It is absolutely crucial that media outlets and universities begin to recognise that like climate denial, trans denial is based on unscientific views that are wildly out of step with peer-reviewed scholarship. When GC activists suggest that trans rights ought to be “debated” on the basis of “free speech”, they set the terms of a highly uneven debate between their ideological perspectives vs. actual scholarship. If we focus on the actual scholarship, we see that there are many debates to be had in trans studies around identity, embodiment, race, decolonisation, the relation to non-binary identity, research methods, and more, but those discussions are completely annihilated by GC feminists suggesting that the debate should be about the very legitimacy of trans people in the first place.
In response to this outrageous and fabricated debate, I present (below) a very short introductory list of peer-reviewed scholarship in the field of trans studies that might be used to rebut the entirely unsupported claims of GC feminists, to illuminate the vast depths of the field of trans studies, and to illustrate to the media and universities alike that the “debates” are to be found elsewhere from where GC feminists claim.
This is a world in which Richard Murphy publishes peer reviewed academic papers. Hell, this is a world in which I have done so at least once. Even in a journal with an impact factor.
“Peer-reviewed scholarship” ain’t all that any more…….
Free speech so long as you accept a Marxist dick in your gob before you start.
Purge the Unis/schools/ –in fact everywhere.
Mugs pushing the national version of socialism would have a shitstorm land on them. Time all the other brands of socialist scummery got the same.
If your body dysphoria makes you believe that you are fat, when your skeleton is poking out your skin, you are defined as having a mental illness which needs to be treated. No one bows down to your “fatness” and gives you diet pills and liposuction.
If your body dysphoria makes you believe you are a woman, when every cell in your body has XY chromosomes, you have a prostate and lack a uterus, you are defined as being a woman, and woe unto the people who won’t bow down to whatever language changes or requirements you feel you are entitled to at any given moment.
And what the hell is a GC feminist?
I can see where decolonisation would solve a lot, if not all of the “trans problem”.
Bit cruel and unneccessary in my opionion, but whatever floats their boat, I guess…
If you are an academic in a Mickey Mouse subject, it’s almost certain that your peers in that subject will by Mickey Mouse.
CLR
I would assume “Gender Critical”
“…trans denial is based on unscientific views that are wildly out of step with peer-reviewed scholarship.”
Bollocks. The denial that human beings, like all mammals, are sexually dimorphic is out of step with reality sweetcakes. No one is ‘assigned’ sex at birth, reality is observed and recorded.
Humans cannot change sex, ‘trans’ women are men and ‘trans’ men are women.
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1356279365932236801
“…a small selection of peer-reviewed scholarship in trans studies”
Lol. A collection of bullshit ‘studies’ by activists does not trump scientific reality dearie.
According to a retired editor of “The Lancet”, the majority of peer-reviewed papers are subsequently proved to be wrong. And that’s for “proper” peer-review, not “pal-review” as practised by the climate and social “sciences” mob.
Good grief they’ve started their own religion, and gotten the world to convert to it. Somehow “peer-reviewed” studies/scholarship has become Word of God Gospel, where questioning the validity of a “scientific” finding is heresy and blasphemy.
“Peer-reviewed” just means that whatever you have claimed fits the current fad beliefs. You can get just about anything published as long as it conforms to what the journal reviewers believe. There have been some famous peer-reviewed fakes out there – Sokal, anyone?
Peer-review is what the echo-chamber is called in academia.
peer-reviewed scholarship in the field of trans studies
See also:
Detailed studies in the field of gnome behaviour
Collated literature in phlogiston studies
Literary analysis of Ossian
Bearing in mind that the “trans activist community” is a few dozen mentalists with 50 sockpuppet accounts* apiece, I wonder how many actual pretend academics are involved in this ‘field’. No doubt having a good old affirming circle-jerk (metaphorically, no-one wants to fuck these freaks).
* accounts which they mainly use to tell JK Rowling that she deserves to be throatfucked to bits with their ladycocks
Peer review does not guarantee the veracity of an academic paper. If I am sent a paper for peer review, I have to proceed from the assumption that any research results are correct, be they from laboratory testing, empirical observations or numerical modeling. How can it be otherwise? The journal / conference committee is not offering me a grant to replicate the research.
The very first thing I do is check for plagiarism or pre-publication as failure on this basis saves me reading the paper. About one third of papers fall at this hurdle, with papers with Chinese authors featuring prominently. I had one paper promising a “novel technique” which had been first published over ten years earlier by the same authors, when the technique possibly was novel.
I always check calculations, occasionally errors completely invalidate the conclusions. Common reasons for rejecting papers are that the research results do not support the conclusions or that the research is inadequate, i.e. basing conclusions on one or two data points.
If a paper contains sufficient research, draws reasonable conclusions from that research and is well written, I have no basis to reject it. If the research results are fraudulent, this will only come out when other researchers, with the appropriate resources, try and replicate the research.
Peer review in the oxymoronic social sciences is entirely pointless, the conclusions precede the research and the peer review process is merely an endorsement of the conclusions.
I don’t care what peer-reviewed scholarship says. If you have a cock or have had a cock you are a man, you cannot give birth and you do not menstruate.
You are not a woman.
And ‘trans studies’ is a shite made up field where mentalists talk about being a ‘woman’ with a cock.
If you really want to wind them up try talking about ROTS (Rapid Onset Transgender Syndrome), like a red rag to a bull.
Though for a good view of the current trends try “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender craze seducing our daughters” by Abigail Shrier, you can tell it’s good as they are trying to have it banned.
Two groups of loons playing (semi-) adult games. Papers on either side are unreadable, stupid and so bizarre they should count as sufficient evidence to commitment.
I ‘peer reviewed’ summut near on 20 years ago, and it was essentially technical proof reading. I almost gave up because I disagreed with so much of the content “…if need be old people need to be tricked so they conclude it is in their interests to go into care….” sort of stuff.
DocBud +1
compLabRat= “they’ve started their own religion” – I’d guess, ironically, more study of theology would be a good antidote for this stuff poisoning academia. Just to go through the weird contentions and subsequent contortions to fit those contentions in all the worlds religions and their histories and branches would help the penny drop for the young. This thought came to me anew recently as i’ve begun to see the word equity come up alot, accompanied by a very proud explaining of the difference. I do remember equity as a legal concept. It was the branch of law that developed under the jurisdiction of the church courts, which continued after their abolition- so yeah, religion is the best compartment for these types of ideas.
If we focus on the actual scholarship, we see that there are many debates to be had in trans studies around identity, embodiment, race, decolonisation, the relation to non-binary identity
Do you see what they did there?
“Actual scholarship”
Ha ha ha ha ha
So there are many debates to be had as long as you agree with us first, maybe they should start with explaining what they think the word debate means
When they’ve done that, they can do the same with the words “tolerance” and “diverse”. (Hint to them, “diverse” does not mean “everyone thinks the same”; and “tolerance” does not mean “agree with us or else”.)
…plus 98.073% of that list was some Stryker person. Well, praps not98.
But it *does* rather suggest that there are indeed very few even self-proclaimed academics in the madding crowd.
Why does any of this minority-madness shit ever get mentioned in a mainstream press? To suggest that it’s minority interest is being generous.