If your desired gender presentation, sex traits, and identity does not conflict with your SIG (societally imposed gender), you will experience privelege under cisnormativity whether or not you actually identify as cisgender.
If you do not change your name, your pronouns, your presentation (including sex traits), your gendered terms, there is nothing about your gender identity that a cisnormative society will pressure you away from.
If you are consistently imposed female and you:
Like to go by she/her
Willfully use a feminine name
Identify as a woman in any way
Don't identify as another gender in any socially disruptive way
Are comfortable with your physical sex traits
You have privelege. Yes even if you are a nonbinary woman. Cis society is not going to pressure you away from any of these things listed above.
If you are consistently imposed male and you:
Like to go by he/him
Willfully use a masculine name
Identify as a man in any way
Don't identify as another gender in any socially disruptive way
Are comfortable with your physical sex traits
You have privelege. Yes, even if you're a nonbinary man. Cis society is not going to pressure you away from any of these things listed above.
Do I want to exclude people like this from the nonbinary community?
No. I have never said this. I have stated I want people like this to simply acknowledge they have some level of privelege over people who socially or medically transition.
Priveleged life experience often leads to implicit biases about dispriveleged groups. Identifying as nonbinary without actually having that similar life experience to other nonbinary people puts you in a place of ignorance about trans/nb issues. Many people who fit this description of a non-transitioning person (who doesn’t want to) have extremely ignorant and cisnormativity-informed opinions on trans people.
I have met people like this both offline and in-person and it IS a problem you will encounter occasionally that someone not equipped to talk about the struggles of transitioning is in a position where they speak over and make decisions for trans & nonbinary people. Occasionally they will obscure their relationship with privelege purposely to give their words more credence. This is a bad thing.
Obligatory: NO. I don't believe all non-tranditioning people act like this. I've met plenty who are lovely people. This comes with acknowledging their privelege.
Do I believe people like this are cisgender?
I believe them when they say they are nonbinary and I will call them nonbinary.
In my theory discussion & material analysis, I have tended to use "cisgender" as a catchall shorthand term for anyone who's desired gender experience is considered Correct under cisnormativity and experiences privelege for that. Could some nonbinary people fit this description? Yes— so for the sake of not stepping on anyone's toes I'll be using the term "SIG-conformant" to refer to anyone who's desired gender experience is considered Correct under cisnormativity and experiences privelege for that.
I should have done this sooner.
"So you believe you need to transition to be trans?"
I don't particularly care about people not transitioning identifying as trans or nonbinary, I'm not the arbiter of who is "valid". My problem is when people deny the material privelege that comes with willfully and comfortably being one's SIG.
ESPECIALLY when it's done for the purpose of positioning oneself as an authority on transphobia and exorsexism.
"But I am AGAB aligned nonbinary and I'm transitioning by [xyz method] so I'm not priveleged"
Cool, I'm not talking about you.
"But I'm nonbinary and I can't transition because it's not safe"
That sucks I hope things get better for you. And I'm not talking about you in this post. Being percieved as cisgender ≠ being ok/happy with it
"But what about people who haven't figured out their identity yet?"
What about them? I can't make blanket statements about people who's experiences are vastly different. Some will have privelege for the reasons previously gone over. Some won't. It's on an individual basis. (Being closeted is not a privelege because repression of your true self causes mental harm).
making this post in response to circulating claims about "transmasc privilege" and a noticeable gap in some of y'alls understanding of oppression.
positionality can be thought of as the way society perceives and treats you, and what privileges you are afforded accordingly.
identity can be thought of as your internal sense of self.
for most people, the two do not line up perfectly. your positionality depends on what people immediately see, not what you tell them. your positionality may also vary day to day based on a number of factors including but not limited to the people you are surrounded by, the space you are in, and the positionalities and identities of those perceiving you.
privilege is based almost entirely on positionality, not identity.
a good example is the diversity within the transgender community. if you take three transgender men at different stages in their transition they will each have a different positionality. one may have the positionality of a gender conforming cisgender man, the second may have the positionality of a transgender man, the third may have the positionality of a gender conforming cisgender woman. the gendered privileges these three people are afforded are vastly different despite all three of them having an identical gender identity.
if you have the positionality of a certain marginalized group, you will be targeted with the same oppression as them whether or not you share an identity with them. the fact that you don't share the identity doesn't suddenly make that oppression go away. you can be oppressed based on a positionality that does not align with your identity.
if you have questions on positionality vs identity i urge you to reply to this post instead of ignoring the gap in your knowledge.
Today's entry comes from the University of Victoria, where someone earned a PhD in the School of Indigenous Governance, which I had never heard of but appears to be where ordinary academic standards go to be ceremonially sacrificed.
The dissertation is titled, "Mnidoo-mkwendamwin: Beading and Restitching with Ancestral Threads of Memory." And before the dissertation even begins, we of course get a mandatory land acknowledgment.
The abstract opens with a typo. It says, quote, "This work was created to go beyond the study cultural mnemonic devices." It appears to be missing the word 'of' there, but maybe proofreading is an oppressive colonial construct as well.
But it gets better, or worse, however you look at it. The author says the dissertation documents how to make, quote, "ancestral knowledge encodements" through "indigenous beadwork, textile, other fiber arts." It seems to be missing the word 'and' there as well. So that's two typos, and we haven't even moved beyond the first sentence yet
It then explains that beading is, quote, "indigenous resurgence" explored through the author's intersecting lenses of being a, quote, "chronically ill neurodivergent two-spirit Mississauga Nishabi Lucanan artist and scholar."
The abstract also says that, quote, "the body, mind, spirit, land, and material expressions of culture" are only viewed as separate entities "due to colonization."
This dissertation is based on so-called "indigenous knowledges." But while cultural traditions, stories, and art can be personally meaningful, when universities start treating them as co-equal with scientific knowledge and dismiss skepticism as a form of colonial oppression, we've left the realm of serious scholarship entirely and dove headfirst into mystical woo-woo.
––
This work was created to go beyond the study cultural mnemonic devices and into the realm of documenting how to make ancestral knowledge enc
Abstract
This work was created to go beyond the study cultural mnemonic devices and into the realm of documenting how to make ancestral knowledge encodements that synthesize research through Indigenous beadwork, textile, other fibre arts. Beading is Indigenous resurgence that connects me to my ancestors, and this research delves into what that means in a grounded wholistic way through my intersecting lenses of being a chronically ill neurodivergent Two-Spirit Mississauga Nishnaabe Lucbanin artist and scholar. Conceptualizations around the body, mind, spirit, land, and material expressions of culture are often thought of as separate entities due to colonization, so a foundational part of this work examines approaches to Indigenous ideas of wholeness in community and identifies what forms of decolonization and resurgence can facilitate reconnection with the spiritual. Beads come together and interplay with one another in similar ways that gained wisdoms do within the research process. While the overall design that is created through knowledge is powerful and important, so is every stitch that makes that design come into being. Each relative who collaborated on this dissertation brought a prismatic array of experiences and played a powerful role in shaping the trajectory of the ancestral knowledge encodement of this work in the Ngwaagan Regalia (2025). Throughout the dissertation are ancestral knowledge encodements—created through historical inspiration, depictions of relatives, tea-visits with kin, and narratives shared by family and community members. The encodements created and embedded into this written dissertation take the forms of photographs, historical images, digitally stitched collages, digital mixed media illustrations, paintings, and diagrams. I have chosen to honour this tradition of weaving in the threads of previous generations and connecting it to those in the future through integrating ancestral mkwendamwinan (memories) in the same way that I am including contemporary conversational dbaajmownan (stories).
––
==
Art is not science. Any form of "knowledge" which is inaccessible to all but an anointed, special few is not "knowledge."
“Fact” is not anybody’s experience; it states the experience of no one in particular. … By definition, then, if we take the empirical rule (no personal authority) seriously, revelation cannot be the basis for fact, because it is not publicly available. Similarly, attempts to claim a special kind of experience or checking for any particular person or kind of person—male or female, black or white, tall or short—are strictly illicit. … if you make different rules for black and white checkers, you are not doing science. … if the way you are checking works only for people with a sympathetic attitude, or if your results are not replicable by others in a reasonably regular fashion, you are not doing science. … If the way you are seeing and explaining works only for the religious, you are breaking the rules.
– Jonathan Rauch, "Kindly Inquisitors"
The above video clip shows my interaction with EVE performer Nina Samuels, who demands I approach the ring before chastising me for my lack of respect, reminding me that she is a media star. Yet my (auto)ethnographic research on fan performance and participation at EVE events leads me to question the extent to which I should also perform as a fan. While I am currently drafting work based on this interaction with Samuels, does my fannish performance here indicate some kind of coercion or manipulation of the research environment? Or am I simply acting as I would as a “normal” fan, to then reflect on it later as a scholar?
Tom Phillips, Ethics, Performance, and Identity in Aca-Fan Research, In Media Res.
Okay, here's something to be aware of because I'm seeing more and more of this in research papers. It's kind of like a woke ritual meditation about their intersectional positionality and how they approach the data.
These aren't methods per se, even though they're usually within the methods section, but really they're just emotional statements that are reflecting on their privilege that they believe somehow helps them mitigate their bias when they're analyzing the data for their paper.
It's really awkward and strange. Let me show you.
In this paper, this subsection of the methods is called "Reflexivity and Rigor." They claim that one of the authors' "experience as a Black, gender-fluid, queer clinician and academic with expertise in crisis safety planning, informed the research questions and interview guide," whereas the second and third authors are, quote, "white heterosexual cisgender women."
Now listen to this whole section, okay? I'm going to quote it in full.
"To ensure reflexive analysis, the first and second authors met throughout the analysis and write-up of the study's findings to discuss their assumptions and perspectives of the participant responses, codes, and emerging themes. These ongoing dialogues created intentional spaces to question ideas and examine how each author's social location informed their meaning-making. The authors also shared excerpts from analytic memos created during coding, which captured the first and second authors' emotional reactions to the transcripts and their analytic insights. This collaborative and reflexive process deepened the authors' understanding of the data and helped to manage bias, thus ensuring a thoughtfully interrogated analysis."
This is totally bizarre stuff, and just unthinkable for me, as it really just defeats the entire purpose of a double-blind peer-review process.
Rather than making the authors totally anonymous and unknown to the reviewers so they aren't biasing their reviews on the immutable characteristics of the authors, intimate details about the authors' skin color and sexuality and other things are foregrounded.
Honestly, while the authors claim this is done to mitigate their bias in analysis, I think it's actually done as a signal to reviewers that the authors are these good, progressive, and deeply empathetic people who are doing the so-called work and want to be treated softly in the review process.
"Positionality Statements," like pronouns-in-bio, are not completely useless. They're red flags offered up willingly that tell you someone is not to be trusted or should be ignored.
By shifting attention away from methods and toward identity, positionality statements may actually increase bias.
By: Colin Wright
Published: Mar 28, 2025
Some readers may know that I often post ridiculous, ideology-driven academic papers and dissertations on X (formerly Twitter). It’s become a bit of a hobby—calling out how certain fields have drifted into performative activism disguised as serious scholarship. Some of the worst examples turn into full-blown posts here on Reality’s Last Stand, where I break down not just what’s wrong with them, but why everyone should care. However, there’s one academic trend that I repeatedly encounter but rarely highlight, perhaps because it’s become so common it fades into the background: the “reflexivity” or “positionality” statement.
I recently posted an especially absurd example on X, where the authors felt the need to let readers and potential reviewers know that they were all “cis-gender menstruating individuals who identify as intersectional feminists,” among other things.
Although these statements are most commonly found in the usual “woke” or “grievance studies” disciplines—fields that openly reject traditional scientific norms and standards—they are now creeping into mainstream, even top-tier, science journals. What started as a practice mostly limited to qualitative research in the social sciences has now spread much more widely. Take this example from a paper published in Nature Ecology & Evolution:
We should all certainly hope that the authors have been “educated in a predominantly Euro–American cultural context and scientific tradition,” given that the paper is published in a Europe-based science journal!
So what’s going on here? What exactly is a positionality statement, and why are researchers including them?
In short, a positionality (or reflexivity) statement is a formal acknowledgment by researchers of their own social identities—such as race, gender, class, sexuality, or other “lived experiences”—that may have shaped their perspective on the research topic. Think of it like a conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosure, except instead of revealing financial ties that might compromise a researcher’s objectivity, the author is confessing their social location and ideological commitments.
Supporters of this practice claim it promotes transparency. They say it’s just being honest: all people have biases, so why not acknowledge them up front? But the reasoning gets much more ideological than that. Their view isn’t just that people are shaped by their environment—which is obviously true—but that all knowledge is socially situated. This belief comes from a branch of feminist and postmodern philosophy known as “standpoint epistemology.” According to this view, people from marginalized groups enjoy a kind of “epistemic privilege”: because of their lived experiences, they are thought to have special access to certain truths, especially about oppression and injustice. However, this epistemic privilege has been extended to scientific truths as well. The fatal flaws in this philosophy will be made clear later on.
On the surface, positionality statements seem noble—who could be against reflection and transparency? But when you start looking at it more closely, many serious issues begin to surface.
The most thorough critique of positionality statements I’ve seen comes from a paper titled “Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research” by Jukka Savolainen, Patrick J. Casey, Justin P. McBrayer, and Patricia Nayna Schwerdtle, published in Perspectives on Psychological Science. In it, the authors lay out three major objections to the practice, each of which should give serious pause to anyone who believes science should be guided by evidence and logic instead of ideology.
Positionality Statements Are Fundamentally Flawed
The first objection is philosophical: positionality statements are inherently self-defeating. They attempt to disclose how a researcher’s identity may shape their perspective on a topic, but the very epistemology that justifies positionality statements—standpoint theory—also undermines the credibility of any such self-disclosure.
As Savolainen et al. point out, reflexivity statements are “constrained by the very positionality they seek to express.” The idea here is almost paradoxical: if your identity shapes and distorts your view of the world—including your ability to reflect on yourself—then your positionality statement is just as distorted as your research. “Like a scale that tries to weigh itself,” they write, “constructing a credible positionality statement is ultimately an impossible task.” If you genuinely believe that your social location biases everything you do, then the positionality statement you construct to describe that bias is already infected by the same problem.
Advocates of positionality statements might respond: Sure, nobody is perfectly objective, but researchers can still identify some facts about themselves—like race, sex, class, or gender identity—that provide readers with useful context. The authors acknowledge this objection. Yes, it is “quite easy for scholars to accurately report their biological sex, their gender identity, nationality, race/ethnicity, and many other personal characteristics.” These are, to some extent, knowable and reportable.
But as the authors rightfully highlight, those things are often the least relevant to the scientific content of a study: “We take issue with the assumption that these kinds of attributes—the listing of which dominates positionality statements—are particularly salient for any given study.” Just because a researcher is white or black, rich or poor, or “cis” or “trans,” doesn’t automatically mean those characteristics shaped the research process or interpretation in any meaningful way. And if they did, simply reporting them does not magically make that bias evaporate.
To drive the point home, the authors analyze a published positionality statement (below) by Elliott and Reid (2019), where two white women reflect on the “dangers” of writing about low-income black Americans.
The authors of this statement claim to be guided by “anti-racist, intersectional, and feminist principles” as a way of signaling their political virtue and awareness. But as Savolainen and his colleagues point out, why focus only on those traits? Why not mention other potentially relevant parts of their identity, like their religion, education, or personality? As the authors ask, “Why did the authors reflect on the ‘dangers’ of racial and class dynamics but seemed unbothered by their strongly expressed political commitments?”
Their point is that these statements often highlight only the identity traits that are currently popular or politically favored, while ignoring others that might matter just as much. This selective framing undermines the supposedly honest and reflective nature of the exercise, turning it into a performance, perhaps often crafted to align with disciplinary norms or to curry favor with reviewers and editors.
This leads to a tough but fair question: “Should the research community trust the authors themselves to decide which aspects of their lives need to be disclosed to people who read their research contributions? We think the answer is ‘no.’”
And this isn’t just a problem with one paper—it’s a problem with the entire practice. Positionality statements claim to reduce bias, but in reality they often just amplify the author’s subjectivity under the illusion of self-awareness.
The authors sum it up:
Our point is to illustrate the challenges involved in crafting a positionality statement of any kind. These kinds of statements are unpersuasive because academic scholars cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, claim to be burdened by their biography when conducting the research, yet, on the other hand, be emancipated from it while constructing a positionality statement. Fortunately, as we demonstrate next, this inescapable dilemma is not something that needs to be solved.
Positionality Statements Misdiagnose the Source of Scientific Bias
The second problem is that positionality statements focus on the wrong kind of bias. Bias in science does not primarily originate from individual characteristics—your race, gender, politics, or upbringing—but from a failure of the process by which knowledge is created, tested, and refined. Scientific bias is not reduced or eliminated by announcing your identity; it is reduced by rigorous methodology, peer review, replication, and being open to criticism.
As Savolainen and colleagues put it, “Positionality statements are beside the point: By focusing on the characteristics of participating scholars, these kinds of declarations miss the true sources of research bias—the field’s collective failure to adhere to the scientific ethos.” Science doesn’t work because scientists are unbiased—they aren’t. It works because the system is designed to push everyone’s ideas through a rigorous, competitive process that filters out error over time.
Ironically, by putting the spotlight on personal identity instead of scientific methods, positionality statements may actually increase bias. Instead of focusing on methods, data quality, and replicability, we are asked to judge research in part based on the author’s race, gender, or ideological alignment. That’s not objectivity—it’s just replacing one kind of bias with another.
Positionality Statements Undermine the Norms That Protect Science
Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, positionality statements erode the very norms that make science trustworthy in the first place—especially the principle of universalism. This is the idea that scientific claims should be judged by the strength of the evidence, not by who is making the claim. What matters is the quality of your data and reasoning, not your identity.
But when journals start asking (or requiring) researchers to include positionality statements, they flip that principle on its head. Instead of suppressing identity cues through double-blind peer review, we now ask authors to foreground them. That opens the door to identity-based favoritism, virtue signaling, and even manipulation. Authors may exaggerate or fabricate aspects of their biography if they believe it will help them get published. And let’s be honest: positionality statements are only encouraged in one direction. Progressive researchers are encouraged to share their “marginalized” identities or activist goals. No one is asking conservative, religious, or apolitical scholars to declare their “lived experiences” or ideological frameworks—unless to apologize for them.
As Savolainen and co-authors put it, positionality statements have become “a way for authors to signal their adherence to the ideological mainstream of a discipline.” It’s less about being transparent and more about proving you’re on the “right side.” Often, these statements read like a shield: “We are good and right-thinking researchers—please don’t peer-review us too hard.”
This gets to a deeper and more cynical interpretation of the trend. As I’ve often pointed out, there’s a growing body of academic work that looks more like propaganda in the language of scholarship. Positionality statements are part of that performance. Yes, it's true that personal identity and politics can influence research. But the idea that simply declaring your bias somehow cancels it out is ridiculous. In practice, it often does the opposite—it gives researchers permission to lean even harder into their bias while pretending to have neutralized it.
We all have biases—that's just part of being human. But science wasn’t created to embrace our personal views; it was built to help us control for them. The purpose of peer review, replication, and methodological rigor is not to validate personal perspectives but to test them against reality.
If we want a more inclusive, robust, and representative science, we should be pushing for better methods, open data, and viewpoint diversity—not more identity-based posturing. As Savolainen and colleagues argue, “the most productive path to increasing representation and reducing positional bias in research is to protect the freedom of scholarly inputs while insisting on methodological transparency and rigor.”
Science doesn’t need more confessionals. It needs more rigor.
==
This is the endorsement of the Genetic Fallacy as a moral imperative.
Xians tell me that I'm disqualified from criticizing Xianity because I'm not a Xian. Muslims tell me that what I have to say about the quran is irrelevant.
Except, neither of those things are true.
If you're giving "positionality statements," you're not doing science.
