meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Serious Inquiries Only

SIO45: James Lindsay, Co-Author of the 'Conceptual Penis' Hoax Paper

Serious Inquiries Only

Thomas Smith

News, Atheism, Skepticism, Democrat, Left, Liberal, Politics, News Commentary, Progressive, Religion

4.61K Ratings

🗓️ 29 May 2017

⏱️ 80 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Last week you heard Eli Bosnick's side of why the 'Conceptual Penis' hoax paper was disingenuous and unskeptical, and today I speak with one of the paper's authors, James Lindsay. James has been a previous guest on the show; he's been someone I have always admired for his intellectual rigor and willingness to back up what he believes and to have the tough conversations. For that much I really, really respect him coming on. But I can't hide my opinion on this hoax. I think it was garbage and it was latched onto unskeptically by people who fancy themselves critical thinkers. I challenge James on the paper and we get to hear his side of it. Today's episode is actually 2 in 1, because after the conversation I reminded James to send me the links corroborating his arguments. When I received them, I was appalled that each description of the scholarly articles he sent was a lazy and ideologically motivated strawman. As such, I emailed him a heads up that I would be going in depth into his sources and describing exactly how he (or maybe Real Peer Review, if that was his source) is either intentionally or just ignorantly misunderstanding these abstracts. I'm incredibly disappointed at this dishonest or careless behavior. If you are going to waltz into a field that ISN'T your expertise and claim that the bulk of it is bunk, it is incumbent upon you to do the research and know what you're talking about. For the sake of transparency, I will paste word for word the sources email James sent me: "Hi Thomas,
In all the fuss, I can't remember what I was supposed to send you, but I'll give it a try.
Curing erectile dysfunction reinforces hegemonic masculinity: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X00003001004 (we cited this paper in ours)
Fat men's penises might not exist, social construction: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460716640734
Male lactation can exist through social construction: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2916660
Pregnancy shouldn't be associated with femininity: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10894160.2012.653766
Wikipedia shouldn't demand sources because sexism: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461515000547
STEM syllabi are sexist because focus on facts: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=tqr
Feminists see themselves as activists to infect other fields of study with ideological biases, compare themselves favorably to viruses like HIV and ebola: http://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/generos/article/viewFile/1983/1624#page=78
Meanwhile, almost 15000 kids a year are graduating from such programs: https://datausa.io/profile/cip/05/
Those are all the papers. In the later half of the episode I discuss the research I did on all of them and how atrocious James's descriptions were. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/seriouspod Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod For comments, email [email protected] Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: [email protected] Direct Download

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

You're listening to serious inquiries only. Oh, Hello and welcome to serious inquiries only this is episode number 45. I'm your host Thomas Smith. I'm very excited to bring you today.

0:37.0

An interview with James Lindsay to get the other side, I suppose, his side of the whole Gender studies hoax paper and there's no point in giving you

0:46.0

much introduction I think we should just get into it save the analysis for afterwards

0:50.4

so here we go. Joining me now is James Lindsay back for third, fourth second, third time, that's something like third, but we've talked about your past books and most recently life in the light of death, which is a brilliant book that I highly recommended and I still would recommend.

1:17.2

So how are you doing, James?

1:18.2

I'm a bit tired, but I'm good, thank you.

1:20.7

Little in battle.

1:21.7

Understandably so. Where do we begin?

1:24.0

I mean, when we scheduled originally, I hadn't made up my mind about the whole thing and I don't

1:29.2

know if you've, happen to notice in the flurry of media requests and everything you're going through right now that I've firmly made up my mind but I'm always open to change my mind no matter what but I have to say it's it's a weird position because I I just can't believe you guys

1:45.7

went through with this the way you did and so I don't know how to proceed in the conversation

1:49.9

but do you want to I guess do you want to give a basic,

1:52.8

like what tell the story from your end, I guess?

1:55.6

What do you think about that?

1:56.9

Well, let me start with what you actually just said,

1:59.0

and then we can get into a little bit of the story.

2:01.0

So what you just said is, you you know you didn't know how to

2:03.6

proceed and you've firmly made up your mind and thankfully you said you're

2:06.7

you're open to revising your belief. I'm always open to revising my beliefs but

2:10.7

yeah excellent so the idea that people have firmly made up their mind is the most astounding part of this so far

2:16.0

for us.

2:17.5

So we published a piece in Skeptic revealing that we'd written this hoax paper,

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Thomas Smith, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Thomas Smith and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.