Why gender studies is pseudoscience.  

Peer review. Hahaha. You mean hubris.

Peer review cannot be applied to ideology, when attempted it becomes idea laundering.

Agree. Peer Review is not a trustable element in many situations. It's not valueless, but certainly has been peturbed considerably.

Nesmith was a very good musician.

@@darbyheavey406 That he was. I think he and another were also songwriters.

I appreciate that, my friend. And welcome the discourse!!!

@@DadSavesAmerica Oh, you're well-equipped for it! 🤘🤠

Genders R Us?

But his point is that you can easily prove it's been faked. All the examples you've stated fall into that area.

@@terryritter7065 OK, I know it hurts, but try to keep up - . Bear in mind, he's using an analogy to explain why gender ideology cannot be faked, but seems to overlook the issue that it has absolutely convinced tens of millions of people. There are, similarly, millions of people out there who believe Jackie Chan is a skilled martial artist. Who believe Taylor Swift's band are skilled musicians. His argument does not hold water as it stands and this is, in part, because he forgot to close his axial loop, which is what I said.

Can't be proven at all. That's what falsifiability means. You cannot test it, so it is just an opinion.

Falsifiability is a non-negotiable criterion for any and all truth claims. Gender studies constitute a wildly successful ideology, but are junk epistemology.

Gender studies is not falsifiable and hence, not science or scientific. I would classify it as pseudoscience.

Gender studies reject all the core tenants of science. Is it falsifiable? No... The definition of gender uses itself in its definition, leaving a circle in its reasoning and an inability to test it externally. What is a woman? According to gender studies, a woman is someone that identified as a woman. So how do you check if the woman is correct or incorrect when they identify as a woman? How do you fact check their identity? It isn't falsifiable so it isn't science... Because of the definition... Is it reproducible? No... When it is attempted to be reproduced the results vary massively and the closer to a reproduction that could challenge prior results, the more it is deemed unethical to test. Want to see if suicide rates go down when you use metacognition and self acceptance therapies in trans identifying minors instead of transitioning them? They say you can't do that because they swear they already did that study. Look at the study and they come from a guy called John Money and his followers who were already discredited as unethical pseudoscientists decades ago. Still, they will quote his work as if it was valid science, and insist you can't reproduce any study associated with the results... Do they accept peer review? No... They abuse the political system to force any peer that challenges them out of the peer review system and have done so for two decades... World leading experts that challenge them suddenly become silenced by government, not other scientists, when they challenge gender studies pseudoscience... If it isn't falsifiable, reproducible, and open to peer review, it isn't real science...

Things that can’t be confirmed or falsified aren’t scientific-it’s an indispensable element of the scientific method.