They scraped Mumsnet again.

[ArabellaSaurus]

archive.ph/e0u3Z

https://bulletin.appliedtransstudies.org/article/4/1-3/7/

Another data scrape. I'd say it's also defamatory against Mumsnet.

I've archived.

Article is a load of tedious wank, as you'd expect.

'In this study, however, we excavate what it means to write like a GC by analyzing how GC forum users rely on reactionary language and deploy storytelling practices in ways that calcify their anti-trans ideologies as personal and natural while rendering transgender people as anti-feminist, dangerous, and monstrous. To identify how GC groups perform political mythmaking and construct extremist identities, we undertook a computationally assisted discursive analysis of two popular GC forums: Ovarit and Mumsnet’s “Feminism: Sex & Gender” board (abbreviated to “FSG”). Through comparative platform discourse analysis, we analyzed over 80k posts and comments scraped from Ovarit and over 60k posts and comments scraped from Mumsnet (Burgess and Matamoros-Fernández 2016; Lewis and Marwick 2017)'

The only mildly amusing thing about it is the name of the Journal.

BATS.

FWR living rent free in the heads of the men who demand we call them women.

Same as it ever was.

Christ on a bike.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388759411_I_TOOK_A_DEEP_BREATH_AND_CAME_OUT_AS_GC_EXCAVATING_GENDER_CRITICAL_INFORMATION_LITERACY_PRACTICES_AND_ANTI-TRANS_RADICALIZATION_ON_OVARIT_AND_MUMSNET

'Citations: 0'

They are just boys standing in front of girls um, scraping them using computationally-assisted analysis without consent or their prior knowledge. And there's nothing creepy about that.

it is important to remember that FSG remains entangled with Mumsnet generally and the politics of UK nationalism, colonialism, and British white supremacy

OK... and your evidence?

Found the ethics statement for the journal;

'Publication Ethics
Authors should observe high standards with respect to publication ethics as set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the authors’ own work without proper citation, and misappropriation of the work are all unacceptable practices. Any cases of ethical misconduct are treated very seriously and will be dealt with in accordance with the COPE guidelines. All research employing human subjects must have been conducted with the authorization and approval of an Institutional Review Board, an Ethical Review Board, or some other credentialed research ethics committee.
Members of the journal’s editorial team (including assistant editors and editorial board members) are welcome to submit papers to BATS. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and editorial team members’ affiliation with the journal has no bearing on editorial decisions. If an editorial team member is an author on a submission, they will have no involvement in or access to confidential information on the editorial process.'

My bold. What board/committee signed this off?

They have now been cited on MN.
I wonder what impact factor ranking BATS has.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5441037-another-data-scrape-from-academia

I made a thread in SS, if anyone has any concerns they wish to add. I've copy pasted your post, AstonUniversityDataScrapingDepartment, hope that's okay.

The ESRC called, and they LOVE it.

But.... feelings!

Can we ask?

Doesn't have one. Not important enough.

I've suggested MN's lawyers might want to.

Python is the programming language of choice for people who don't really know how to program.

Not surprised.

Is that a swanky way of saying that his brain's fallen out?

Shows how much they know about it, doesn't it?

I know I'm not an academic but if you want to know what MN Feminism posters are actually saying, there's a really good, robust, reliable way of finding out.

Fucking shut up and listen to us.

Bit out-there, I realise.

https://fishstewarding.com/

Edit: I thought herding cats was more the accepted term, myself.

BATS uses a double-blind peer review process. This means that the reviewers of a submission will at no point in the review process be made aware of who authored the submission

Yeah but you can tell though, can't you.

That or :

https://www.freespiritgatheringmd.org/

I see Ruth Pearce is on the editorial board of the journal.

Delightfully, also found this:

https://emotionalresearch.wordpress.com/

'Emotionally Demanding Research Network Scotland

Peer support network for those conducting, supporting or studying emotionally demanding research'

It appears to be completely serious.

Having waded through the "paper", I conclude that the authors take issue with women talking to each other and want to figure out how we do so in order to figure out how to stop us.

In other words, Rules 3, 4, and 14 dressed up in way too much word salad.

Antipathy Towards Sex-Workers

No, it's the men who pay to rape women that we have antipathy towards.

As we discuss in this section, in-group stories of peaking and subsequently “coming out” as GC, further reify fantasies that mainstream culture is silencing, canceling, or confusing vulnerable GC users

The evidence of multiple tribunal cases, starting with Forstater v CGD, prove that we are silenced. It's not a fantasy if it's actually happening.

I also agree AI scrapers should leave Mumsnet alone. AI, IMHO, is junk enough as is without training it on half a trillion words on how bad trans people apparently are.

No amount of scraping can change biological facts.