Tag Archive

Remember when we used to have credible academic institutions?

“Mindful that the identities can influence our science (Roberts, et al. 2020), we wish to provide the reader with information about our backgrounds. The authors have interesting identities relating to the work in this article. All authors are cis-gender menstruating individuals who identify as intersectional feminists. Some are part of the LGBTQIA+ community and others are allies. All authors are passionate about addressing inequalities and injustice, hence our involvement in efforts to reduce stigma and transphobia. Overall, much of our work is driven by a desire to promote social justice and well-being.”

This positionality statement is a grotesque embarrassment, a self-inflicted wound that bleeds performative virtue and intellectual dishonesty. It’s not a scholarly disclosure—it’s a clown show in academic drag, and it deserves to be shredded for the farce it is. Let’s dismantle this travesty piece by piece.

1. A Shameless Parade of Performative Virtue

This statement is the epitome of performative nonsense, the kind of empty signaling that the Promises and Perils of Positionality Statements article (Cambridge Core) warns against, comparing such declarations to land acknowledgments that do nothing but posture for moral superiority. “All authors are cis-gender menstruating individuals who identify as intersectional feminists”? This isn’t a positionality statement—it’s a cult manifesto. The phrase “cis-gender menstruating individuals” is so absurdly gratuitous that it’s almost satirical. Unless this paper is explicitly about menstruation—and there’s zero indication it is—this detail is as relevant as listing the authors’ favorite ice cream flavors. It’s a desperate attempt to rack up identity points, but it only makes the authors look like they’re auditioning for a social justice pageant.

2. Utterly Devoid of Substance

The purpose of a positionality statement is to provide meaningful context about how the authors’ backgrounds shape their research, as emphasized in the Beyond Making a Statement article (Boveda & Annamma, 2023). This statement fails so spectacularly that it’s almost impressive. What does being “cis-gender menstruating individuals” have to do with the study? How does identifying as “intersectional feminists” influence their methodology or findings? We get no answers—just a smug list of buzzwords that sound like they were plucked from a social justice bingo card. The authors claim their “interesting identities” relate to the work, but they don’t deign to explain how. This isn’t transparency; it’s intellectual cowardice masquerading as depth. It’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of value.

3. A Jargon-Filled Mess of Elitism

The statement is a cesspool of jargon that screams exclusion rather than insight. “Intersectional feminists,” “LGBTQIA+ community,” “allies,” “reduce stigma and transphobia”—it’s a verbal soup that only the most indoctrinated will swallow without gagging. The Beyond Making a Statement article stresses that positionality should engage broader audiences, not just niche echo chambers, but this statement does the opposite. It’s a self-righteous gatekeeping exercise, ensuring that only those fluent in the language of progressive dogma will feel welcome. For everyone else, it’s an alienating slog, a reminder that the authors care more about ideological purity than accessibility or clarity.

4. A Blatant Admission of Bias

By loudly declaring their “passion” for addressing inequalities and reducing transphobia, the authors might as well have tattooed “BIASED” across their work. The Cambridge Core article cautions that positionality statements can make researchers vulnerable to accusations of bias, especially for minoritized scholars, but these authors seem to revel in the spotlight of their own prejudice. Their ideological agenda is so front-and-center that it’s impossible to trust their objectivity. If you’re writing a scientific paper, your job is to pursue truth, not to flaunt your activism. This statement doesn’t contextualize their research—it poisons it, signaling to readers that the findings are likely warped by the authors’ preconceived notions.

5. A Glaring Omission of Expertise

What’s missing from this statement? Any shred of information about the authors’ qualifications, training, or expertise. The Cambridge Core article notes that positionality statements often neglect to include professional context, which is essential for understanding research design and process. Are these authors sociologists? Public health experts? Gender studies scholars? We have no clue, because they’re too busy preening over their identity markers to bother with something as basic as their credentials. This isn’t just a minor oversight—it’s a catastrophic failure that obliterates their credibility. Why should anyone care about your menstruation status if you can’t even establish why you’re qualified to conduct this research?

6. A Mockery of Academic Rigor

The tone of this statement is so self-congratulatory—”we have interesting identities,” “we’re passionate about addressing inequalities”—that it reads like a parody of itself. The authors seem more interested in polishing their social justice credentials than producing rigorous scholarship. The Beyond Making a Statement article calls for positionality to engage with “power differentials and historical legacies,” but this statement doesn’t even pretend to grapple with such complexities. It’s a shallow exercise in identity politics that cheapens the very concept of positionality and drags academic integrity into the gutter. If this is what passes for scholarship, the academy is in a death spiral.

7. A Polarizing Trainwreck

This statement doesn’t inform—it alienates. It’s so steeped in ideological signaling that it’s guaranteed to turn off anyone who doesn’t already share the authors’ worldview. It’s not a bridge to understanding; it’s a wall, built to keep out anyone who doesn’t speak the same jargon or bow to the same ideals. If your positionality statement makes readers question whether they’re reading a research paper or a manifesto, you’ve failed on a fundamental level.

8. A Wasted Opportunity for Real Reflection

The authors had a chance to offer a thoughtful reflection on how their identities shape their work, but they squandered it on meaningless identity flexing. For example, if they’re studying transphobia (as they claim to care about), they could have reflected on how their cis-gender identities might limit their perspective—a point the Beyond Making a Statement article stresses as critical. Instead, they opted for a self-indulgent pat on the back, leaving readers with no real insight into their research process. This isn’t positionality; it’s narcissism, plain and simple.

This positionality statement is a humiliating blight on academic publishing, a textbook example of how to sabotage your own credibility with performative drivel. It’s substanceless, jargon-laden, and dripping with bias, all while failing to provide any meaningful context about the authors’ work or qualifications. It alienates readers, undermines the research, and invites nothing but scorn. The authors should be mortified—not for their identities, but for thinking this self-righteous gibberish qualifies as scholarship. If this is the future of academic publishing, as the trend suggests, then the academy might as well pack up and call it a day. This statement isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on—shred it, burn it, and start over.