and dance of thanksgiving if Hines can manage it on most days.

Do you think she's maybe on drugs? The stuff she is saying is bizarre.

Do she and her cronies seriously believe that human beings didn't know the difference between the sexes before white folx pointed it out? Like really? Cause that's just fucked up and obviously illogical - imagine having to actually listen to this shit at uni and having everyone around you nodding away, meanwhile you fancy that person over there and now you don't know what sex they are because you are so stupid you don't know the most basic concept about humans because your teacher can't tell the difference between men and women and is telling you that JK Rowling is evil and a nazi.

When Sally looks at men and women naked do you think she thinks they are the same? Like does she have some kind of cognitive issue that means she can't see there is a difference between naked human males and females?

What about animals, can she see there are two sexes in animals and that male animals look different to female ones? Cause children on farms can tell the difference. Sally in case you are reading this you might want to look up what a penis is, but be prepared for a bit of a shock in case! It's like a weird vagina only it's an outy rather than an insy. (Bet she uses this argument next)

Who does she teach again, is it actual live students? This is dangerous nonsense that's making uni students stupider than when they went in and maybe the papers need to publish some of her "wisdom" so that her niche ideas can be exposed to a wider audience and tested more. Isn't that what academic rigour is all about?

Butler type academics influence policy so much that they have managed to manipulate the truth in order to get people to believe the most implausible concepts. Their flawed and unbalanced abstract thought experiment research projects, "peer reviewed" aka "selectively peer reviewed" aka "peer reviewed by perverts" in the case of the burgeoning field of sweaty balled gender studies has wreaked havoc on the education of primary school children. It will take years to undo what these buffoons have wrought upon us. Years and years of confusion and lies.

It's unforgivable.

That will be her excuse when the lawsuits start to hit.

Cut to Pink News et al. trying to figure out a way to report on this to make JKR look bad without actually quoting anything she said because she's making too much sense

As you wish. It is a bit one sided.

Thanks in anticipation! I could do with a laugh.

Here we go.

Wow.

And thanks. Leaving aside the "right side of history", I am pleased to be on the intelligent side of the debate.

She's utterly flummoxed, is our Sally.
This is the downside of only talking to people who nod and say "Yeah, totally. Are you going to finish that muffin?" to anything you say.

That Hines/JKR Twitter exchange is staggering. I'm feeling secondhand embarrassment for Hines even though I'm in full agreement with JKR. Imagine being that stupid that publicly. Self-delusion is one of the most interesting aspects of humanity.

This exchange has been outstanding though. It really has shone a beacon onto the issue.

Joanne Rowling is trying out the logic we use here, but she is doing it in front of an audience of millions. One of those logic statements she is pushing to get an answer for is the ‘a male person can never be a female person so how can they know what they are ‘feeling’ is what a female person feels? ‘ question.

The fact that Hines cannot answer it is not surprising. I wonder if those who insist that they know what gender is and have doctorate quals in ‘related’ subjects will fare better. I look forward to asking and getting an answer.

People like SH can only ‘preach’ to the already ‘converted’
Maybe that’s why she cannot respond well to JKR; who is a thousand times more articulate, logical, perceptive and more informed than SH. And refuses to know-tow
SH’s poor students. It beggars belief how these academics get the status that have
(queer theory)????

I often think of Occam's razor.

A 4-year-old boy likes the colour pink. How can we explain this?

1. He's actually a girl; or
2. Boys can like pink

The whole construct is an extension of this question.