UPDATE2: Glaciers, Gender, and Science - Now with more bickering!

[Silvanus]

First, you are looking at a different layer. You can study the effects of diverse backgrounds at a grade school which will definitely include the word "diverse" multiple times, but that does not make the data itself diverse. Consider that you look at diverse pictures. They're all jpegs. Are they diverse because the images themselves are diverse?
The data format is always the same. That is what I mean when I say that the findings can never be diverse.

That's just a scenario in which the format does not matter; it doesn't illustrate that diversity of source never matters, only that it doesn't matter in that scenario. Besides, even in that scenario, the images are diverse in content.

Second, a more thought-stimulating way to see it. What is diverse? In order to use the word you would have to take what is currently an amorphous and diffuse idea and make it concrete and quantifiable. Say that you have two precipitation rates in Brazil and Australia. When are they diverse? When they differ by 20%? When they differ by 44mm/year ? Can two rainfalls in Australia be diverse? Is it enough that 2 objects are diverse or must there be 3? Is it okay to only measure precipitation in deciding diversity or must location also be included? Is it a case of "delta-precipitation OR delta-location" or should it be "delta-precipitation AND delta-location"?

These questions would all depend on the study at hand, and they don't actually address the core question. Standards (for whether to include other aspects, how much they should differ by, etc) would be individually addressed in different studies/ contexts. Whatever the answers, it would remain true that to have information deriving from multiple sources is generally preferable to information deriving from a single source, which is diversity.

 

[Fallow]

That's just a scenario in which the format does not matter; it doesn't illustrate that diversity of source never matters, only that it doesn't matter in that scenario. Besides, even in that scenario, the images are diverse in content.

The core is that there can only be diversity in content not in structure if you want to compare things or look at similarities/dissimilarities. you can only compare apples and oranges if you consider their shared attributes (both have taste, both are sort of spherical etc). For a real life example, consider genomes; they are very different in content, but they are the same in structure and share many attributes.

You are also skipping the original argument, which was diversity does not exist as a concept within the scientific process.

These questions would all depend on the study at hand, and they don't actually address the core question. Standards (for whether to include other aspects, how much they should differ by, etc) would be individually addressed in different studies/ contexts.

Except those standards aren't standards as they are individual to each study, which again would mean each study would have individual definition for 'diverse'.

Whatever the answers, it would remain true that to have information deriving from multiple sources is generally preferable to information deriving from a single source, which is diversity.

If you are talking about source material for a study this is generally not the case as grabbing data from multiple sources result in multiple frameworks, formats, and structures that need to be converted and unified. This process introduces lots of room for mistakes not to mention that not all data is consistent. Some will have "age" for example while others do not. Some will use very specific descriptors while others are more general.

Also, I have yet to see a definition of diversity that includes data sources. It would count as 'different' though, so if your definition of diverse is different, it works.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Remember, if you don't have anything to say, use obtuse words and complex phrases!

If you're having trouble, let's go through these "obtuse words and complex phrases" and I'll break them down into simple words.

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014).

Thoughts about bad things men did to women and thoughts about bad things white people did to people with other skin colours are good when you think them at the same time. Because the reasons why white people did bad things and the reasons why men did bad things are sometimes the same reasons, and also because women and people with different colours of skin to white people skin were not allowed to talk very much in the past.

Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science

I started thinking about glaciers at the same time as thinking about bad things women did to men because I noticed that previously people have been thinking about science while also thinking about bad things women did to men and bad things white people did to people with different skin colours (wow, that's a lot of things to be thinking about at the same time!) When I think about glaciers I think a lot about how men and women are treated differently by other people, and also how people who do science and stuff are sometimes different from each other and how this might change the way they do science. I also tried to think about how people with different skin colours who aren't scientists think about glaciers, and how those people might not be allowed to talk very much because of bad things white people did to people with different skin colours and because some countries with lots of white people in them used to like sending people with guns to other countries to tell them what to do. Also, I think about how sometimes people get treated differently even when it's a bit unfair, especially when men and women get treated differently. Anyway, it's kind of weird that we don't let people who aren't scientists talk about glaciers any more, right?

These aren't "buzzwords", by the way, they're technical terms. Pretty basic technical terms, in fact.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

To be perfectly honest, and with the best will in the world, this is an incredibly stupid waste of taxpayer money. It is also a trivially small amount of wasted money in terms of the government's budget.

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

Structures of power and domination also stimulated the first large-scale ice core drilling projects - these archetypal masculinist projects to literally penetrate glaciers and extract for measurement and exploitation the ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

Literally. Literally. Literally penetrated. And exploited. Stimulated, dominated, penetrated. The ice cores. I'm talking about ice cores.

Spoiler: Video

This study is a treasure-trove. It's marvelous.

Remember, if you don't have anything to say, use obtuse words and complex phrases!

If you're having trouble, let's go through these "obtuse words and complex phrases" and I'll break them down into simple words.

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014).

Thoughts about bad things men did to women and thoughts about bad things white people did to people with other skin colours are good when you think them at the same time. Because the reasons why white people did bad things and the reasons why men did bad things are sometimes the same reasons, and also because women and people with different colours of skin to white people skin were not allowed to talk very much in the past.

Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science

I started thinking about glaciers at the same time as thinking about bad things women did to men because I noticed that previously people have been thinking about science while also thinking about bad things women did to men and bad things white people did to people with different skin colours (wow, that's a lot of things to be thinking about at the same time!) When I think about glaciers I think a lot about how men and women are treated differently by other people, and also how people who do science and stuff are sometimes different from each other and how this might change the way they do science. I also tried to think about how people with different skin colours who aren't scientists think about glaciers, and how those people might not be allowed to talk very much because of bad things white people did to people with different skin colours and because some countries with lots of white people in them used to like sending people with guns to other countries to tell them what to do. Also, I think about how sometimes people get treated differently even when it's a bit unfair, especially when men and women get treated differently. Anyway, it's kind of weird that we don't let people who aren't scientists talk about glaciers any more, right?

These aren't "buzzwords", by the way, they're technical terms. Pretty basic technical terms, in fact.

Do this one:

Conscious of this position, the feminist glaciology framework asks that researchers accept a plurality of knowledges and recognize embedded systems of domination. The goal is neither to force glaciologists to believe that glaciers listen nor to make indigenous peoples put their full faith in scientists' mathematical equations and computer-generated models (devoid of meaning, spirituality, and reciprocal human-nature relationships). Rather, the goal is to understand that environmental knowledge is always based in systems of power discrepancies and unequal social relations, and overcoming these disparities requires accepting that multiple knowledges exist and are valid within their own contexts.

But keep it simple. Remember I'm not a feminist glaciologist.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

You absolutely destroyed any credibility you might have had by pretending the paper cost $412,930 and then pretending the paper is about gendering glaciers, lies you had to know were being told by the response articles in order shut down rational thought about the paper in order to push a political agenda.

Coming from you this is a compliment. Thank you.

So if you want to bring specific complaints against the paper for consideration then maybe we can talk. But I am not going to trust your overall judgement on this.

Hence why we have a thread? I'm not sure why you feel I created this specifically for you.

I don't think you made it specifically for me, but I did think we were discussing the validity of this paper. The argument you gave me on if the paper is valid revolved around your general opinion that the paper was junk, with the insistence that you are qualified to make that judgement. But your general judgement and insistence is not good enough even if you are qualified because you have demonstrated your willingness to lie about it (or at least repeat lies you heard without verification) and double down on those lies and misrepresentations when challenged. Which is why I am insisting you provide actual reasons instead of vague generalities.

But I mean, if you don't want to discuss it on those terms that is totally fine.

 

[Silvanus]

The core is that there can only be diversity in content not in structure if you want to compare things or look at similarities/dissimilarities. you can only compare apples and oranges if you consider their shared attributes (both have taste, both are sort of spherical etc). For a real life example, consider genomes; they are very different in content, but they are the same in structure and share many attributes.

This is, again, picking an individual example in which structure (or format) does not matter. There are others in which they do, such as a psychological study aiming to present a representative sample of a population. If it failed to appropriately or accurately present a cross-section of that population, it would be a significant negative point for that study's validity.

You are also skipping the original argument, which was diversity does not exist as a concept within the scientific process.

That argument is rather invalidated by any of the examples in use here. Even the examples you yourself have used, of diversity in content, still rely on the concept of diversity.

Except those standards aren't standards as they are individual to each study, which again would mean each study would have individual definition for 'diverse'.

This doesn't follow. If they're individual to each study, how does that make them not "standards"? Different fields will have different bars for statistical significance, too, but it would be ridiculous to conclude from this that statistical significance can't be used as a standard at all, because it differs from field to field.

If you are talking about source material for a study this is generally not the case as grabbing data from multiple sources result in multiple frameworks, formats, and structures that need to be converted and unified. This process introduces lots of room for mistakes not to mention that not all data is consistent. Some will have "age" for example while others do not. Some will use very specific descriptors while others are more general.

Well, of course it does. Any meta-study will pull data from multiple sources, for example. Obviously you need to adapt to fit a single framework if you're going to be meta-analysing it. That's par for the course.

 

[Something Amyss]

Cost-saving measure, they'll be able to avoid using lube.

Hell, they can say she's dripping wet without even working blue. Though I imagine that defeats much of the purpose of a porn parody.

To be perfectly honest, and with the best will in the world, this is an incredibly stupid waste of taxpayer money. It is also a trivially small amount of wasted money in terms of the government's budget.

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

Let's be honest, this wouldn't even be a story if it didn't push the feminist outrage button.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Conscious of this position, the feminist glaciology framework asks that researchers accept a plurality of knowledges and recognize embedded systems of domination. The goal is neither to force glaciologists to believe that glaciers listen nor to make indigenous peoples put their full faith in scientists' mathematical equations and computer-generated models (devoid of meaning, spirituality, and reciprocal human-nature relationships). Rather, the goal is to understand that environmental knowledge is always based in systems of power discrepancies and unequal social relations, and overcoming these disparities requires accepting that multiple knowledges exist and are valid within their own contexts.

While I am thinking about the stuff I've just said, I think it's a good thing for science people to think about how different people sometimes think different things, and that sometimes when they think those things they can't say them because then people who have lots of money and guns and louder voices would tell them their thoughts were bad thoughts and that they had to think different things instead. I'm not saying that glaciers actually listen to what people say or that people who think they do are right, but I also don't think people who have different coloured skin to white people should be told they have to think like science people because science people have lots of numbers and machines which tell them they're right, because sometimes people think they can talk to glaciers and stuff and science people don't like that. But yeah, I think that when we talk about the planet and stuff which happens on it we should try to think about how the way we think is different to the way other people think, and sometimes people like to point and laugh at other people who think differently and say how they're wrong, but they can only do that really because they have lots of money and guns and there are more of them. I think we should try to stop thinking people are right because they have all the money and guns, and instead just think that people have different thoughts and that shouldn't make us angry or sad because we can just be kind of okay with that and not feel like we need to tell other people they're wrong all the time.

I mean, is this just a vocabulary issue. These concepts are hardly difficult to understand..

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

While I am thinking about the stuff I've just said, I think it's a good thing for science people to think about how different people sometimes think different things, and that sometimes when they think those things they can't say them because then people who have lots of money and guns and louder voices would tell them their thoughts were bad thoughts and that they had to think different things instead. I'm not saying that glaciers actually listen to what people say or that people who think they do are right, but I also don't think people who have different coloured skin to white people should be told they have to think like science people because science people have lots of numbers and machines which tell them they're right, because sometimes people think they can talk to glaciers and stuff and science people don't like that. But yeah, I think that when we talk about the planet and stuff which happens on it we should try to think about how the way we think is different to the way other people think, and sometimes people like to point and laugh at other people who think differently and say how they're wrong, but they can only do that really because they have lots of money and guns and there are more of them. I think we should try to stop thinking people are right because they have all the money and guns, and instead just think that people have different thoughts and that shouldn't make us angry or sad because we can just be kind of okay with that and not feel like we need to tell other people they're wrong all the time.

I mean, is this just a vocabulary issue. These concepts are hardly difficult to understand..

Maybe that's what it means to a member of the cis-het exclusionary imperialist white male binary gender dominant colonialist right-wing Christian patriarchy dominated by western science. But that interpretation utterly fails to include the perspective of indigenous people like me. Don't you see that it's predicated on power relations of western domination? It's not valid in my context. Yours, perhaps, but not mine. That interpretation precludes my religious beliefs entirely. Did you even think to ask? I think that quote is Sun-Ra summoning us from beyond the grave. Now I'm not saying you have to believe that, but you have to respect that multiple knowledges are valid in science.

Please don't look down on me because I cannot understand the study without someone to interpret it for me. I told you I'm a simple man and not so wise in the ways of science.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

...Right...

The term "exclusionary" is normally used with a preceding noun or adjective to which it refers, the thing which is being excluded. In this case, the referent would be "cis-het", so what you're saying is that the "patriarchy" of which I am a "member" (because people are "members" of patriarchy now) is exclusionary to cisgendered heterosexuals, which I don't think is what you meant to say.

"Imperialist" "white" and "male" should have commas between them.

"Binary" and "gender" are nouns, not adjectives, so you can't include them in a sequence of adjectives. The only possible meaning they could have here is as the referent for "dominant", so again we're left with the clunky phrase "binary gender dominant" (which should be hyphenated, or better still replaced with the technically correct term which would be "heteronormative"). Moreover, a "binary-gender-dominant patriarchy" is a tautology.

"Colonialist", "right-wing" and "christian", again should have commas separating them. I'm not sure I get why you included the latter two anyway, since they're totally out of context with the tone you're trying to parody and just make it sound like (shock, horror) you don't actually understand anything about the genre of academic literature you're trying to mock.

Your error is you seem uncomfortable accepting that knowledge is situated in particular places and contexts. You don't get that values and morals related to textual interpretation vary across cultures. Your interpretation exists within and facilitates systems of colonial expansion, capitalist resource extraction, and the subjugation of my indigenous peoples.

That is a legitimate criticism, and one which I would actually agree with you 100% on.

I think the crude use of postcolonial theory exhibited in the article plays into essentialist and mutually oppositional binary notions of Western and indigenous identities which are themselves the product of colonial imaginaries reproduced and reiterated within the Western academy, and which therefore cannot be used to dismantle prevailing power relations in which they themselves are implicated.

I didn't say the article fails to include the perspective of indigenous people like me. Your interpretation of the article is what I was criticizing.

Or in simpler terms, I think it's silly for science people to think they are letting people who have skin shades different to white people speak when those people still need a science person to come and write about them and tell everyone how different all their thoughts are before anyone will listen to what they are saying. It seems to me like the science people still have the loud voices in that situation, even if they are pretending to be nice to the people who have different colour skin to white people skin, because they are still deciding what the people with different colour skin to white people are trying to say and they've already decided it's completely different to what they, as science people, actually think.

But then, I don't think we can expect environmental historians to be particularly skilled or nuanced postcolonial theorists and herein lies the key institutional problem, I think, with the project they're trying to propose. Academia is a highly specialized world, and when a person tries to mix too many skills often they just end up sucking at some of them.

It's also full of pretentious horseshit about glacier rape and scientists accepting that the smell of grease moving glaciers is valid in its context.

Who mentioned "religious belief"?

You didn't even consider my spirituality in your interpretation of the text. I certainly cannot let that go.

Again, I know you're trying to be funny but it's not working because you're not familiar enough with the source material to actually mimic it correctly.

Wait now you're correcting me for incorrectly interpreting the source material? I read it. You just picked out excerpts and made up what you want them to say.

If I were to look down on you, it would be because I presume at some point someone tried very hard to teach you how to read and comprehend basic English, and it's starting to seem like they failed.

You're not interpreting anything, you're seeing shapes in clouds. You write what you want them to think, not what they wrote in their own document. What you're trying to do is literally penetrate the text with a masculinist penis to find a more agreeable interpretation then what is actually written, because interpreting it as written would mean acknowledging there is a lot of holy horseshit in there.

 

[Fallow]

I'm just gonna do two parts here to start with, because i think that will clear things up.

That argument is rather invalidated by any of the examples in use here. Even the examples you yourself have used, of diversity in content, still rely on the concept of diversity.

The scientific process regards the formal steps within research and how to do it all properly, it does not concern itself with specific contents.

This doesn't follow. If they're individual to each study, how does that make them not "standards"? Different fields will have different bars for statistical significance, too, but it would be ridiculous to conclude from this that statistical significance can't be used as a standard at all, because it differs from field to field.

A standard must be widely adopted. If an entire field would adopt the same measurement cutoffs, that would be a standard, but we are talking about each individual study using their own cutoffs which does not qualify as a standard. Statistical significance is used across multiple fields.

Well, of course it does. Any meta-study will pull data from multiple sources, for example. Obviously you need to adapt to fit a single framework if you're going to be meta-analysing it. That's par for the course.

Yes, a meta-study will need to gather results from multiple sources. That's why I pre-faced "If you are talking about source material for a study..." The text is also pretty explicit. Let's do it again:

Whatever the answers, it would remain true that to have information deriving from multiple sources is generally preferable to information deriving from a single source, which is diversity.

If you are talking about source material for a study this is generally not the case as grabbing data from multiple sources result in multiple frameworks, formats, and structures that need to be converted and unified. This process introduces lots of room for mistakes not to mention that not all data is consistent. Some will have "age" for example while others do not. Some will use very specific descriptors while others are more general.

Well, of course it does. Any meta-study will pull data from multiple sources, for example. Obviously you need to adapt to fit a single framework if you're going to be meta-analysing it. That's par for the course.

Is it preferable to have more room for error? I think you've gone from arguing that it's preferable to use multiple sources to that it's possible to use multiple sources or that sometimes it's required, two points which I do not contend.

 

[Fallow]

... and double down on those lies and misrepresentations when challenged.

This is usually called "clarify and expand". Is this a case of Freedom Fighter => Terrorist?

 

[Fallow]

Remember, if you don't have anything to say, use obtuse words and complex phrases!

If you're having trouble, let's go through these "obtuse words and complex phrases" and I'll break them down into simple words.

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014).

Thoughts about bad things men did to women and thoughts about bad things white people did to people with other skin colours are good when you think them at the same time. Because the reasons why white people did bad things and the reasons why men did bad things are sometimes the same reasons, and also because women and people with different colours of skin to white people skin were not allowed to talk very much in the past.

Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science

I started thinking about glaciers at the same time as thinking about bad things women did to men because I noticed that previously people have been thinking about science while also thinking about bad things women did to men and bad things white people did to people with different skin colours (wow, that's a lot of things to be thinking about at the same time!) When I think about glaciers I think a lot about how men and women are treated differently by other people, and also how people who do science and stuff are sometimes different from each other and how this might change the way they do science. I also tried to think about how people with different skin colours who aren't scientists think about glaciers, and how those people might not be allowed to talk very much because of bad things white people did to people with different skin colours and because some countries with lots of white people in them used to like sending people with guns to other countries to tell them what to do. Also, I think about how sometimes people get treated differently even when it's a bit unfair, especially when men and women get treated differently. Anyway, it's kind of weird that we don't let people who aren't scientists talk about glaciers any more, right?

These aren't "buzzwords", by the way, they're technical terms. Pretty basic technical terms, in fact.

let's see...
You don't understand what obtuse and complex (or phrase) means. That's okay, not everyone has to be an award-winning author. You don't seem to understand the difference between science and a blog. That's fine, it takes all kinds. You don't know what 'buzzwords' means. That's fine, not everyone does.

Instead of continuing this conversation I will refer you to Arctic Werewolf; what he's doing is a lot more fun.

Cheerios and thanks for the translation!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ok from my understanding of this.

"Why does feminism come into this?"

Well firstly it's not Feminism but inter-sectional feminism which pro-ports to be about the overlapping systems of oppression in society so not just sexism but homophobia, racism, transphobia, islamaphobia, fatphobia etc.

"what does this have to do with geology / glaciology?"

Well for a few years at least Feminists have been pushing to replace Science with Indigenous Science.

For those who don't know what Indigenous science is well it's a blend of holistic approaches and tolerance of cultural ideas rejected by regular old racist science because it's racist as such in Indigenous science such revolutionary things as unproven herbal medicine and the use of psychics is allowed and the truth is not determines by the what the results tell you but by the great forever memory speaking through whoever is determined to have the most powerful connection to it. And if that sounds like a load of bollocks it's because it is.

What you have said is a load of bollocks, yes.

Feminism has nothing to do with that. Feminism is about gender issues, which that has nothing to do with. Now, yes, certainly there'd be some feminists that believe in that, but then there'd be some Irish people believing in that, I don't see the Celtic Tiger being brought up.

There's a common trend to view anything "lefty" as the same, this really isn't the case.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You don't understand what obtuse and complex (or phrase) means.

Maybe not. But I understand that none of those phrases are complex (except to the degree that all phrases can be considered "complex") and none of those words are obtuse.

You don't seem to understand the difference between science and a blog.

Look at the researchers. They have biographies at the end of the article.

Are any of them scientists?

I think it's you who doesn't understand what science is, or what disciplinary boundaries are.

You don't know what 'buzzwords' means.

I know enough to know that the way you're using it here is a buzzword.

Instead of continuing this conversation I will refer you to Arctic Werewolf; what he's doing is a lot more fun.

Agreed. Try harder next time.

 

[wizzy555]

Ok from my understanding of this.

"Why does feminism come into this?"

Well firstly it's not Feminism but inter-sectional feminism which pro-ports to be about the overlapping systems of oppression in society so not just sexism but homophobia, racism, transphobia, islamaphobia, fatphobia etc.

"what does this have to do with geology / glaciology?"

Well for a few years at least Feminists have been pushing to replace Science with Indigenous Science.

For those who don't know what Indigenous science is well it's a blend of holistic approaches and tolerance of cultural ideas rejected by regular old racist science because it's racist as such in Indigenous science such revolutionary things as unproven herbal medicine and the use of psychics is allowed and the truth is not determines by the what the results tell you but by the great forever memory speaking through whoever is determined to have the most powerful connection to it. And if that sounds like a load of bollocks it's because it is.

What you have said is a load of bollocks, yes.

Feminism has nothing to do with that. Feminism is about gender issues, which that has nothing to do with. Now, yes, certainly there'd be some feminists that believe in that, but then there'd be some Irish people believing in that, I don't see the Celtic Tiger being brought up.

There's a common trend to view anything "lefty" as the same, this really isn't the case.

What he's talking about is post-modern epistemic relativism, which overlaps with post-modern feminism (see 90s science wars) which somewhat overlaps with intersectional-feminism.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What he's talking about is post-modern epistemic relativism, which overlaps with post-modern feminism (see 90s science wars) which somewhat overlaps with intersectional-feminism.

Sure, there are overlaps, but the issue is not inherently part of feminism, nor is feminism inherently part of it.

Re-reading the post though, I might have misread, I interpreted "feminists" to mean "all/most feminists", where it might have been "some feminists".