Science-based
What it does to people.
No they don’t. He must have been looking at the biblical arguments instead. Gender critical arguments don’t involve ew ick or god.
Aw yeah old lady feminism, how gross is that. Feminism is for women who can wear bikini bottoms to play volleyball, not crones and witches.
It takes zero contortion to accuse Gorski of both.
How they can write such dishonest drivel while smugly believing they’re the ones taking the high road never ceases to astonish me.
If anyone’s interested, “Jezebel” has a recent story on how JK Rowling is still a TERF. There’s some mild disapproval in the comments section of the multiple rape and death threats she’s received, but the consensus appears to be that the power imbalance between her and the people threatening to rape and kill her lies in her favour because she’s rich. Plus, it’s just words on the internet.
That’s pretty much taking the easy way out so that he doesn’t have to address any GC talking points. Straw is easy to knock down, substance not so much.
Also, “unwillingly” would not have happened if he would not have intervened on Hall’s original review post.
The part that makes me angry is that by making statements like this, his “Skeptic” followers will use it to justify continued dismissal of any “TERF” who pipes up against the ideology. If Gorski says it’s science, then it’s science.
I haven’t looked lately, but have they addressed any of Jesse Singal’s posts or tweets in response to their three posts in response to Hall’s post?
Rowling just infuriates people because (as I think she mentioned herself recently) she’s proven to be uncancellable. She doesn’t appear to give a damn if she isn’t welcome in certain social circles or is denounced by the Respectable People in the right publications. And financially she’s untouchable. Warner Brothers isn’t going to close down the Harry Potter theme park, nobody’s going to stop selling the HP books and merchandise, because there’s too much money at stake; JKR could declare herself a Nazi, and they’d be all “well, have to separate the art from the artist”. (In fact, even many of those denouncing her as a transphobe are already doing this, quoting Harry Potter books at her to “show” why she’s wrong.) And even if the money spigot got turned off somehow, JKR presumably has more money than she knows what to do with.
So it’s not surprising that some people resort to threats of violence, and many others condone or excuse them. They’re furious that they can’t find a way to shut that you-know-what up.
Michael H,
According to Singal’s Twitter feed, they have blocked him on Twitter while simultaneous posting multiple “updates” to the posts addressing many (but by no means all) of the inaccuracies he pointed out.
I saw a scornful tweet about Singal from Gorski.
Ya this one:
https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1417913469743943680
“Or “radical trans ideology” versus “radical gender ideology”/”extreme gender ideology.” We corrected all because it was the right thing to do, but we are not fooled by Singal any more. (We were at first, admittedly.)”
I’ll admit to being cheered a bit by reading that first tweet of Gorski’s. I’ve been a fan of his for years, consider him admirable on many fronts, and been puzzled by his stance on trans ideology. Can he really have abandoned his fine skeptical habits of thought? Is there something important I’m missing?
But that tweet is so clueless (gender critical = thinking trans people are icky abominations of God) that my mind is at ease. That’s not just wrong; it’s fractally wrong.
I don’t accuse most TRAs of supporting misogyny or anti feminism, though — including Gorski. The people themselves don’t intend to be either (whatever they may be in practice.). The position however is both. It’s a distinction I make with the religious, also. Nice people intent on good + nasty ideology = nice people doing abominable things with good intentions. Let’s force males into women’s spaces so we can advance feminism and break down stereotypes. Yahoo.
@Screechy Monkey:
There’s been talk of JKR selling the rights to Harry Potter to WB or Disney or whatever. I really hope she doesn’t. Not only would she then no longer be able to write in her own creation anymore (see George Lucas’ regret over selling the rights to Star Wars), but it really pisses the TRA and their fellow cultists that she won’t.
I’ve been astonished at the extent to which David Gorski has come off the rails. I used to admire him. No more.
1. How big a proportion was that ‘disturbing number’?
2. How does that ‘disturbing number’ preclude you from addressing the rest?
I am disappointed that he has abdicated from critical thinking in this regard. I have little doubt that were he to have “unwillingly undergone a five week intensive exposure to” arguments about the harms of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, he would not have announced that he had “concluded that a disturbing number of them boil down to taking “Ew, social drugs ick me out” and cranking that feeling up to, “Social drugs are an abomination against nature/God/etc.”” and decided that he didn’t have to pay any attention to the people pointing out the dangers.
And notice, once again, the lack of any specifics: no direct quotes, no sources, no citations, no screencaps, no embedded tweets, not even paraphrases of something someone actually said. As usual it’s all about what the thing someone said supposedly implies as seen through the distorting lens of a Million unstated premises, and only at the other end of a long series of impossibly sloppy and dishonest inferences, extrapolations and telepathic brain-scans.
Just block everyone who disagrees, where do we see this strategy? Twitter of course. It’s not like Singal is hurling violent threats at him. If this is the only form of reply, then it’s piss poor damage control, but it’s typical. Now he’s also blocked Prof. Stock for referring to Singal’s article. Indefensible positions that require silencing of opposing views (is the new black?); pretty cowardly behaviour.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1418091302747623424
Also blocked >> https://mobile.twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1418113971358507008
Apparently Gorski is an alligator on this issue, all mouth and no ears. :P
Here’s the same guy complaining about being blocked in 2018 >> https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon/status/994355527160299520?lang=en
Hmm…
Also, after Hall’s (retracted) review of Shrier’s book, 3 follow up negative reviews, with a 4th on the way have been published about the same book. There are currently 32 articles at SBM that are chronologically after Hall’s. Why is a website with 37 categories of possible inquiry now devoting 10% of their articles to this one single book? If you count Hall’s review and the reported forthcoming unfavorable one, the percentage is quite higher. 4 articles out of 30 for one book with one retraction. Agenda anyone? :P
I also wonder if they have ever retracted an article before, or was it just a public display that got through editing deliberately, then retracted. Something is not on the up and up for sure.
Also blocked >> https://mobile.twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1417949410953207811
Way to keep an open mind, Mr PhD.
I took a look at the context of the tweet reproduced in the OP, and I noticed this framing:
This is essentially true. The GC “movement” does not agree that these adolescents are trans, the concept is incoherent, and is concerned about inappropriate use of medical and surgical treatments, not about the best ways to provide unnecessary procedures.
Perhaps an analogy might be: atheists aren’t concerned with the best ways to worship God; evolutionists haven’t made any inroads in figuring out the effects of the Flood; globists are not interested at all in determining best methods to avoid falling off the edge.
@sackbut #18: I would say that GC movers would like to see GD sufferers treated in a way that allows them to feel the freedom to express their personalities without being shuffled from one gender cage to an adjacent one; recognition that AGP is a very common reason that males declare themselves to be trans, and that teenage girls feel social pressure to declare that they are male in hopes that society will treat them less like, well, girls. Which expands on what you say, not meant to contradict. If we can see that the “gender identity” has as much substance as the human soul, why can’t everyone else see it? To me, it would seem that atheists should be able to pick up on that pretty darn quickly.
But, no.