Let’s you and I play a little game. I’m going to give you an out-of-context sentence, and you see if you can guess that context. The answer is given below, so no peeking.
Here: “To Cutter, the broad definition of gender-based violence in the review is a good thing.”
Our first deduction is that, because whenever we see variants of “and that is a good thing”, we know immediately that the thing spoken of is a bad thing.
From that, we deduce that this Cutter is somebody of the left. For it is only leftists (who sometimes call themselves “conservatives”, as in authors of the-conservative-case-for articles from which this kind of sentence is often found) who use this kind of language.
And from this we deduce that whatever is being spoken of, it isn’t “gender-based violence”, but something called gender-based violence.
If you have gone that far, you have done well. But perhaps you haven’t guessed the context. And, from the information given, you can’t. Not precisely. However, given the current manias of our elite, and the presence of “gender”, there are really only two choices: woke madness and “climate change”.
The sentence is from a Nature article entitled “How climate change could drive an increase in gender-based violence“, with the telling subtitle, “Violence against women and people from gender minorities in the aftermath of extreme weather events is on the rise amid global warming.”
World ends, women and gender minorities hardest hit. (Do they never tire of this joke?)
The science piece opens scientifically like this: “As extreme weather events occur more frequently — something that climate scientists say is inevitable — so, too, will violence towards women and people from gender minorities.”
Passing by the observably false claim of increasing “extreme weather events”, it’s an interesting and subtle curiosity to note the use of “climate scientists” and not “climatologists,” who are formally those scientists who study climate mechanisms. This is because “climate scientists” is unspecific. It can mean any person who opines in a regime-positive way on climate “solutions”. Psychologists who fret about “climate anxiety” are “climate scientists”, for instance.
Never mind that.
Nature’s article is about a review paper in The Lancet: Planetary Health—-Planetary Health!—by van Daaleen and others called “Extreme events and gender-based violence: a mixed-methods systematic review“.
“The review,” Nature tells us, “found that extreme weather events often catalyse episodes of gender-based violence — particularly physical, sexual and domestic abuse.”
As in whenever the radio comes on with a weather alert, those strange bzzzuuurp! sounds catalyse men into thinking forbidden thoughts about men who pretend they are women?
Some of these [weather] events exacerbate poor economic and social conditions, and this can create circumstances that result in violent behaviour, the latest review found. The authors searched through ten literature databases for studies focusing on the link between gender-based violence and natural disasters thought to be linked to climate change.
Recall our lecture on multiplying uncertainties. It must be applied here to this chain of claimed causal events. The chain is this: (1) man will cause a change in climate, which will (2) increase (any day now!) extreme weather events, which will (3) exacerbate poor economic and social conditions, which will (4) create circumstances (whatever these are), which will finally cause (5) violent behaviour toward favored Victims.
(If you can’t recall, we more-or-less multiply the probabilities of each step in the chain, which because these are all numbers less than 1 results in a small final number.)
We cannot have any confidence in the totality of this chain. Further, it is absurd to think we can.
Let’s at last tackle what the review authors meant by “gender-based violence”. They first searched the literature for research on violence. Then this:
After excluding duplicates and studies that did not meet the selection criteria — such as those focusing on violence against cisgender heterosexual men and boys, or ones that concerned natural disasters unrelated to climate change — the team ended up with a sample of 41 studies.
Violence against normal males didn’t count. Then:
The studies include research describing mental stress, substance abuse, economic hardship, food insecurity and poor social infrastructure after the onset of extreme weather. These weather events were linked to various forms of gender-based violence, from physical and sexual assault to forced marriage, trafficking and psychological abuse.
More “violence”: “In Bangladesh, for example, young girls have been forced to marry in the aftermath of extreme floods in some cases”. In some cases. Uh huh.
Can’t leave this “violence” out:
The researchers found only one document that explicitly focused on people from gender minorities: a report that described how local people in Fiji thought that Cyclone Winston, which hit the country in 2016, was a sign of divine rage against LGBTQ+ people.
What’s important is that the authors of the original paper, and then the writer at Nature, have become convinced they have discovered something of great importance, in which there can be no uncertainty or dispute.
And that, dear reader, is how easy it is to do The Science.
In searching for pictures for today’s post, I came across yet another example of the woke’s favorite joke: World Ends, Favorite Victims Hardest Hit. “New report reveals LGBTIQ+ communities forgotten in Cyclone Winston recovery“. Which hilariously opens like this:
When Tropical Cyclone Winston reached Fiji on Feb. 20, 2014, it was a Category 5 cyclone — and its effects were devastating. Forty-four people were killed, hundreds injured, and approximately 40 percent of the population were directly affected including losing homes.
Sad for those killed, and their families. But you know who the real Victims are? Yes. LGBTQWERTies!
Missing within the disaster response, however, was any notice of the sexual and gender minorities dealt a double blow after losing the scant safe homes, jobs, and life they had managed to carve out.
Not so, says the organization 42d. Women were hardest hit. “Gender inequality” et cetera.
No, says Oxfam. It really was LGBTQWERTies. Their report opens, “On a sunny day in Lautoka, around twenty Fijian sexual and gender minority members met to share their stories.”
Imagine the smell.
Nuh-uh, says the UN. It was women and youth who were hardest hit. “UN Women Market for Change Project” blah blah blah.
I gave up searching after that.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.