Everything they are describing is well supported by solid evidence that you can look up. Further, in conversations of what would drive women out of stem, the welcome harshness and sexism pushing people away is the core of issue.
Ultimately this dismissive attitude towards a well known and understood phenomenon speaks to the arrogance of those that disagree with the well established reality.
You are going out of your way to poke holes in someone describing a very rare and valid view that demonstrates the discrepancy gender presentation gives in lived experience, and how it follows well tested sexist trends by holding their tumblr post to the standard of a scientific paper. You are so desperate to preserve your warped world view that the severity of sexism in STEM isn’t as big of a deal as it is made out that you have taken a genuinely ridiculous position.
You are going out of your way to poke holes in someone describing a very rare and valid view that demonstrates the discrepancy gender presentation gives in lived experience, and how it follows well tested sexist trends by holding their tumblr post to the standard of a scientific paper.
I used a scientific approach in the science memes community. You don’t seem to care about actual science. You’re going out of your way to believe pseudo science in the name of being kind to someone.
I used a scientific approach in the science memes community.
The issue is that your application of “the scientific approach” is to dismiss the entire field of research up to now, and demand that OP prove their point from first principles. It’s not a reasonable response to what they posted.
What we’re seeing here is an example of how it’s possible to be both right and very wrong at the same time.
You don’t seem to care about actual science.
…and the second issue is that you’re now attacking the integrity of the people calling you out on it, for no clear benefit other than to put them down. Go back and read Rule #1.
Have you ever utilized a case study in your work? The value of research is in having a variety of things to pull from. All you’re doing is writing up the considerations page and slapping on the cover.
My only “agenda” is intellectual honesty and scientific reproducibility.
Drawing from the experiences on trans test subjects to prove a hypothesis about sexism between CIS males and females is the very definition of a biased study.
I’m happy to discuss OP’s hypothesis for a study on sexism against trans people in a study using trans test subjects… but that’s not what this is, is it?
My opinion is that including trans people in this sort of study actually reduces the bias, because they’re the only people who will have experienced the social impacts of presenting both male and female at different times. All cis-gendered people will be inherently biased towards their own limited experience.
Everything they are describing is well supported by solid evidence that you can look up. Further, in conversations of what would drive women out of stem, the welcome harshness and sexism pushing people away is the core of issue.
Ultimately this dismissive attitude towards a well known and understood phenomenon speaks to the arrogance of those that disagree with the well established reality.
You are going out of your way to poke holes in someone describing a very rare and valid view that demonstrates the discrepancy gender presentation gives in lived experience, and how it follows well tested sexist trends by holding their tumblr post to the standard of a scientific paper. You are so desperate to preserve your warped world view that the severity of sexism in STEM isn’t as big of a deal as it is made out that you have taken a genuinely ridiculous position.
Do better.
I used a scientific approach in the science memes community. You don’t seem to care about actual science. You’re going out of your way to believe pseudo science in the name of being kind to someone.
Do better.
The issue is that your application of “the scientific approach” is to dismiss the entire field of research up to now, and demand that OP prove their point from first principles. It’s not a reasonable response to what they posted.
What we’re seeing here is an example of how it’s possible to be both right and very wrong at the same time.
…and the second issue is that you’re now attacking the integrity of the people calling you out on it, for no clear benefit other than to put them down. Go back and read Rule #1.
read the personal attack I was responding to in which the person closed with “do better”?
Have you ever utilized a case study in your work? The value of research is in having a variety of things to pull from. All you’re doing is writing up the considerations page and slapping on the cover.
Whats your agenda in doing so?
My only “agenda” is intellectual honesty and scientific reproducibility.
Drawing from the experiences on trans test subjects to prove a hypothesis about sexism between CIS males and females is the very definition of a biased study.
I’m happy to discuss OP’s hypothesis for a study on sexism against trans people in a study using trans test subjects… but that’s not what this is, is it?
Do better.
My opinion is that including trans people in this sort of study actually reduces the bias, because they’re the only people who will have experienced the social impacts of presenting both male and female at different times. All cis-gendered people will be inherently biased towards their own limited experience.
That’s a good point. Certain types of studies would be improved by this type of diversity.