Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Sex change operations at the taxpayers expense.
Lefty lunacy, or necessary lifesaving operations?

Left-wing liberal lunacy as far as I'm concerned. The fact that anyone could refer to SRS as "necessary lifesaving treatment" is a complete misnomer. Nobody has ever actually died from being unable to have SRS treatment. They've died because they chose to take their own lives. If medical eligibility assessments are made on the basis that there's a risk people might choose to take their own lives, then that same standard could also be applied to numerous other conditions that the State could be forced to pay for.

The resources would have to come from the budget somewhere, so other essential services that are provided on the basis that they are genuine life saving treatments will suffer.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has ever actually died from being unable to have SRS treatment

Nobody has ever actually had a car accident because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, yet the law says you must. Does it really matter whether lives are directly or indirectly lost from people not being able to access SRS, once the outcome is people not dying?

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Left-wing liberal lunacy as far as I'm concerned. The fact that anyone could refer to SRS as "necessary lifesaving treatment" is a complete misnomer. Nobody has ever actually died from being unable to have SRS treatment. They've died because they chose to take their own lives. If medical eligibility assessments are made on the basis that there's a risk people might choose to take their own lives, then that same standard could also be applied to numerous other conditions that the State could be forced to pay for.

The resources would have to come from the budget somewhere, so other essential services that are provided on the basis that they are genuine life saving treatments will suffer.

Do you object to the surgery due to it being provided due to risk of suicide or do you object to transgender surgery being covered by the taxpayer?

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nobody has ever actually had a car accident because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, yet the law says you must. Does it really matter whether lives are directly or indirectly lost from people not being able to access SRS, once the outcome is people not dying?

Yes it does, because we're not talking about people dying by virtue of their own negligence so your car accident analogy doesn't hold up, much less the fact that the State is not being expected to fund safer cars for the general public (only safer roads). Determining the cause of why people choose to take their own lives, and the provision of mental health support is of far greater benefit to society as a whole, than the State being held at the behest of a minority who will threaten to take their own lives if the State doesn't pay for their treatment.

Delirium wrote: »

Do you object to the surgery due to it being provided due to risk of suicide or do you object to transgender surgery being covered by the taxpayer?

I object to anything being demanded that the State pay for it under duress of the threat of suicide. If that becomes the standard by which the State is made accountable to pay for medical treatments, then there will be far more than just those people who request the State pays for SRS who will demand that the State pay for their treatment under threat of suicide. In it's simplest form, it's simply blackmail - "pay for my treatment or else".

I also object to the treatment being funded by the State (not really the tax payer paying for it as I'm not being asked to pay for it as an individual). It would be similar to the way in which the Jewish community in the States were able to have the decision of private health insurance companies overturned regarding circumcision by arguing that it was a necessary medical procedure, with the backing of the APA.

While Obamacare hangs in the balance at the moment, SRS was funded by Obamacare and meant that drove up the cost of providing public health insurance to everyone by an exorbitant amount. On a more personal level, I personally don't agree with the push by ideologues to diagnose children and pre-teens as transgender or as having gender dysphoria and providing them with hormone treatments on that basis, which are also expected to be funded by the State. This is not, IMO, necessary life-saving medical treatment. It's a choice, one that is made by the parents.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I object to anything being demanded that the State pay for it under duress of the threat of suicide.

Aha, but now you're changing the argument to a personal one.

Everything in medicine is based on the statistical.

For virtually every medical treatment funded by the State, the basis of that funding is the overall effectiveness of that treatment on the people who need it.

Likewise for SRS, nobody is "threatening" suicide if it's not funded. From a medical perspective if SRS can lead to a proven X% reduction in suicides within the transgender population, then that leads to the question of whether it would be prudent for the state to fund it.

A thought experiment, for yourself. Imagine a pill existed that you could give trans people specifically which led to a 90% reduction in depression amongst trans people.

Would you be happy for this to be available on the medical card?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Aha, but now you're changing the argument to a personal one.

Well no because Delirium asked me do I object to the surgery... I don't object to the surgery, I object to the State being under duress to pay for it, and I went further by clarifying that I don't expect the State should be held accountable to fund anything under threat of suicide. The current legislation regarding abortion is another example, I don't believe that a person should be able to hold the State to ransom so to speak by using suicide as a threat.

Everything in medicine is based on the statistical.

For virtually every medical treatment funded by the State, the basis of that funding is the overall effectiveness of that treatment on the people who need it.

Likewise for SRS, nobody is "threatening" suicide if it's not funded. From a medical perspective if SRS can lead to a proven X% reduction in suicides within the transgender population, then that leads to the question of whether it would be prudent for the state to fund it.

They regard it as "life saving" treatment, I'm not sure how many different ways there are to interpret that other than a quality of life argument, which the State already doesn't recognise, which is why Marie Flemming was denied recognition of her right to die (it doesn't exist in Ireland, legally), and the argument regarding her quality of life didn't fly.

The provision of adequate, best-in-class mental health services would lead to a reduction in suicide cases not just among the transgender community, but among the general population. When resources are as finite as they are (and when the government can withdraw €35m it had ringfenced off to provide for mental health services), then the needs of the many must always take priority over the needs of the few.

I think it's more prudent that the State examine the statistical data (I'll be honest, I don't like statistics as they can be used by lobby groups to present a very skewed perspective of reality when chasing funding), and determine where what finite resources it has would be better spent on addressing the underlying issues rather than simply shortcutting and addressing and alieviating the more obvious symptoms, ignoring the underlying causes.

A thought experiment, for yourself. Imagine a pill existed that you could give trans people specifically which led to a 90% reduction in depression amongst trans people.

Would you be happy for this to be available on the medical card?

SSRI's are already available on the medical card, and they are often prescribed for anyone who is assessed by their GP as experiencing depression. One that specifically targets people who are trans would be impossible to formulate because people are surely much more than simply their gender identity, and again that would only be addressing the symptoms and not the underlying cause of their depression.

A better example, if you're asking the question I think you're asking, would be the recent availability of a drug which has been shown to have positive effects on people with cystic fibrosis. Even though Ireland has one of the highest rates of cystic fibrosis per head of population in the world, I still wouldn't agree to the drug being made available on the medical card because it's cost to the State, by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, simply cannot be economically justified.

It may sound heartless on the surface of it, and if the discussion were personalised, then yes, it is heartless, but the State has a duty towards all of it's citizens within Irish society to decide and administrate what is beneficial for all of Irish society, not just the individual citizens within it. That's how wider society has now gotten to a point where individual liberty has become more valuable than collective responsibility, and diseases that were once eradicated through State vaccination programs, are now making a vicious comeback - because individual parents are now allowed decide not to have their children vaccinated, which puts everyone else at risk of potential suffering because of their myopic vision.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Determining the cause of why people choose to take their own lives, and the provision of mental health support is of far greater benefit to society as a whole, than the State being held at the behest of a minority who will threaten to take their own lives if the State doesn't pay for their treatment.

But that costs money anyway. Do you think life-long mental health therapy would be cheaper than ~€30,000 (average state spent in 2016 on SRS)?

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But that costs money anyway. Do you think life-long mental health therapy would be cheaper than ~€30,000 (average state spent in 2016 on SRS)?

It's not about whether it's cheaper or not, clearly at first glance it isn't cheaper, notwithstanding the fact that those people who experience gender dysphoria require long term mental health care and quite an assortment of medications and dugs after SRS, if they choose to have SRS (a growing number are foregoing SRS much to the chagrin of some people who exclude them from transgender spaces on the basis that they aren't "truly" transgender as they haven't had SRS and have no interest in SRS)... apologies, I digress, the identity politics is stifling.

Anyway, it's about value for money for the State. Would you be satisfied if your significant other spent €30k on a banger that would just about pass the NCT and get them from A to B for the coming year, just about... or would you prefer that they spent €35m on an SUV that would benefit the whole family for decades to come?

Personally, I know which option I would consider far better value for money. It wouldn't be the banger that could end up costing me just as much as the SUV anyway in the long term.

Now before anyone points out what seems like the obvious "we're talking about people, not cars", we're not, we're talking about the State getting value for money. It's not a bottomless pit and it has to consider long-term investment on behalf of everyone, as opposed to short-term investment for a minority.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

A thought experiment, for yourself. Imagine a pill existed that you could give trans people specifically which led to a 90% reduction in depression amongst trans people.

Would you be happy for this to be available on the medical card?

Such pills already exist; general "uppers" and anti-depressants.
I think you already know that though, hence you said "for trans people specifically". But that is an unfair restriction to put into the thought experiment.

Why is not OK for them to live their lives somewhere between being totally male and totally female?

recedite

Interesting little story about an Irish person who lived in the days before HSE funded sex change operations.
It seems her problems became much worse after the medical profession got hold of her.
If she was around today, we wouldn't be allowed to refer to her as "her".

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I object to anything being demanded that the State pay for it under duress of the threat of suicide.

Presumably this would also include abortions under the so-called Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act? with the ironic twist that the only women who have to avail of the traumatic and uncertain POLDPA process are those who can't afford to travel to the UK for an abortion there.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Presumably this would also include abortions under the so-called Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act?

"So-called"? Is that not what it's called?

The answer to your question is yes btw (from a couple of posts up) -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The current legislation regarding abortion is another example, I don't believe that a person should be able to hold the State to ransom so to speak by using suicide as a threat.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

with the ironic twist that the only women who have to avail of the traumatic and uncertain POLDPA process are those who can't afford to travel to the UK for an abortion there.

What's ironic about not expecting the State to fund something which is illegal in this country, yet available in another?

I should clarify that I've never agreed with the inclusion of a suicide clause in the legislation in the first place. I also wonder why those women who are campaigning for a repeal of the 8th amendment appear to have no interest in supporting women who cannot afford to have an abortion abroad, and are instead choosing to spend what finite resources their campaign has on a pill popping party bus coming to a college near you.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"So-called"? Is that not what it's called?

Yes, that's what it's called. It's "so-called" because the title of the act is extremely misleading. It doesn't go nearly far enough (from my point of view) to protect the lives of women. From the opposing point of view it erodes the right to life of the foetus.

I hate the bullsh*t naming of legislation that started in the USA (PATRIOT Act, FFS, and many since) and it's a bad trend, a thought-terminating cliche, that we should not adopt here.

The answer to your question is yes btw (from a couple of posts up) -

Wonderful. How compassionate of you.
If you're happy to see ill people die, why fund any sort of health service at all.

What's ironic about not expecting the State to fund something which is illegal in this country, yet available in another?

POLDPA is the law in this country - and it provides for abortion under limited circumstances - did the use of the word 'abortion' cause you to make a mistaken assumption?

I should clarify that I've never agreed with the inclusion of a suicide clause in the legislation in the first place.

In that case you have two alternatives, chain them to a psychiatric bed until birth, or let them kill themselves (and the oh so precious foetus)

Which would you prefer?

Bear in mind that the Irish people have voted in two referendums to maintain the right of a suicidal woman to an abortion in this country without going to the UK or elsewhere.

I also wonder why those women who are campaigning for a repeal of the 8th amendment

It's not just women, far from it - and it'll require the votes of women and men to repeal it.

appear to have no interest in supporting women who cannot afford to have an abortion abroad, and are instead choosing to spend what finite resources their campaign has on a pill popping party bus coming to a college near you.

You have no idea what they do to support women.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, that's what it's called. It's "so-called" because the title of the act is extremely misleading. It doesn't go nearly far enough (from my point of view) to protect the lives of women. From the opposing point of view it erodes the right to life of the foetus.

So it does exactly what it says on the tin then - protection of LIFE during pregnancy. I don't see anything misleading in the title of the act with regard to it's purpose.

Wonderful. How compassionate of you.
If you're happy to see ill people die, why fund any sort of health service at all.

Now you're just making stuff up. I never once said nor implied that I was at all happy to see ill people die, quite the contrary in fact, I'd prefer that every human life was given every chance of living. To that end, I would like to see a health system and a social supports system that is as I said best-in-class. Unfortunately, that requires an amount of money that the State simply doesn't have, as it has to budget and prioritise where and how it spends available and projected funds.

POLDPA is the law in this country - and it provides for abortion under limited circumstances - did the use of the word 'abortion' cause you to make a mistaken assumption?

Not at all, elective abortion is legal in the UK, it's illegal here, or unlawful if you prefer that term?

In that case you have two alternatives, chain them to a psychiatric bed until birth, or let them kill themselves (and the oh so precious foetus)

Which would you prefer?

Bear in mind that the Irish people have voted in two referendums to maintain the right of a suicidal woman to an abortion in this country without going to the UK or elsewhere.

There is a third alternative - put supports in place so that women wouldn't feel they had to have an abortion due to socioeconomic necessity. It would also stand to reason that with such a support system in place, they may not feel their circumstances are so hopeless that they could see no other alternative other than to take their own lives.

It's not just women, far from it - and it'll require the votes of women and men to repeal it.

Yes, but I was talking about the small number of women who campaign for repeal of the 8th amendment in their pill popping party bus touring colleges up and down the country where women who will choose to have an abortion or take their own lives are few and far between. Those women can't afford even to go to college.

You have no idea what they do to support women.

You're absolutely right, I have no idea what the women who occupy the pill popping party bus do to support women, but as half-baked left-wing cookies go, they're pretty much the definition of same.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyway, it's about value for money for the State. Would you be satisfied if your significant other spent €30k on a banger that would just about pass the NCT and get them from A to B for the coming year, just about... or would you prefer that they spent €35m on an SUV that would benefit the whole family for decades to come?

Extending your analogy a bit further, if you had someone in your household that needed the car to be wheelchair accessible, would you buy the SUV they can't get into as the needs of the rest of the family must outweigh the needs of the one?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never once said nor implied that I was at all happy to see ill people die, quite the contrary in fact, I'd prefer that every human life was given every chance of living. To that end, I would like to see a health system and a social supports system that is as I said best-in-class. Unfortunately, that requires an amount of money that the State simply doesn't have, as it has to budget and prioritise where and how it spends available and projected funds.

A health system and social supports system that is best in class will also account for the needs of the smaller groups in society. This cancer ward will only benefit people with cancer and not everyone gets it, so this is a waste of funds?

You can't really have it both ways. Either the health system is good enough to cover everyone to a decent level, or it's focussed on the majority and minorities are sacrificed for your premiums.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

Extending your analogy a bit further, if you had someone in your household that needed the car to be wheelchair accessible, would you buy the SUV they can't get into as the needs of the rest of the family must outweigh the needs of the one?

You'd have to consider all the practical implications and if you decided the wheelchair accessible SUV would be better value for money for everyone, then you'd have to find the money by cutting costs elsewhere.

A health system and social supports system that is best in class will also account for the needs of the smaller groups in society. This cancer ward will only benefit people with cancer and not everyone gets it, so this is a waste of funds?

You can't really have it both ways. Either the health system is good enough to cover everyone to a decent level, or it's focussed on the majority and minorities are sacrificed for your premiums.

No well I know I couldn't have it both ways and that's why I acknowledged that the State simply doesn't have the funds to provide a best-in-class social and healthcare system, but thankfully we have charities that depend upon the generosity of the general public set up to try and provide adequate services where the State simply either can't afford to, or won't provide, adequate services.

In saying that, I've never heard of a charity that funds travel and accommodation expenses here in Ireland for women who want to travel (and have every right to travel abroad, and they aren't asking the State to pay for it), nor have I ever heard of a charity here in Ireland that funds treatments and support services for people who are transgender.

If they do exist, then they're about as effective in their communication with the general public as the handful of women on the pill popping party bus that are doing their own campaign no favours IMO, much less doing the women they claim to care for any favours either (those women who agree with their ideology at least).

looksee

What is this pill-popping party bus that I have seen referenced a few times, could anyone provide a link? I am not disputing it, I just have no idea what it is.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

What is this pill-popping party bus that I have seen referenced a few times, could anyone provide a link? I am not disputing it, I just have no idea what it is.

https://www.gofundme.com/bus4repeal

"€100 to buy a new megaphone"?


It wouldn't be appropriate to say "Jesus wept"... but... yeah, I'll leave it there.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So it does exactly what it says on the tin then - protection of LIFE during pregnancy. I don't see anything misleading in the title of the act with regard to it's purpose.

Are you actually reading the posts you are replying to?
I said this act doesn't go nearly far enough to protect the lives of women, who still must be on the point of death to get an abortion, and even then it's far from certain they'll get one. It is not about protecting life it's about political expediency.

Now you're just making stuff up. I never once said nor implied that I was at all happy to see ill people die, quite the contrary in fact, I'd prefer that every human life was given every chance of living. To that end, I would like to see a health system and a social supports system that is as I said best-in-class. Unfortunately, that requires an amount of money that the State simply doesn't have, as it has to budget and prioritise where and how it spends available and projected funds.

If you deny SRS then people will die who would otherwise live.
You wouldn't have a problem with cancer surgery, for instance, if it had similar costs and benefits to SRS.
So is there any reason other than prejudice against transsexuals not to fund it? because I've not seen one yet.

Not at all, elective abortion is legal in the UK, it's illegal here, or unlawful if you prefer that term?

The subject being discussed was not 'elective' abortion, and not in the UK. Non-sequitur.

There is a third alternative - put supports in place so that women wouldn't feel they had to have an abortion due to socioeconomic necessity.

'Socioeconomic necessity' is only one of many possible reasons to desire an abortion.
Socioeconomic supports won't make Downs syndrome go away, or turn a rape into consensual sex.

Yes, but I was talking about the small number of women who campaign for repeal of the 8th amendment in their pill popping party bus touring colleges up and down the country where women who will choose to have an abortion or take their own lives are few and far between. Those women can't afford even to go to college.

You have some beef with a tiny minority of students, so what.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you actually reading the posts you are replying to?
I said this act doesn't go nearly far enough to protect the lives of women, who still must be on the point of death to get an abortion, and even then it's far from certain they'll get one. It is not about protecting life it's about political expediency.

"Life" in the context of the act, also regards the equal right to life of the foetus.

If you deny SRS then people will die who would otherwise live.

As non-sequiturs go like... please explain how you got from A to B in that statement.

Nobody is denying anyone SRS btw, have at it. I just don't support the idea that the State should have to pay for it under duress of the threat that a person will choose to take their own life if they don't get it.

You wouldn't have a problem with cancer surgery, for instance, if it had similar costs and benefits to SRS.
So is there any reason other than prejudice against transsexuals not to fund it? because I've not seen one yet.

I certainly would have a problem with the State providing for for cancer treatments if all things were equal with SRS. As it happens, they're not, and no amount of special pleading is going to equate the two on any level whatsoever.

I would have no issue as I said already with the State making funding available for providing for people with gender dysphoria as far as their mental health is concerned, but elective cosmetic procedures otherwise categorised as necessary medical procedures? I won't apologise for it but I would have no interest in supporting the State providing for such procedures, let alone under duress of the threat of a person choosing to take their own life.

'Socioeconomic necessity' is only one of many possible reasons to desire an abortion.

It's the most common given reason though, according to statistical data available from the Guttermacher Institute.

(I'd link but I'm on mobile)

Socioeconomic supports won't make Downs syndrome go away, or turn a rape into consensual sex.

Socioeconomic supports are one of the reasons why Irish society at least, does not consider people with Downs Syndrome as of lesser value than those people who do not have Downs Syndrome. They are as valued members of society as anyone else. I don't see that as a bad thing tbh.

As for rape, as abhorrent a crime as it is, it would take longer than nine months before it could be proven in a Court of Law that a crime ever took place in the first place. This is why I personally see no justification whatsoever for arguing that an abortion should be facilitated by the State in cases of an alleged rape.

You have some beef with a tiny minority of students, so what.

I have a beef with anyone making claims that I feel simply aren't true for one thing, and secondly I have a beef with anyone who puts other peoples lives at risk to further their own political ideology.

recedite

Unusually, a feminist has hit out at islamists. In Sweden of all places, where they have taken in more Muslim immigrants than any other EU country, per capita.

Margot Wallström is that modern rarity: a left-wing politician who goes where her principles take her.

I'm not sure where this sudden outbreak of logic is going to take her and her country, if anywhere.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Unusually, a feminist has hit out at islamists. In Sweden of all places, where they have taken in more Muslim immigrants than any other EU country, per capita.

I'm not sure at what point conservatives started believing that liberals and islamists were in bed together, but it's never been the case. The two ideologies are fundamentally incompatible.

The left have always been negative about islamists in general and Saudi Arabia in particular.

This article is just part of the same false narrative that people who aren't up in arms about immigration must love Islam and be dying to be subject to Sharia law.

There is nothing at all unusual about a left-wing politician being critical of human rights abuses in the Middle East. In fact, that's routine, they never stop banging on about it.

What would be unusual and remarkable would be a conservative politician being critical of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel. But they're the cash cows of the Middle East, conservatives prefer to criticise the soft targets that can't hurt them in the pocket.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure at what point conservatives started believing that liberals and islamists were in bed together

I think I mentioned feminists, not liberals. Although, to be fair, there is usually a fair whack of ultra liberal thinking thrown in, along with some fairly harsh fascist attitudes towards the objects of their ire.
This sort of thing....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWX1SKncyOA

Peregrinus

Nothing in the video suggests to me that the protestors there identify as feminists. True, the commentary by whoever posted the video to YouTube says they are feminists, but it also says that the protest was "likely organized by a subsidiary of George Soros' Open Society foundation", that the protestors "receive hourly wages to wreak havoc and protest for globalist agendas", and that "indoctrinated college students follow whatever they are directed towards". No evidence, or even argument, is offered for any of this.

So, rec, the evidence you post seems rather to support seamus's views than to refute them. In certain circles its an article of faith that feminists (or liberals) are supportive of Islamism. But if you ask for evidence, what is offered is the same faith-based assertions.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

"receive hourly wages to wreak havoc and protest for globalist agendas" [...] No evidence, or even argument, is offered for any of this.

Supporting evidence and binding reason are rarely, if ever, seen in any discussion involving the words "agenda", "elite", "liberal" or "main stream media".

I'm sure there are plenty more words could be added to this list.

Mark Hamill

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this topic.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not about whether it's cheaper or not, clearly at first glance it isn't cheaper, notwithstanding the fact that those people who experience gender dysphoria require long term mental health care and quite an assortment of medications and dugs after SRS, if they choose to have SRS

Do you have nay evidence for this? That people who undergo SRS need the same amount of mental health counselling as those who don't (and for as long), and that people who do not undergo SRS take less medications (you don't need to have surgery to take hormones)?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now before anyone points out what seems like the obvious "we're talking about people, not cars", we're not, we're talking about the State getting value for money. It's not a bottomless pit and it has to consider long-term investment on behalf of everyone, as opposed to short-term investment for a minority.

You also must look at the purpose of the investment. If the purpose is to save lives by preventing suicide, then spending more to prevent more suicides is the better investment.

silverharp

Sokal 2.0 . A mathematician and a philosopher get a spoof article published in a peer reviewed journal, funniest line “After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.”

https://areomagazine.com/2017/05/21/sokal-affair-2-0-penis-envy-addressing-its-critics/

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” written by Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle is a peer-reviewed paper published by the online journal Cogent Social Science on 19th May, 2017. It is a rambling essay, filled with gender studies jargon, which took issue with the implications for trans and gender-queer individuals in regarding the penis as a male sexual organ and advocated understanding it “conceptually” as a social construct. It went on to relate this ill-defined “conceptual penis” to aggressive and abusive attitudes which it related to “toxic masculinity” and ultimately blamed it for climate change. Later that day, Skeptic.com published a piece by the authors who revealed themselves to be the mathematician, James Lindsay, and the philosopher, Peter Boghossian and the paper to be a Sokal-style hoax. Their intention, they said, was to highlight two problems; the low standards of pay-to-publish journals and the meaningless nonsense that can be accepted by the social sciences in general and gender studies in particular, providing it upholds fashionable postmodern ideas of gender.

“The Conceptual Penis” included such gems as describing the authors’ “particular fascination with penises and the ways in which penises are socially problematic,” referring to “pre-post-patriarchal society,” claiming to derive “important social truths” from Twitter hashtags, asserting the act of “man-spreading” to be “akin to raping the empty space” and describing climate change as “an example of hyper-patriarchal society metaphorically man-spreading into the global ecosystem.” The sheer ludicrousness of such utterances which go on for thousands of words should have debarred the paper from being taken seriously by any academic outlet. In addition to this, a quick check of the references would have led a conscientious editor to discover fake papers and even the postmodern generator among them! Unfortunately, it was taken entirely seriously and rated “outstanding” by peer-review. This has produced much criticism of Cogent Social Science and also of the state of discourse within gender studies. It has also produced some criticism of the hoax and five primary objections can be distinguished.

Delirium

Is it really that surprising that a 'pay to play' journal will publish nonsense?

Hasn't this been an ongoing problem in various branches of ('hard' and 'social') science?

Peregrinus

Yup. More intellectual rigour is required.

The key problem is here:

“Their intention, [the authors] said, was to highlight two problems; the low standards of pay-to-publish journals and the meaningless nonsense that can be accepted by the social sciences in general and gender studies in particular, providing it upholds fashionable postmodern ideas of gender.”

A moment’s thought will show that, if the experiment shows that pay-to-publish journals have low standards, it can’t possibly also show that the social sciences in general and gender studies in particular accept meaningless nonsense. The low standards of the pay-to-publish journals lie precisely in the fact that they accept material that won’ pass muster in more reputable journals.

In this instance, in fact, the authors did submit their paper to an unranked, but not pay-to-publish, gender studies journal (“NORMA: The International Journal for Masculinity Studies” published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis). It was summarily rejected. Only then did they approach the pay-to-publish journal.

Quite why the acceptance of their article by the pay-to-publish journal is assumed to characterise “the social sciences in general and gender studies in particular”, while the rejection of the article by the more academically respectable journal is not, the authors do not make clear.

silverharp

maybe they are showboating a bit but it is an area that looking at it from the outside has issues. I certainly wouldn't pay for my kids to do a gender studies degree