The fantastical epistemology of mansplaining
I recently made a post addressed to the men’s rights activists/meninists and to the liberal feminists/trans-activists/genderists who often respond to my posts or PM me with their angry disagreement. I don’t mind when people disagree and explain their viewpoints, but usually that’s not the case. I get called a feminazi, a man-hater, a TERF, a transphobe, whatever. That’s not an argument. But when people actually want to disagree with me, sometimes, instead of presenting their argument, they question the sources of information on which I have relied before forming my opinion. These are two real comments I received, word for word, from two different men on the same post:
@sadtransgirl, a member of the trans-activist camp wrote: “You found fact, journals, and science you can use to push your agenda. You’re basically complaining they’re not respecting your confirmation bias.On top of this, we have to also remember that most social science papers are fully wrong. First off, roughly 80-90% of them are not sourced or sourced improperly. Second, the peer-review process at most of the journals is non-existent if it’s really there at all. Science publications are different from social sciences. An audit of all social science papers was conducted a couple years ago in which they threw out roughly 70% of papers published because they found they were not sourced or improperly sourced, unreplicable, or a myriad of other reasons. Most papers you’re probably citing can realistically be dismissed. They have to be dismissed on a case by case basis but the sad truth is that most social science papers are complete and utter lies.”
@stalin-kitten-ifunny, an self-proclaimed anti-SJW who hates feminism and seems to despise trans-activism and fake genders as well, wrote: “Anecdotes aren’t evidence.”
Let that sink in for a moment. I said my opinions were based on a combination of lived experience as a woman, and also on books/articles/journals written by experts in their field, and which contain a mixture of anecdotal stories and statistical research. After explaining that, I get a message from one man (who claims, not very convincingly, that he’s a woman “on the inside”) telling me that all of social science is not credible and I literally can’t believe any information that doesn’t come from the hard sciences (basically, STEM fields.) This argument is based on a combination of total lies, misunderstanding of statistics and lack of reading comprehension, by the way (but I will explain that in another post).The hard sciences do not study issues like domestic violence, rape, gender-based violence or oppression; that’s not what they’re for. They provide the raw mathematics on which statistics are based, but you will never find a mathematics/physicals/chemistry etc. paper on these issues, because that’s not what they’re for. Therefore, there is no credible information in the entire academic world on sex and gender-based issues. Just a black hole, no real knowledge whatsoever.
So, maybe I should just rely on my personal experience and the experiences of my female friends and family. Nope! Another man messages me to tell me that my lived experienced is invalid because “anecdotes aren’t evidence.” (Actually, evidence is just based on many anecdotes in aggregate, but okay then.)
So, just to recap: social sciences and books written by experts who have interviewed thousands of woman and conducted studies are not evidence and my own personal experiences are also not evidence. This leaves only one viable source for credible information, which is knowledge imparted by God, otherwise known as “It just feels true.” The arguments my MRA and trans-activist opponents provide here are based on knowledge imparted by God, which you can trust because they are men, and they say so. As a woman, I have no direct access to God’s infinite wisdom except through the opinions of men on the internet, so I will have to trust their divine inspiration, since it is unsullied by unscientic “anecdotes” or untrustworthy “social science.”