Talk:Harriet Hall

	This Skepticism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes More coverage of her skeptical work outside of her transphobic articles would be helpful.

T-shirt incident

So, should we mention the T-shirt incident? :D --ZooGuard (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, unless someone wants to start an article on Surly Amy. Especially considering that it seems to have (unlike elevatorgate) ended fairly amicably between the two involved (http://skepchick.org/2013/02/chicks-tough-old-hens-and-roosters-oh-and-t-shirts-at-tam/).ChrisB (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TERF

Not seeing anything to suggest that she’s a TERF. I don’t see much objectionable in the links and the article doesn’t articulate. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The first source is a bit questionable at least on her views of the thing. My interpretation for her work would be that she's ignorant and she doesn't realize she's giving undue weight to the "gender critical" folk or those that want to deny important treatment for children suffering from dysphoria. I don't see much of a big change since then, and her articles have attracted heavy criticism. That being said, I think she still genuinely wishes best for trans people and is trying to figure out the best way, based on limited information she has, to help them but might be considered too cautious and comes off as listening to concerns of bad-faith people that push caution rather than concerns of trans community that also warn against excessive caution (as in, untreated dysphoria has very negative effects and at an early age, these reassignment treatments can be reversed). But to call her a TERF or a transphobe? I can't agree, there's not enough evidence nor does her rhetoric indicate bad faith or hateful language. I just get reminded that I myself was ignorant of trans issues and made jokes that trans people deem harmful, and a big reason I changed is that a trans person came in and educated about their experience and their simple existence. The very least, however, is that she could offer a disclaimer that she's ignorant and can't make any confident statement, which some commenters on her article did point out. I.e. I chalk up her works as well-intentioned, but still harmful, but not a TERF or transphobe. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

She recently did an article which was basically playing apologetics for J Michael Bailey and the transphobic Autogynephelia Pseudoscience https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/shooting-the-messenger-activists-persecute-scientists-whose-findings-they-dont-like/ I think at this point it’s intentional at this point--Transvampire (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked over the piece. Hall still does not show traits of a TERF (not excluding trans women from feminism). She may be promoting transphobic pseudoscience but this needs to be thoroughly sourced and explained. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

She might not be a flat out TERF at heart but she is falling for TERF pseudoscience an awful lot lately that she’s at least completely ignorant and irresponsible --Transvampire (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" as it is classically understood, does not include ideas about medical treatments consistent with common practice that subsequently turn out to be wrong, or which are currently in dispute. "First do no harm" is the first principle in medical practice. Also, use of the term "TERF" is primarily political. Let's not confuse medicine with politics any more than necessary.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Autogynephelia is pseudoscience read the rationalwiki article about it--Transvampire (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't always believe what I read online. It is a correctable folly.That article is politically driven. The conclusions may be correct. Incorrect scientific theories are not properly pseudoscience. Even if they were, politicians accomplish little by harping about science, about which they and the general public are often ignorant.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the advice that medicine shouldn't be conflated with politics. Autogynephilia is a kind of pseudoscience and it's used to push political goals. We need to be pushing politics (i.e. policy) that adhere to science, otherwise the science is kinda pointless don't you think? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my friend. That's why it is more of a moral hypothesis than a medical one. The topic itself is not even well-fined sufficiently to discuss as science. "Autogynephilia is the name given to the pseudoscientific hypothesis that transgender women who aren't exclusively attracted to men are transitioning purely as a result of a fetish for being viewed as females." Frankly I am unsure what the claim is in the definition. A hypothesis is not pseudoscientific in the philosophy of science. It is either verifiable or not verifiable, or there is a real mess to deal with. One would hope it could be proven to be flat out false as that makes matters simple. Consider the word "fetish" in the definition. That word is only used with respect to religious or ethical ideas, which are usually unfalsifiable. Not even pseudoscience. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@UncleKrampus A "fetish" in this example would be a sexual fetish, also known as a kink. For example, one might have a fetish for certain materials such as latex or leather, and might therefore become more aroused if such materials are used in sexual foreplay or a sexual fanasy. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose calling her a TERF. By my criteria, you need to have a familiarity with feminist culture and terminology to be considered a TERF. Hall doesn't demonstrate that, so "transphobe" is more appropriate. hjhornbeck (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I think her crappy shit article pushed me over the edge. I put back the trans label and my benefit of doubt ran out for her. The "lesbians are disappearing!!"? The "The Mantras of Trans Influencers" that "facilitate the discovery of a trans identity."? "Trans influencer gurus"? That language is so suspect. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In any case

Her other work in skepticism needs more coverage. I just now learned she's dead, and it's rather uncomfortable to me to define her here by one book review when she was contributing to SBM for years (there's a reason Gorski and Novella emphasized she was still in good standing with SBM and had a history of contribution to it). Full disclosure, I do not remember bothering to even read said book review; it could be the most vile thing ever and I think my point would stand. Chillpilled (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)