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.

Every thread on the feminism gender has some version of a perverse portrayal of trans people. And no, I'm not fetching for what you already know to be a fact.

I wonder how many people predicted that saying "sex is real and sometimes it matters" would spawn so much "analysis"?

It's pretty dishonest to pretend you can't understand what that means to the point you need to write a piece of software to put it into different words.

Dishonesty is built in to the TRA position though - it can't exist without contradicting itself.

Well as a fantasy nerd I don't really think that conclusion is inevitable....I love it because I love it, not because I can't cope with reality and want to be special.

I don't know why that abstract characterises Mumsnet as an "obscure invite only space", make them look thick.

As an example of GCs ending up on the far right, they gave a post saying that someone was planning to vote Conservative. In my loathing of Stella Braverman’s performative nonsense, I still don’t think I have ever referred to her or to the Tories as far right.

The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

Only an MRA would LOL at women talking about MVAWG. But you have to add in a slur insinuating women talking about their experiences are 'ill', just in case ridiculing rape survivors wasn't enough.

Given the amount of time you apparently spend reading these threads, it’s surprising you still haven’t understood the basic argument. The objection is not to “trans people” but to men colonising women’s spaces and activities. We must have explained this thousands of times, yet you still don’t grasp this simple fact.

Unable to substantiate your assertions, again.

Women notice men are arrogantly trampling all over them.

Women start talking about it.

Men decide it's women's problem for noticing.

Men throw any old shit around to try and delegitimise women's voices.

Tale as old as time.

Women know the truth. We know it because we live it first hand. Men telling us our own self knowledge is wrong because their theories about what it is to be us don't allow for it are just demonstrating their own misogyny, and the more they do it the more transparent it becomes.

So carry on chaps, please! You sow and water the seeds of your own undoing. 😘

You're being selective. It's easy to find GC people on the left and the right, just as the previous poster said.

I suppose its part of the human condition where people look for opportunities to project their deep insecurities onto a vehicle but kid themselves its for a higher purpose when its clearly not about that because of the scapegoat element.

Is this high-word-count 'burn' self-referential?

"The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad."

The point you're spectacularly missing is the generalisation/stereotyping (that ironically GC's were supposed to be against) of transpeople…but I suppose that all goes with the far right package of smearing an entire group.

'They’re eating the cats & dogs'…

Given that the first sentence refers to banned Reddit users migrating to ‘obscure invitation-only spaces’, does either author explain why Mumsnet is included at all? MN being neither obscure or invitation-only?

Also the timeline is shit. r/gender critical was banned in 2020 according to my research (I googled it. This seems publishable, amirite?) They do mention the proposed UK reforms to the GRA, placing that in 2017, but so far I haven’t come across any description of what the actual proposed reforms were in relation to how women reacted to them. It’s like trying to describe the campaign to repeal capital punishment but without any reference to what capital punishment actually is.

Your hepatic genes have affected your grammar.

Herpetic!

Men, Howse. Men.

We talk about the fact that 99% of sexual assaults are committed by men. 80% of violent assaults.

Nobody cares if the men say they are trans, non binary, priests, rabbis, scout leaders, policemen, or politicians. Men have sought ways to enable them to abuse victims for the whole of history.

The left wing one's tend to be more moderate as in they stick to the issues of conflicts in rights sans the 'degeneracy' framing.

Possibly talking about Ovarit, which required an invite. As did that other one ... cant recall the name ...

"but I suppose that all goes with the far right package of smearing an entire group."

Stereotyping is a far right trait, now?

Smearing an entire group is of course Howse's only plan of attack. Weak effort, imo.

Like most if not all corrupted causes, they start off with kernels of truth/legitimate grievances but has ended up as a gate way to extremism.

Except in the case of trans extremist zealotry, they skipped any pretence at a kernel of truth and leapt straight into violent extremism.

Oversimplification.
The categorical error you keep conveniently making is assuming all male bodied people offend at the same rate when they don't. IE younger, poorer straight men offend at significantly higher rates than older, wealthier gay men. In fact studies show gay men convict at lower rates that lesbians.

And the trans population being so minuscule it's not possible to make any meaningful statistical conclusions.

'gay men convict at lower rates that lesbians.'

We're going to need to see your evidence here.

You can only go on that which you are presented with.

'Trans people' are not some unique category of human being. They are either male or female - like all of us; complete with recognisable patterns of behaviour and often a typical range of interests, preferences, talking points etc

But we don’t know if a man is poor, straight, gay, bi, rich or has labelled his feelings as being womanly to then estimate his risk to us. It is like the pit of snakes. Some snakes in the pit are poisonous, but only a few. Will you get in the pit?

Plenty of examples recently of gay men being prosecuted for sexual offences...not so many lesbians. Funny that!