But in this case you are wrong, and this isn't reddit.

>I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works.

"A true discipline has poor science". This is a variation of No True Scotsman. QED.

>I gave you sources to back that up

You gave no sources that backed anything up. You came in with a huge non sequitur that doesn't even follow the original posts. The GP asked for what other fields are considered "grievance studies" and I copied and pasted a quote from the article that covers the inventors of the term: The trio referred to several academic fields—postcolonial theory, gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory, intersectional feminism, and fat studies—as "grievance studies" because, according to Pluckrose, such areas begin "from the assumption of a grievance" and then bend "the available theories to confirm it".

>Also, gender studies is not really classified as a social science

It's not a science at all, but it regularly falls in the sphere of social science as related/integrated.

> I did Google "replication crisis gender studies" and didn't find much--I'm not sure how a replication crisis can extend to a largely theoretical discipline that doesn't really conduct classical scientific studies?

You must be terrible at Google because apparently you didn't even come across the original article I posted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

"highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and eroding criteria in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention."

>You just said you don't classify the field as a science so clearly it wouldn't.

A subject does not have to be classified as a "science" to have studies with replication issues. This being a prime example. You just proved my point. QED.

>I was supporting my first point which you seem to have misunderstood.

You haven't made any points, or you tried and failed.

>I'm qualifying a larger trend I have observed.

Anecdotal non sequitur as I stated. Nothing to do with the GP or my reply.

>You're the one who started this discussion about your own feelings towards the field--you just didn't qualify your comment as subjective, which it is.

I didn't start the discussion, the OP did. You're fractally wrong. And it's not my feelings, it's objective fact.

>If I were you I'd say strawman :-)

No you wouldn't because you're wrong, I'm not.