“She has a PhD in mathematics, but does not have any formal education or qualifications even in biology, let alone in gender, sex or law" "She is not an expert at all".
Your headline is dishonest. To say she was 'discredited' implies there is some reason for thinking she can't be trusted but this is not the case. She simply doesn't meet the rules for expert witnesses in the Australian court. Having spent years researching the subject and having written up and spoken about her findings she is, by any reasonable measure, an expert. You don't need formal qualifications to be an expert in gender nonsense.
It's very clear in the judges comments that her expertise in the subject matter is lacking. That is not my opinion, it is literally what the judge says; "she is not an expert at all".
Dunning-Kruger in full effect here. It's nonsense because you fail to grasp it.
Yes, I can see Dunning-Kruger is in full effect. Your response doesn't contradict anything I said but thanks for the ammo. I'm be using your dishonest post in my next video. ETA: Here ya go - thanks again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROK5kCPIZtA
This is good to see. There are way too many people held up to have knowledge and credibility they do not have in this field.
In the USA judges accept "expert" testimony from non-experts all the time in similar matters. Good for Aussies for not tolerating this charade.
good to hear.
Your headline is dishonest. To say she was 'discredited' implies there is some reason for thinking she can't be trusted but this is not the case. She simply doesn't meet the rules for expert witnesses in the Australian court. Having spent years researching the subject and having written up and spoken about her findings she is, by any reasonable measure, an expert. You don't need formal qualifications to be an expert in gender nonsense.
It's very clear in the judges comments that her expertise in the subject matter is lacking. That is not my opinion, it is literally what the judge says; "she is not an expert at all".
Dunning-Kruger in full effect here. It's nonsense because you fail to grasp it.
Yes, I can see Dunning-Kruger is in full effect. Your response doesn't contradict anything I said but thanks for the ammo. I'm be using your dishonest post in my next video. ETA: Here ya go - thanks again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROK5kCPIZtA
Seems like it’s 1 step forward and 3 steps back, but those steps forward feel so good. Thanks for this report!