The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct

[Fife]

The conceptual penis as a social construct
https://web.archive.org/web/20170520194 ... 330439.pdf

Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women
also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct.
We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical
organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity.
Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate
change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that
penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting
role as a type of masculine performance.



THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: A SOKAL-STYLE HOAX ON GENDER STUDIES

The Hoax -- The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.

That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.

There are at least two deeply troublesome diseases damaging the credibility of the peer-review system in fields such as gender studies:

1. the echo-chamber of morally driven fashionable nonsense coming out of the postmodernist social “sciences” in general, and gender studies departments in particular and

2. the complex problem of pay-to-publish journals with lax standards that cash in on the ultra-competitive publish-or-perish academic environment. At least one of these sicknesses led to “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” being published as a legitimate piece of academic scholarship, and we can expect proponents of each to lay primary blame upon the other.

Read the whole thing.

[TheReal_ND]

My penis is real in my mind.

[Speaker to Animals]

Can you penis-slap feminists online with a conceptual penis?

[TheReal_ND]

I can grab the conceptual pussy. It's only a social construct it doesn't belong to her.

[Speaker to Animals]

I can grab the conceptual pussy. It's only a social construct it doesn't belong to her.

Did you assume zir conceptual gender?

[K@th]

Read the whole thing.

So what happened when the journal that published the fake study found out it was a hoax? Do they retract or double down?

[BjornP]

Are your publications peer reviewed?

Each Cogent OA title offers the highest standards of peer review, overseen by expert editors and editorial boards. We’re proud of the friendly and constructive approach we take with all our potential authors. Our editorial teams evaluate submissions on the grounds of relevance, sound methodology, and clarity, rather than the predicted level of future importance.
Our peer-review process is single blind.

Seriously, I think you guys should just stop paying taxes at this point.

[Fife]

Read the whole thing.

So what happened when the journal that published the fake study found out it was a hoax? Do they retract or double down?

Lulz, not only did you not "read the whole thing," you didn't even read the first two paragraphs. Spolier alert: They (peer-reviewed Cogent Social Sciences) took it down; the OP has the link to the archived PDF.

[K@th]

Lulz, not only did you not "read the whole thing," you didn't even read the first two paragraphs. Spolier alert: They (peer-reviewed Cogent Social Sciences) took it down; the OP has the link to the archived PDF.

I read the first half. It's 4,000 words. I got the gist of it. They wrote a BS article to see if they could get it peer reviewed and published. They were successful. What did I miss?

[TheReal_ND]

Are your publications peer reviewed?

Each Cogent OA title offers the highest standards of peer review, overseen by expert editors and editorial boards. We’re proud of the friendly and constructive approach we take with all our potential authors. Our editorial teams evaluate submissions on the grounds of relevance, sound methodology, and clarity, rather than the predicted level of future importance.
Our peer-review process is single blind.

Seriously, I think you guys should just stop paying taxes at this point.

>don't pay taxes
>get shot