Top Academic Accuses British Medical Journal of “Abandoning Science”
The British Medical Journal is accused of rejecting research from top academics over their belief that sex is biological and unchangeable. The Mail has the story.
One researcher had his paper rejected because he was “opinionated” and had tweeted in support of author J.K. Rowling’s gender-critical views.
The other’s research was taken offline by BMJ staff who accused him of being “transphobic” based on a student paper article about him. Both academics saw the discussions in BMJ staff emails after making Freedom of Information requests.
Dr. Michael Biggs, an Oxford University sociologist, was blacklisted over a paper saying the official number of transgender people in the U.K. – 262,000 – is unreliable because of a confusingly-worded census question.
He said a number of people who don’t speak English as a first language had answered “no” to: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”
BMJ staff emails claimed Dr. Biggs’s piece “portrays trans individuals as uneducated and implies they weren’t able to understand the question on the census”. …
Dr. John Armstrong, a mathematician at King’s College London, submitted a paper to BMJ Open on findings that institutions with higher ‘Athena Swan’ ratings – an award given for promoting gender equality – had fewer women in senior roles.
After it was rejected, he found a member of staff had told a colleague his social media account had “coloured our impression of the manuscript”. …
Dr. Armstrong said: “If a journal censors findings because they don’t like the results or the author, it has abandoned science.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I know it’s obvious, but Dr Biggs’ piece suggests that non-trans (normal) people uneducated in English might not be able to understand the question.
So, yeh but, y’know that’s what I felt init.
‘Over their belief that sex is biological and unchangeable’.
It’s not a belief, it’s a fact.
This is something which bugs me too, because it implies that a literal biological fact is open for debate. I do think there’s an argument for the situation where a woman has a sex change to become a ‘man’ ( perhaps ‘trans man’ is more fitting ), and she even undergoes both ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ surgery, so that would mean the complete removal of the female reproductive system and the creation of a phallus, and for ‘him’ to then be referred to as male from then on. Personally I would have no problems referring to somebody such as this as ‘he/him’ out of respect, not least due to their total commitment in wanting to live as the opposite sex. I would be happy to say the same for a man who transitioned to living as a ‘female’ version of himself, if he’d demonstrated he was fully committed to the job and undergone the necessary surgeries to construct a ‘neovagina’. So even though in these two examples the sex chromosomes obviously haven’t changed, these two people have done all they possibly can to change physically into the opposite sex, I’d have no issues referring to them as the sex they’ve changed… Read more »
No
sex is decided by chromosomes not by wearing lippy or the clothes they wear.
And that’s exactly what I’ve stated. But if somebody has gone through the emotional and physical pain of enduring multiple surgeries to live as somebody they feel more comfortable being then I’m totally fine with referring to them by their preferred pronouns. That’s a completely different reality than a transvestite, which is what you’re describing. But you do you.
If a man “has gone through the emotional and physical pain of enduring multiple surgeries to live as somebody they feel more comfortable being”, you may decide to refer to him by his preferred pronouns, but that still doesn’t make him a woman.
Would you like your straw man back now?
My ‘strawman’, as you call her, has gone through the emotional and physical pain of enduring multiple surgeries to live as somebody they feel more comfortable being, and prefers to be referred to as a strawwoman.
Preferred pronouns maybe but I don’t want them in my daughters toilet.
But when the Liberal Progressives (communists) don’t like the facts they just change them, and the disturbing thing is that the fact changers have taken over all of our institutions. I was at the V&A in Dundee last week which is one of the most outrageous wastes of space I have ever seen but apart from that I noticed on their wall they had listed the names of the people in the de-colonisation department.
Todd Hayen at Off-G with some interesting thoughts on the explosion in cancer cases.
https://off-guardian.org/2024/05/25/and-the-cancer-keeps-rolling-in/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432614-three-years-of-high-temperatures-will-mean-we-have-breached-1-5c/
More crap.
What’s a New Scientist?
A scientist who doesn’t who believe in real science.
The inevitable mind-rotting consequence of celebrating onanism and coprophilia.
If it has a willy it is male, if it doesn’t it is female. This is immutable across almost all creatures on the planet. There are a few exceptions but they are not mammals of any kind. Why do so many Scientists find basic Science so impossible to understand? Basic answer is that they know perfectly well there are only two sexes but it is fashionable and profitable to pretend they do not know.
Trans people certainly exist just as bisexuals and gays exist but that is not a different sex: that is chemicals and psychology. My son is a happily married gay, he has a willy, he is as male as I am but his biology works differently to mine. Again, this is simple, very basic, Science.
As a thought experiment I wondered how gay people had not died out since if they never reproduce with females you would think their genes would have not survived over evolutionary time. It turns out the homosexual gene is passed down the female side ie from the mother.
As far as the pronoun issue goes, in my opinion it is a pathetic #MeToo fad which simply shows how hollow many peoples lives are. Having an operation does not make you the opposite sex no more than Michael Jackson trying to look like a white Diana Ross made him her or a white person.
If someone wants to dress up and be Gladys instead of Laddish I could not care less. I’ll happy call him a her but do not tell me a Him is biologically a Her. An operation is popping to the Butchers, it is not a change from male to female or vice versa.
Overall, the objectionable thing is being told I am supposed to say this, pretend this, lie to everyone around me. I’m not lying just because some nutcase leftie / Tory twonk tells me to do so, no more than I’d claim Douglas Baders dog was called Shirley or whatever. The dogs name was Nigger, named after a colour, Nigger Brown. Why am I told I cannot say the dogs name or, for that matter, name my dog in honour? No chance I ever will.
Squadron Leader Guy Gibson of Lancaster bomber 633 squadron named his dog “nigger” not Douglas Bader who was a legless spitfire pilot.
In the movie now, the soundtrack has been altered and the dog has been renamed. The name “nigger” is no longer to be heard.
If you want proof you cannot believe anything the BMJ publishes you only need to go here: Video & Audio Index: How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed – In Eight Steps A 21st Century Medical Controversy “The series tells an extraordinary story with striking revelations which have never before been told openly and publicly about one of the leading medical controversies of the 21st Century. With an audio option to listen on the move. The series documents the deliberate elaborate intentional and systematic fabrications perpetrated by three editors of the British Medical Journal in 2011. These editors publicly accused a doctor, Andrew Wakefield, of committing fraud in a scientific paper published in the Lancet medical journal which implicated the MMR vaccine in causing autism in children. This is an account of one of the worst and most extensive examples of official misinformation and manipulation ever perpetrated in healthcare world-wide prior to the Covid crisis. What is it all about? The fraud allegations against Andrew Wakefield were and remain baseless fabrications – pure invention with no facts or evidence to back them up. The BMJ had commercial agreements with MMR vaccine manufacturers which the three editors failed to disclose… Read more »
Sad daily sceptic wasted one more second on anything transgender. Please stop shoving nonsense down our throats.
Found this on SubStack:
https://substack.com/profile/58428974-margot
Here is the image for your enjoyment.
If a person can change their gender because they feel like it can they also change their height, weight, age etc.?
Time for serious, unbiased scientists to abandon these publications.