The language is not sensitive
No, you can’t do research on male athletes’ physical advantages compared to women, because you called them male.
Dr John Armstrong, a scholar at King’s College London (KCL), applied to carry out a survey of elite athletes and volunteers on whether trans women, who are born male, should compete in women’s track and field categories and whether they felt they could express their views.
However, the university’s ethics panel rejected his application last week citing equality and diversity concerns, in what has been labelled an attack on academic freedom.
In a rejection letter, the university said: “The language is not sensitive and the misgendering of athletes is not appropriate… there is obvious bias in the language and there is very little scientific reasoning underpinning the hypothesis.”
You can’t do research on sharks because it’s not sensitive to call them sharks. You can’t do research on viruses because it’s not sensitive to call them viruses. You can’t do research on black holes because it’s not sensitive to call them black holes. You can’t do research on rape because it’s not sensitive to call it rape.
KCL took issue with how Dr Armstrong had referred to trans women as “males” in his research proposal.
Dr Armstrong’s application had said: “The principle aim of the project is to find the views of athletes and volunteers on the question of when males should be allowed to compete in the female category in athletics.”
But they don’t identify as males so no research for you, bang, case closed.
KCL’s panel also said “there is a risk that some participants might be unhappy or distressed by the questions that are being posed to them” and asked Dr Armstrong to “please contact the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion team to seek input on the wording used”.
What for, when they’ve said he can’t do the study?
Former GB athlete Mara Yamauchi, the third-fastest British woman ever to have ran the marathon, told The Telegraph: “Female voices in sport have repeatedly been silenced, ignored and intimidated.
“Research like Dr Armstrong’s is therefore valuable, necessary and important. It is disappointing to hear that it has been blocked. This is yet another example of academic freedom being diminished.”
And a very grotesque one.
A King’s College London spokesman said: “While we can’t comment on individual research applications, we are strongly committed to ensuring that the research carried out by our staff and students is consistently of the highest quality and to the most rigorous standards.
“This is important to instill confidence in academic communities, funding bodies, and crucially the public that the data, findings, and results produced by our researchers are sound and trustworthy.”
Excuse me Spokesman you seem to be talking about something else. The issue here is blocking research because the researcher calls men “men.” That’s the opposite of “highest quality” and “most rigorous standards.”
This sort of abuse of science further erodes public trust.What science can and cannot do. We now have “political officers” controlling how studies are conducted and reported, which liberals decried under the Harper administration in Canada, but now in England has become the norm. Ethics advisory panels have a rightful place in determining whether a study would cause harm to the subjects or whether a study will cause harm in other ways. But this one is used to prevent science based on an invalid concept of gender.
In other words, the highest standards obtainable that will be acceptable to trans and their allies.
To start out calling them women is bias; it shows you are already part of the trans-Koolaid kids. Calling them by an accurate name reflecting biological reality is not biased, it is just…reality.
Well I’m sorry but you can’t do research on reality.
One would think that if the claims of the trans-identified males and the squishy inclooosive types were in fact true, that that they would welcome a study of any kind. If truly biased, such a study would give them further grounds to complain, and if it supported their cliaims they could loudly point to it as validation. It’s telling that they want absolutely NO research performed.
I stumbled upon the Pink News report of this yesterday, where they had more damning facts about the researcher. Did you know he interacts with (clutches pearls) gender critical feminists on Twitter? And that he even goes so far as to retweet Posie Parker?
This was the tweet that they gave as an example. Shocking, I know.
Jon Pike writes in Sex Matters about how fairness matters in sport. The post is quite good, and links to his recent article in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport: Why ‘Meaningful Competition’ is not fair competition. It’s an excellent article, deftly covering all the issues that come to my mind and many more. I like in particular his addressing of the justification for female-only sports, and how so many people writing on the topic fail to consider that point.
All hail our new Queer Commissars.
It’s like those who believe on gryphons. unicorns and bigfoot not wanting to have actual biologists looking for them.
When you don’t have an argument, try guilt by association.