Surprised it was published
You got the science wrong no you got the science wrong.
I think he has an extra “not” in that last sentence.
Why yes, it does. I thought so at the time, especially since he was so pissy to me during the DJ Grothe/TAM brouhaha. Allyship with Grothe and TAM then, and allyship with Our Trans Siblings now. Never allyship with feminists, because I guess that would just be too boring.
Why, what could go wrong? Apart from self-mutilation and whatnot.
Hey there Ophelia, must be nice knowing you still live rent free in his head.
https://postimg.cc/mhzmk07L
I DO wonder if he actually read Schreier’s book? I have and found it compelling, especially her comparison of GD in teen girls with previous fads like Anorexia.
Well, I am quite certain that Gorski and Novella managed to dazzle with bullshit in order to satisfy their predisposition. It’s a violation of trust to carry such a weighted post on a trusted blog. Even though we knew they are biased, it’s a smear on Schrier’s work. And Hall.
@1 I wasn’t around when Ophelia was blogging there, but I went and read that post, and it sure looks to me as if anyone seriously questions the trans dogma at “free thought” blogs, they are ousted. The trans cult is just like any other cult, full of worthless claims and refusal to listen to any dissent. A policy of shouting any opposition down while failing to make a decent argument and then go on to “cancel” them (which amounts to no more than sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “la la la la la…”) is closed minded. (yes, this was their actual “argument”) So much for free thought. You must comply with the trans dogma, or else. This Myers dude says he would dump Hall. To which I say piss off. Free thought means something very different to me, not some fantastic lunacy I have to buy into in order to be “woke” or whatever the fuck. If Hall or Schrier said anything hateful, belligerent, abusive, or were even the slightest bit unreasonable, then maybe they could mount an argument, but the best they can do is say “nuh uh” and call them whatever trans slur is in style that day.
Apparently “free thought” means that you are free to agree with P. Z. Myers.
I previously respected David Gorski and Steven Novella, but maybe they belong in the garbage bin with P. Z. Myers and Jerry Coyne, two others that I once respected.
I would never have imagined that when PZ wrote his Courtier’s Reply, he wasn’t gunning to unseat the emperor, but rather to replace the emperor’s tailor.
After P. Z. Myers’s comment linked above, I decided to read the whole thread in which it appeared. (This was my first visit to Pharyngula for a while.) 37 comments, 37 of which confirm that free thought means freedom to agree with P. Z. Myers.
They are bound and determined to steamroll this through the skeptical community:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/abigail-shriers-irreversible-damage-a-wealth-of-irreversible-misinformation/
The JKR backlash still infuriates me. How anyone could read her comments as illiberal, or in any way intolerant, really tells me either they didn’t actually read what she said, or did not understand it. The same goes for all the decent and respectful women who speak out and are subjected to the same treatment by the trans cultists, however agreeable or not their arguments are. It’s not as if the trans cult has not been able to have it’s say, and I’m sure only the most vocal and abusive of them get the headlines, that’s generally how the media operates. My concept of what women are, what feminists are, and what I think is fair and reasonable were formed a long time ago, before things like confirmation bias, filter bubbles, identity politics, influencers, or intersectionality existed in their present form (among other things). It’s difficult to see their perspective when major parts of their activism are anti-women, anti-feminist, and manifest as a zero sum game, at the expense of women and girls. The worst part is their attempt to indoctrinate and groom young people, that’s something I find very wrong, for very good reasons that I think most of us would agree on. The trans cultists are going to have to make a better case for their cause, because the current ideas and methods are unacceptable.
@7 Not surprising that they replaced a favorable review of Schrier’s book with one more in alignment with the trans cult. Not a very convincing one either, it’s obviously agenda driven. Speaking of ‘wealth’ as she does, I wonder if Rose Lovell makes a profit from her providing “affirming treatment” of young trans people, because my bet is that she doesn’t work for free.
@Athel Cornish-Bowden:
Not sure of what disillusioned you re Jerry Coyne, but he’s more gender-critical than not, and most of the commenters on his website definitely are.
One example of the quality of that second blog article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/
You will be shocked to learn that the linked article does not actually refer to sex as being a spectrum:
… although the next sentence is pretty funny:
Tales from certain Asian cultures, e.g. Gamera, have documented and celebrated giant fire-breathing turtles who can fly and are friends to all children.
Mike – That SBM post is…cringey.
The difference between Harriet Hall’s credentials and experience vis à vis Rose Lovell’s are miles apart, not that this alone makes her review dismissable, but a fresh internist’s review who has only written one article on SBM is no substitute for a respected physician with years of practice and many, many articles on SBM. I don’t think their respective biographical differences are irrelevant, given the content and quality of both reviews. Credibility matters.
Sastra @ 10 – you can call his “website” a blog here, he’s not looking. :)
Another thing they’ve adopted from religion. Get ’em while they’re young, otherwise they may learn to think critically before you make believers out of them.
ARC, that is just awful. As a biologist, I dispute those contentions. And…that last sentence you quote reads just like it was lifted right from a gender studies article.
@ARC I love the idea of using Metamorphoses as a source for “gender fluidity” eg turning into a laurel tree to escape rape; turning into a shower of gold/bull/swan to perform rape.
twiliter@9: as you have no doubt already seen (but just in case):
Her article is awful. I wish I had time to do a PBPR but, well, I don’t.
Thanks latsot @17, I did see that when I did some snooping around. I also read Harriet Hall’s bio after the commotion about her review of Schrier’s book, and I found it pretty impressive. I have since, also read a couple more of Hall’s articles at SBM, and found them interesting and reasonable.
The fact that SBM didn’t keep both reviews up point directly to their bias, I mean why not keep both and let the readers decide. I still can’t wrap my head around why otherwise reasonable people have fallen for the trans dogma. It’s truly unrelatable.
twiliter – I found it hard to accept that they would allow direct smears against Abigail Shrier in order to poison the well. They allowed an attack on her credentials in order to poison the well. In their statement for removing Hall’s review, they claimed it was not up the usual standards of being based on the science. There is some motivation behind this all. I early dismissed Jennifer Bilek’s claim that it’s based on money, and I can’t see were Novella and Gorsky would be in position, but when you see such blatant attempts to push a concept that is so clearly subject to motivated reasoning, it’s hard not to wonder. All of these skeptics should be poking holes in the transgender movement (not sure what else to call it,) but to read people such as PZ, Rebecca Watson, SBM, members of the NCSE, and etc etc etc pushing against the gender skeptics even when they can see the way that women are treated, leads me to think that something else is going on. Whoever isn’t selling the cure, is motivated by something else that I can’t figure. Even Brianna Wu, who had to take so much shit during GamerGate, and should recognize the bias against women, scolded “Cis Lesbians” for not welcoming transbians.
I honestly don’t get it. When I apply cui bono I don’t see how a zebra fish breeder in Morris, MN, decides it’s time to dye his beard pink and call women TERFs. It’s like he’s doubling down rather than admit he was wrong years ago.
We need a skeptic to investigate the skeptics.
twiliter: Some of us have crossed swords with Harriet Hall in the past and I daresay searching for her name here at B&W will get you quite a few hits. But her credentials are legit and (when I get round to reading it) I will focus on what she wrote rather than my personal opinion of her or our past clashes.
Not so PZ and his followers. PZ writes:
which looks like both a circular and an ad hominem argument to me, and our dear friend Giliell gloats:
Well, it’s quite easy. We judge her words on their merit, even if we disagree with ones she has said and written before.
Legit and impressive – she’s been a groundbreaker – and also she seems to be a decent person. As I think I mentioned recently I met her at a CFI conference a year or two after all the sword-crossing, and she was very civil. I felt somewhat ashamed of the sword-crossing I’d done.
And it was only a year or two after that that Rebecca and Amy cheerfully joined the mob that was hacking at me with those swords, so…
That should answer Gilliel’s question. I stood up for Amy and Rebecca, they didn’t stand up for me. That happens. We agreed on the first issue and disagreed on the second. That happens. Gilliel probably used to see me as an ally, I probably used to see Gilliel as an ally. Now we don’t. That happens. She thinks I’m wrong, I think she’s wrong.
latsot @20, I see what you mean. It is good to keep an open mind, and that people’s perspectives do change over time. Ophelia and I have disagreed on things before, usually consisting of her disagreeing with my (sometimes naive) take on things (lol), but I have also learned a lot from her over the past 2 decades. If she had at some point, or ever does succumb to the trans cult, I will be right here arguing fiercely to change her mind. I really don’t see that happening, but you get the point. I’m sure I can find areas of agreement with most everyone, but ideas that run contrary to legitimate science, common sense, or reasonableness are not ideas I find any value in. Not that the ideas can’t be altered or put into perspective in some way to become acceptable, because they can. Kicking someone from a discussion site without a well argued reason, just because it doesn’t fit someone else’s ideology or align with their identity politics, diminishes the discussion. It’s boring and myopic at best, propagandist and dictatorial at worst.
Michael @19 “We need a skeptic to investigate the skeptics”. — That I can relate to. :)
Sastra @ #10
Nothing to do with wokeness or biology in general. I was fed up with his endless series of comments about how wonderful Israeli governments are and how the Palestinians should have no rights. From fairly rare recent visits I have the impression that he’s toned that down a bit, too late.
I did comment at the SMB link I posted:
Good one, Michael @26, I share your befuddlement.
Well done.
Michael Haubrich: In the case of Brianna Wu, loyalty to his transgender tribe would far outweigh the concerns of any woman. Women who were at the center of gamergate like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian are all either declared nonbinary or recite slogans like TWAW. Sarkeesian’s stance in particular confuses me given her heavy focus on how media sexualizes women and glibly portrays violence against women, both of which are prominent features of the online trans-sphere and trans-activism more generally.
Ophelia@22
Exactly. That’s what I meant by “gloats”, although I didn’t get around to spelling it out. Gilliel sees that as a gotcha, the rest of us see it as being an adult.
Studebacker Hoch: I hadn’t known that Wu is transgender, and I read that it is a rumor that this hasn’t been verified. I am open to that possiblity, but I can’t find anything on it.
And, yes, that in particular baffles me about Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. Maybe they didn’t want to go through all of that again, this time treated as “TERFs.”
Michael: I could very well be wrong given that support for Wu’s transgender status comes from less than savory parts of the internet e.g. 8chan, kiwifarms, etc. Unfortunately, those realms are often the only places where “deadnames” and past identities are discussed openly if effort is made to conceal it or prevent others from talking about it (Yaniv being an example).
I could not help but notice that the latest review of Schrier’s book at SBM acknowledges in passing that Schrier may make some valid points. I also noticed that Novella and Gorski made a similar observation, in passing, about Harriet Hall’s review of the Schrier book. To me that’s a sure sign that what they’re saying is that yes, the other side has some valid points to make BUT … The “but” doesn’t matter. If there are valid points made in an argument, the argument deserves to heard. I was very disappointed that Novella and Gorski retracted Hall’s review.