درباره این اپیزود
I love the term ‘Department of Conclusions’, and I apologise to whoever I forget I stole it from. It describes perfectly my cynical view of the cargo-cultish academic and policy departments involved in creating the data that legitimises already-made government decisions.
This pantomime involves a lot of cogs and props, and transmogrifying ideology into The Evidence is not easy. There’s a lot of effort involved in reaching a conclusion and then leading raw numbers and survey responses, gently by the hand, in the direction of that conclusion, all while pretending to be a neutral conduit for the truth.
One of the foregone conclusions that I come across a lot in my research is the claim that the situation for LGBTIQ+ people is so bad that More Must Be Done, in particular, done by the EU, such as clamping down on hurty words, criminalising TERFs, and forcing more queer theory garbage down the necks of European children.
There is reason to believe that gay or gender-non-conforming people have it rougher than many others in society. After all, many people with immigrant backgrounds in Europe absolutely detest gays and lesbians. There has been a sharp rise in the number of honey pot Grindr traps, at least in Belgium and France, whereby North African lads trick gay men into meeting in secluded spots for sex, and then rob them, beat the s**t out of them, or even kill them.
And things aren’t going so well for male transvestite gooners either. They have been destroying women’s rights to sport, dignity, and privacy for more than a decade now. What’s not to hate? And what about all the green-haired freaks piling into your kids’ classrooms, telling autistic loners that the cause of all their problems is their ‘wrong body’? And the gaudy rainbow bunting absolutely f*****g everywhere, all year round?
I’m filling up with hate just thinking about it.
But the issues that are really causing problems for the LGBTIQ+ ‘community’ (not a real thing) are never hinted at in any official datasets. That would involve admitting to activist overreach, or violating the sacred lib code never to notice the unique quandaries caused by the mass immigration of men from patriarchal shitdumps into gay-friendly cultures.
By far the most-cited data that EU government and NGOs use to justify things like hate speech laws, digital censorship, and trans-queer-themed comprehensive sexuality education, is the 2023 LGBTIQ Survey III from the Fundamental Rights Agency.
The FRA is basically a factory for churning out evidence that just-so-happens to justify the decisions of the European Commission and all the similarly-minded political actors in that entourage. If the Fundamental Rights Agency didn’t produce the required facts and figures, it wouldn’t exist. But it does, so it does.
The Commission drives the policy and political direction, and then requests backup from the arm’s-length FRA. The data is then put to work to justify the new policies. The setup should raise alarm bells, but without hard evidence that the Commission is actually instructing the FRA on what the data should ‘reveal’, the least we can do is examine the quality of the study design. I’m not a expert myself, but I knew there was a problem when I saw that they had managed to find nearly 2,000 people claiming the ‘intersex’ label, even though I know it has been very difficult to do intersex activist movement-building based on how few people actually use that label for themselves. How exactly was this cohort being defined?
So I farmed the job out to some TERFs who know about research practices and standards, and they told me that the survey contained a considerable amount of what could reasonably be described as pure garbage.
In the survey we find that ‘trans’ and ‘intersex’ people are disproportionately affected by violence, discrimination, and victimisation. But what is ‘trans’? And what is intersex? Does the survey at least attempt to define gender? Yes. Is it a circular definition? Also yes. Are crossdressers and transvestites, who don’t claim to be trans women, included in the definition of ‘trans’? Is it considered discriminatory to get the ick from them because everyone knows it’s a fetish? Yes and yes. Does the survey contain data on the number of natal males who claim to have had a cervical smear test in the past five years? Uhh, yes.
As consumers of this official data, I guess we are just as much to blame for gobbling up the numbers we find on official glossy factsheets. Surely in the internet age we’d be better at spotting elite misinformation? The phrase “According to figures from the…(INSERT ACRONYM)” should not fool anyone anymore.
But whatever about normies, journalists, surely, should be doing their due diligence and checking the stats to make sure they’re not rehashing activist or government propaganda. But I have never seen anyone examine the quality of these numbers or analysis that justify so much of the EU’s policies and laws related to LGBTIQ rights, as a whole, and sex erasure in particular. Every instance I have found where the FRA survey is cited in the media, it is cited as though it was sent from God herself.
So I invited a lovely TERF and retired science communicator, Ruth Parry, to give me her expert opinion on the survey design. She’s got a background in clinical research, and she talked to me about the recruitment methods, self-reporting, and ambiguous definitions that likely affected the outcomes.
We chatted about the clinically-sound DSD Life study, also funded by the EU in parallel, and how it contrasts with the FRA activist-driven one, and how embedding “inclusive gender” into research grant criteria will flub scientific processes, to the benefit of no-one. Enjoy.
Take out a paid subscription if you think it’s worth it. And please get in touch with feedback/comments if you’re so inclined. roisinmichaux@gmail.com
Show notes (AI generated)
Guest: Ruth Parry
Twitter/X: https://x.com/CACEnotes
Key Topics Discussed
* EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) LGBTIQ Survey III
* Survey design: sampling, self-reporting, and recruitment bias
* Activist involvement in data collection
* Intersex vs DSD (Differences of Sex Development)
* Clinical vs identity-based classification
* DSD Life study and evidence-based research
* Medical ethics in early-life interventions
* Use of statistics in policy and law
* EU funding frameworks and gender equality requirements
* Ideological influence in academia and institutions
* Interpretation of discrimination and violence data
* Feminist and scientific critiques of gender identity frameworks
Core dataset
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
EU LGBTIQ Survey III
https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2022/eu-lgbtiq-survey-iii
* Large-scale online survey across Europe
* Used in EU policy frameworks, national strategies, and legal contexts
Scientific benchmark
DSD Life Study (EU Project)
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/305373
* Clinical research with medically verified participants
* Focus: long-term outcomes, quality of life, treatment impact
Medical context
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000411.htm
Hypospadias
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001286.htm
* Referenced in discussion of early intervention, functional vs cosmetic treatment, and long-term outcomes
Clinical framework
Chicago Consensus (2006)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16882788/
* Established modern classification of DSD
John Money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
* Early theorist influencing gender identity models
Legal Reference
Bell v Tavistock
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf
Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
* Case concerning medical transition of minors and consent
EU Policy & Funding Context
Horizon Europe
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
https://marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/
Erasmus+
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/
* EU funding programs requiring Gender Equality Plans, including “inclusive gender” frameworks
Academic & intellectual References
Helen Joyce
https://sex-matters.org/
Kathleen Stock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock
Book: Material Girls
Alice Dreger
https://alicedreger.com/
Book: Galileo’s Middle Finger
J. Michael Bailey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey
Louis Gooren
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Louis+Gooren
Historical Reference
Ian Huntley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Huntley
* Referenced as an example of how awareness of risk develops only after exposure to real cases
Related Discussion Referenced in Episode
Stephanie Winn — Intersex / DSD Discussion
* Referenced by Róisín as a prior discussion covering:
* intersex conditions
* surgical ethics
* clinical vs activist perspectives
Research Methods Reference
Randomised Controlled Trials
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1706053/
* Gold standard in clinical research
Cultural Reference
Turf Rocks
* Grassroots activist example mentioned in discussion
X (Twitter): https://x.com/RoisinMichaux
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.peaked.news/subscribe
