Yes. That is allowed. But the danger lies in not mentioning "your" radfems, But just radfems. I was in before that could happen 
-
-
'This does not represent the whole population or the whole university population. Aimed specifically at women feeling silenced by intersec'
-
Yes. I told you qualitative research is a brainbreaker. I remember my own

-
Yes, thank you, Tamara. I was aware of this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That tends to be unavoidable. No one who has any experience with that kind of work will be surprised by the disclaimers: they’re standard
-
I'm also neurotic abt it after 'conceptual penis' hoax accused of claiming to undermine the whole field of gender studies single-handedly!
-
These are my disclaimers so far. I expect them to grow as I anticipate more ways in which people will see it as a claim bigger than it is.pic.twitter.com/ihq6N7mYsj
-
But right now I am concerned abt making it v clear the fact that more differences in values which relate to liberal values have been cited
-
does not indicate that more of my respondents hold those values. It just indicates that the ones who do mentioned more differences.
-
There's a whole cluster of values around individuality, meritocracy, moderation that women say they can't express safely.
-
On a pie chart, these overwhelm the other big issue -gender scepticism - but it doesn't indicate that many more *respondents* hold former
-
Its that the radfems just have the one issue whilst the others are all being made by the same people who form a group not much bigger.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

I need to work on this. Obviously.