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.
-
-
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 -
I definitely got the feeling that "gender ideology" is just another term that's bandied about by the right wing to demonize something it doesn't like, the way they coopted "woke" and redefined critical race theory to mean anything that makes white people uncomfortable about race.
3 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Right, and in the trans rights debate it seems to often be deployed as either a conspiracy theory or as a way of marking relatively mainstream ideas like the sex/gender distinction as something radical.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Oh, I *definitely* saw elements of a conspiracy theory in Shrier's narrative. I saw them immediately, just as soon as I started looking into Shrier's book and reading it after Dr. Hall's review. I also saw a number of parallels with the antivaccine movement.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
I'm glad its not just me! I realize that it isn't practically feasible to have vaccine-like levels of certainty here, but the way that a whole movement and narrative has formed around a single low quality paper really does give me some serious deja vu.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
The science doesn't have to be as settled as, say, evolution, vaccines, climate science, etc., for opponents to use denialist techniques. It's about the deceptive techniques of argumentation, not how settled the science behind the topic being attacked is.
2 replies 4 retweets 28 likes
It's also about conspiracy theory. I've argued that all science denial is a form of conspiracy theory, and I think I'm correct about this.https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/all-science-denial-is-a-form-of-conspiracy-theory/ …
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.