I had to stop and say om for a long time.

Just kidding. I never say om.

Anyway, the Times goes on:

Lawford-Smith, an associate professor in political philosophy at Melbourne University, hit back, saying: “Obviously, almost none of what Eugenia says is true”. She described her comments as the “familiar sort of ludicrous hyperbole coming from trans activists”.

Speaking of ludicrous hyperbole, she didn’t “hit back,” obviously; she responded. She disagreed. She retorted.

She said: “Oxford University Press must not let a small group of zealots control its processes. Freedom of inquiry is of paramount importance and should be protected at all costs, whether the threat to it comes dressed up in social justice costume or otherwise. The idea that feminism about females could be fairly characterised as either genocidal or fascist is just absurd.”

Absurd but also frankly abusive. One it’s a lie, and two it’s defamatory.

Proponents of gender-critical feminism, also known by opponents as trans-exclusionary radical feminists, believe biological sex should be prized above gender identity, and therefore trans women are not women.

Oh come on. Do better, Times. It’s not about “prizing” one or the other more highly ffs, it’s about reality. Gender identity can’t change what sex people are, just as fairy tales, religion, a really long conversation, and greeting cards can’t change what sex people are. Trans women are not women because they’re men.

It was news that a second book, Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy, would be published which led Zuroski to withdraw her upcoming title, A Funny Thing: The Undisciplined Eighteenth Century.

Zuroski doesn’t deserve the Eighteenth Century. It’s better than she is.