Indeed. He's weaponizing pedantry to an extent that I've never seen before, but even by antivaxxers.
-
-
I'm an editor, and you're just wrong here. Your review describes as "oft-recited" a term that the book never uses even once. It's the kind of carelessness with facts made by an aggressive advocate, not a scientist engaged in the disinterested pursuit of truth.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Shrier uses the phrase "gender ideology" 30 times in the book, describing it as "radical", "cult-like", and a "social contagion". I don't think anyone disputes the word "woke" shouldn't have been inside quotation marks, but does this change her thesis in any meaningful way?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
That's not my point. My point is that Singal has pointed out what seem in fact to be numerous careless errors in the review. The right response is to acknowledge, explain and correct those errors -- not to launch a stupid counterattack.
3 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
As Singal himself notes: this particular error is acknowledged and corrected. But in the mean time, why not address the substantive claim made in the review: Shrier uses a sensationalist phrase over 30 times without bothering to explain what it is.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Ok, but seriously — are you maintaining that readers don’t understand what she means by “gender ideology”? Is that actually a problem? I mean honestly, it seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
I don't. She seems to - at various times - be discussing the sex vs. gender distinction, or just the belief that trans identities are valid. "Gender ideology" means a lot of stuff to a lot of people.https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2017/12/11/gender-ideology-tracking-its-origins-and-meanings-in-current-gender-politics/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I’ve read the first graf of this and it’s already made me laugh. This is just incredibly amateurish. “probably bc the Vatican … had other urgent matters to cope with such as the sexual rights of women and sexual orient. as a non-justifiable basis of discrimination.” Ok sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Not sure what difference that makes. The core issue - that "gender ideology" has been used by a variety of hard right groups to attack everything from gay marriage to gender equality. Multiple sources attest to this. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/budapest/11382.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
1.
@gorskon sneered that Shrier was using the term without defining it. 2. I asked why it’s important she define it, as it’s a generally understood non-technical term. 3. What you call the “core issue” doesn’t seem relevant at all. I mean, seriously — so?2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Except that it is NOT a "generally understood non-technical term." Indeed, I don't recall ever having seen it used before I had to deal with the whole Shrier kerfuffle. It came across to me as a right wing snarl term more than anything else.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language#Snarl_words …
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.