Playing nice hasn't worked
thecritic.co.uk
thecritic.co.uk
That's why these articles are tedious.
Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist? Just say that so we can get on with ignoring you.
The problem with people who cannot find a reasonable way to live with "the other" or an out-group (to them) is that there will always be another target for them to choose, i.e. it's not any one group in particular which is a problem for them. So if trans people didn't exist, this same person would be talking about something else. For people such as this, the problem is their personality (so I guess they're deviated on some genetic level), which I guess is too harsh to say? I don't know.
There are people, like this author, the journalists that interviewed her and the venues who booked her, that believe the open public discussion of ideas is of value to society.
What the author experienced was that discourse featuring opposing positions of ideologically popular topics seem to be subject to silencing/censorship.
By spiking articles, canceling forums and shelving interviews this author believes that something of value is being taken away from society.
She says: they decided to not invite me to the debate, therefore something of value is being taken away from society.
GP says: she has demonstrated that she keeps supporting pseudo-science that has been already debunked, the reason people stops wanting her to participate to debate is therefore most probably because she has demonstrated she does not bring anything of value.
Even if you argue that a specific pseudo-scientific theory she supports is not the specific point for one specific debate (which is itself arguable: in general, those pseudo-scientific theories are supporting pillar on which the rest of her work lies), this is still a red flag: defending pseudo-science even after the flaws were raised is not "just a mistake", it demonstrates that the individual is not able to do basic logic and to follow an unbiased approach. If part of what she said is correct, then there should be plenty of people who defend these correct parts while not at the same time defending the pseudo-science. If the large majority appears to also defend the pseudo-science, then it is a very good clue that these parts themselves are usually abandoned when considered by someone who has a rational approach.
That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagination.
In all subjects, the majority is always rather "moderate", and if few persons twist the words, there is even more persons to consider that these interpretations are unfair, and emit more nuanced positions. If you end up having to systematically say that all her words are always twisted all the time by the majority of people not agreeing with her, it's way more probable that she indeed said things that were indeed controversial. Sometimes, people like her will indeed say something that is objectively controversial, then say something different, and then will point to the something different thing to try to discredit their detractors. Again, this is a red flag that means this person is not bringing anything of value to the debate (and again, if some elements are indeed of value, these elements can be brought forward by people not having these counter-productive and anti-intellectual behaviors).
You say "her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpoints". But even looking at people who were rather positive about her books, the main critics that they had were that there was not much references, that there was a lot of anecdotal elements and that the view she brings is pretty one-sided. These elements from people who liked her books.
So, reading your comments, you, random person on the internet, it looks like that what you explain is less compatible from the reality I observe somewhere else than the other commentator that you pretend is misguided (it does not mean this other commentator is right, but at least I see less clues that they are biased than clues that you are biased). Thank you from your contribution, you just reenforce the idea that there are people who will depict her work and position in a misguided manner.
What I'm saying is not that I haven't read her work and made my own opinion on it. As a matter of fact, I have done so and I consider several elements of her reasoning as being pseudo-science (yeah, I know, you will say "then you did not understand", what a surprise).
But of course, if I say "I have read her and consider she does pseudo-science", you can answer "then you are just politically biased: you say it is pseudo-science because you ideologically don't like the truth she is telling" and we are not moving at all.
So, to avoid this impasse, my argument is rather: "you say 1) she never does pseudo-science, 2) her work is very rigorous, BUT even a bunch of people who are ideologically agreeing with her are saying that number 2 is incorrect".
My point is that, based on the fact that you demonstrably twist the reality on point number 2, I cannot really trust you, and you appear as being the one biased. If you are the one biased, of course you will say that she never does pseudo-science. If you are biased, I cannot trust you to present the robustness of her work realistically.
It does not mean it is the proof she is doing pseudo-science. The reason I think she is doing pseudo-science is because I have read her work.
Finally, I would like to point out that the "every critics can only be liars, you have to read by yourself" is itself is a big red flag.
In a normal, pro-intellectual world, an author will never say "you have read what my colleagues said about me, but this is worth nothing, you absolutely need to read yourself directly my work, every discussion about my work is somehow wrong" (this idea is obviously very stupid when one realises that the people that the author says don't know what they are talking about are people who read themselves directly the author's work in the first place). In a normal, pro-intellectual world, the best analysis of someone work is a mix of the author's work AND what other people think about it. Authors will be welcoming analysis of their work, because their work is of good quality, so these analyses have no reason to misrepresent the work.
As I was saying in my first comment: the majority of the people are "neutral", they don't have any reason to go in a crazy fantasy that she is pseudo-scientific just for fun. The fact that she has a bad reputation is not due to fringe extremists, it is due to the fact that the majority of neutral people sees how she behaves and what she says. So far, people who are judging that the robustness of her work is really good always end up, what a strange coincidence, also agreeing with her on her opinion. If her work is robust, people who disagree with her will recognize that her work is robust. But here, it is the opposite, even some of people who agree with her opinion admit that her work is not that robust.
I would have happily discussed the pseudo-science aspect with someone who did not demonstrate that they are biased. You did demonstrate that you are biased: you did say that her work is thoroughly scientifically constructed. People who IDEOLOGICALLY AGREE WITH HER admit that it is not the case (that the references were thin, that when several hypotheses were possible, she jumps on the one she likes and rejects all the others, that a lot of elements look anecdotical). How is that possible? If her work is indeed thoroughly constructed, why people who have all interest in saying so say exactly the opposite. There is only one possible conclusion: their claim that there are holes in her work is just the result of the reality.
Ex falso quodlibet. You have demonstrated that you have a distorted view on the reality. So, no wonder you will think that pseudo-scientific elements are in fact totally scientific even when they are not. (and I'm sure you honestly believe you are right, this is how bias work: you honestly believe her work is very well constructed, despite the fact that it is not, as demonstrated by the fact that people who have no reason to do so admit it is the case)
And I know that now you will shout and cry that you have important things to say and that I am the bad guy for not listening to you. But don't worry, if what you have to say is indeed the reality, then there will be more people who will say it without at the same time demonstrating that they are biased (and if the majority of people who say the same thing also demonstrate that they are prone to see through pink glasses people who say what they like to hear, then it is probably that this thing is not real in the first place).
If that's me, correct. Her line of reasoning is ... something about "starting a global conversation"?
Being in the minority doesn't mean you have a point.
Being censored doesn't mean that you have a point.
Not being censored but arguing that you are censored doesn't mean you are censored or that you have a point.
Arguing that not-being-censored is not evidence of being censored ("witch logic") doesn't mean you are censored or have a point.
She could have used the space to make a point, so that readers wouldn't need to resort to imagining artefacts, but instead she told her audience that she's being held back from telling her audience stuff.
That's not what she is saying at all.
Has she made any statement about whether she'd back down from her position if her chromosomes turned out not to meet her expectations?
- https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625
- https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1496033865047150593
- https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1659205823565008897
And in her book, mostly relating to category eligibility policy in competitive sports. Also in some interviews, along the same lines as the above.