It gets worse every day. The pushback has gained strength (and pushbackers), but the petulant whiny nonsense from team Gender Idenniny Gets To Cancel ANYTHING It Doesn’t Like gets worse and worse and worrrrrse.

Let’s do see that cancellation letter.

We write to inform you that at the request of numerous members the respective executive boards of AAA and CASCA reviewed the panel submission “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” and reached a decision to remove the session from the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference program(me). This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, the safety and dignity of our members, and the scientific integrity of the program(me). The reason the session deserved further scrutiny was that the ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large.

So they say, but I don’t believe them. I haven’t read the panel submission, but I know something about Carole Hooven and the attempts to shut her up, so I’m pretty confident I know what kind of “harm” they’re talking about, and how paltry and worked-up and ludicrous it is. These aren’t college kids high on their own virtue, remember, these are grown-ass academics, groveling to the entitled bed-wetters who think they own all mentions of sex and/or gender.

While there were those who disagree with this decision, we would hope they know their voice was heard and was very much a part of the conversation

Oh fuck off. Not everyone is in need of this kind of baby talk. The dissenters don’t care about “your voice was heard,” they care about the substance, and the plunge into idiocy this decision reflects.

It is our hope that we continue to work together so that we become stronger and more unified within each of our associations.

It is their hope that everyone swallows the Kool-Aid so that there will be no need for such discussions ever again.

Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion.

Why are tedious bureaucrats so in love with “going forward” as a replacement for “in the future” or “from now on” or just nothing? What is the point of adding “going forward” when they already have the future tense “will” in two places? Going forward, we will turn the lights out as we leave the room. Thanks for clarifying that.

Anyway, they’ll “undertake a major review” of how anyone managed to get heresy smuggled into their annual session. That should be enlightening.