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.

It's good to know that all those who smear groups of GC people as old hags are also part of the far right. How inclusive they are these days!

Howseitgoin · Today 09:29

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.

Oh, you are funny! I suppose that general physical intimidation of women, judo throwing them and stealing their cameras, punching them hard enough to fracture a skull, doxxing and turning up at their houses, concerted, co-ordinated campaigns to cance and sack them, (enabled and encouraged by employers) not to mention online death threats, complete with men in fetish gear, brandishing their pet knives, axes and barbed wire wrapped rounders bats are...

Erm ... moderate?

And I dont mean "Funny ha ha."

Howse will presumably be counting males among those 'lesbians', so its meaningless anyway.

they're letting anybody in these days.

Authoritarianism and desire to close people down is very typical of far left behaviour; especially in recent years.

Many of us have been around the left for most of our lives because we have roots in left wing type activism. We know it very well.

Okay so. I'll continue to know that you are telling a big fat lie. Again.

Plus the framing of anyone GC as 'far right' (not just right wing, although they can never explain the difference), hateful bigots (degeneracy framing).

….and younger, poorer straight men offend at a significantly higher rate than young, poorer straight women, and older wealthier gay men offend at a higher rate than their female counterparts.

On another thread you confirmed that you accepted that reproductive sex is immutable and therefore accept that reproductive sex is a category. This is the category that posters on this thread are referring to when discussing offending rates.

Germonleen and Maud agree with you Dean.

The liar is desperate for more Baileys chat!

Baileys in hot chocolate - yes or no?

Tbh though I have the choice of which posts are worth expending energy on.

In this case, the actual topic of the OP is important enough that I'm choosing to talk here about the scraping of MN data, that is now - I thought - clearly banned in the site's Ts and Cs, so I'm interested to see where it goes from here.

Howse seems to conveniently ignore this horrible side of transactivism, alongside the breadth of people included under the trans umbrella.

The label trans includes very vulnerable and mentally unwell people, quirky non conforming people, and dangerous and degenerate people. He is right to point out that the latter type heavily feature on FWR threads, but fails to recognise or acknowledge why.

All these terrible women sticking to their framework of discussing their rights and refusing to be bullied out of it into anyone elses, same shit different names.
It really does come down to no.

I think we can safely say there are a few flaws in the methodology, zero ethics process for starters. It's baffling how they assume posters are all women, or even prove it's not just their mates calling themselves women making up pearl clutching phrases that fit to their research which is what I suspect
I hope they aren't paying for university fees because I don't feel they are getting the most of them.

But presumably you don’t make liking fantasy your entire personal identity? They do.

Did they txt frm Benidorm just for me? Swoons.

I hope they're enjoying thmslvs.

Once more, for the hard of thinking:

1. There are only two sexes.
2. Humans can't change sex.
3. A man who claims to be a woman is still a man.
4. Women's spaces exist both so that women can have privacy and so that they can be protected from men who might harm them.
5. Women's spaces are for women only, not for men, including men who claim to be women.
6. Men who demand access to women's spaces are, by definition, exactly the type of men that women-only spaces were designed to exclude.

OTOH I hope they didn’t get grants for this sexist twaddle.

I can’t see any funding statements, or conflict of interest statement.

Surely no one would give a grant to this? I would imagine it's a first year's attempt at something serious before they've actually done research methodology, stats or sampling strategy lectures at Uni. Maybe an A' Level student doing General Studies or whatever the equivalent is now?

As for alleged calcification: it's appropriate to say that of the trans zealot side, but certainly not the sex realist side. Trans zealots have gone, reluctantly, from shut up, don't argue, no debate and death threats to, "Oh, it's so unfair! We're exclude from public life and aren't allowed to use toilets!"

Sex realist women (and a small number of men) have discussed and debated, increased their knowledge and understanding, helped to evolve arguments and data sets, taken cases to court and won. They have developed, fine tuned and improved their position, the exact opposite of calcification.

(Edited for authoritarian autocarrot)

I’d like to return to the previous derail about Monty Python. IANAP (I am not a programmer) but there are apparently numerous other MP references in the Python language, such as the use of ‘spam’ and ‘eggs’ as examples of identifiers in documentation.

Which leads me to the term ‘spam’, which was adopted in the eighties from the legendary Spam sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus to mean excessive unsolicited and unwanted messages. Which leads us nicely back to the current situation in this thread.

"Far right" is used a slur. Facts are irrelevant here.

They say GC social media is now "obscure, invite-only spaces" and then they go on to "analyse" Ovarit (which I know nothing about, and this board, which is neither obscure nor invite-only. Basic lies just in the summary.

"GC activity on social media as it exists in the post-r/GenderCrticial [sic] era"
Basic spelling error in the intro.

"deploying far-right language and rhetoric."
Really? What far-right language are we using on here? I searched through the paper using "far right" (no, I don't want to read the lot!) Apparently:
"GC rhetoric was characterized by four key similarities with far-right rhetoric: an emphasis on 1) self-victimization, 2) “wokeism,” 3) “cancel culture,” and 4) a denigration of sex-workers."
"GC users likewise lamented being “silenced” and “canceled”—a term widely associated with the deplatforming of far-right figures"
"Much like manosphere and incel groups that denigrate sex workers and exhibit a puritanical concern with sexual deviance (Devries, Bessant, and Watts 2021; Monea 2022; Phipps 2021), GC users’ rhetoric consistently disparaged, targeted, and demonstrated enmity towards sex workers, who were referred to as “prostitutes” (nOvarit = 509; nFSG = 371) and accused of proliferating the “porn addicted” and “pornsick” (nOvarit = 1,350; nFSG = 482) conditions under which gender ideology allegedly proliferates. Denigration of sex workers is an established component of GC ideology."
"These overlaps are ultimately unsurprising: previous scholarship has suggested complex political entanglements between GC groups online and alt-right groups"

So many lies and misrepresentation that I'm going to throw in the towel and stop quoting right there.

Did you see the Girl Guides thread, with someone saying that trans girls are really girls and belong with girls? I guess we have to assume that some people earnestly believe this nonsense.

It is very relevant to this thread, given the number of scraped threads likely to include discussions of cancellations and sacking brought about by an ideology espoused by elements of the far left (with some notable exceptions).

The problem with throwing terms like 'fascist' and 'far right' around like confetti is that they lose all meaning, so when we need to ID actual far right activity, we're out of words.

Rather like misusing the word 'woman'.

Conflict of interest statement would reveal the authors' penises are invested in this issue in direct opposition to their thinking facilities.