Another apology extorted:

The vice-provost for education at Imperial College London, Professor Simone Buitendijk, has apologised for sharing anti-trans content on social media.

Buitendijk first offered her apologies to the university’s student newspaper Felix last Friday (May 10) in response to a letter by 86 members of the university’s staff and student body raising concerns about her “engagement with transphobic material and social media accounts.”

The letter referred specifically to Buitendijk following and ‘liking’ content from Twitter accounts belonging to anti-trans groups such as Transgender Trend—who campaign against supporting young trans people in their transition—and individuals.

That’s tendentiously, aka unfairly, worded. An alternative wording would be: “who campaign for supporting children and adolescents in rejecting gender stereotypes without resort to surgery or hormones.” The point is not a refusal to support young people but a disagreement about what is the best way to deal with gender nonconformity and dysphoria.

Most of the vice-provost’s social media activity relates to promoting women in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, opposition to sexism and misogyny[,] and support for LGBT rights and related events such as LGBT History Month.

But a closer look at the content she engaged with revealed a certain hostility to trans rights activism.

Maybe that’s because trans rights activism is so thoroughly and aggressively misogynist and often so antagonistic to LGB rights.

Joanna Wormald, deputy editor of the Felix newspaper, collected more than 50 screenshots, spanning at least six months, attesting to the vice-provost’s social media activity.

Thank god for the Joanna Wormalds of the world, yeah?

Among the content that the vice-provost has since deleted was a tweet dated October 30 in which she shared an article from TheGuardian article titled: “UK universities struggle to deal with ‘toxic’ trans row.”

In her tweet, she wrote: “As a feminist, M.D. and child health researcher, I find the notion of sex being fluid and gender being biological, engrained and dichotomous deeply troubling. That does not contradict that as VP Education I should protect trans students’ rights. We need respectful debate.”

And that’s forbidden, is it? So forbidden that she has to be forced to delete it and apologize, and Pink News needs to report breathlessly on it as if she were a mass murderer?

There are more examples of her thought crime which to not-crazy people look like thoughtful analysis.

Josef Willsher, a third year Physics student at Imperial College, first discovered Buitendijk’s apparent support for anti-trans views in April, by accident—Twitter suggested he followed certain accounts due to Buitendijk following them.

“I wasn’t the first to notice that but I was the first to consider writing a letter. I thought as a student it was my responsibility to bring this up,” he told PinkNews.

He approached the university’s Physics LGBT Allies Network, which he had joined soon after the group was formed last year, asking for advice on how to proceed. A few days after the group began drafting the letter and looked for backers, word of their effort reached the college management, who decided to meet with the network to discuss their concerns.

Buitendijk was present at two meetings, engaging in the discussion that, at times, became “quite heated,” in Willsher’s words.

“We appreciated the quick response from college and their willingness to meet with us. It was reassuring to see how they had taken it seriously and the discussions were productive,” he said.

The student also said Buitendijk got in touch via email over the Easter weekend—which fell in between the two meetings—to express how thankful she was that they came to her and how it was important they could raise the issue.

While they agreed to a resolution, Willsher felt it was important to bring the issue to the attention of the wider community. The letter was published in the student newspaper alongside statements from the university publicly acknowledging the issue, as well as Buitendijk’s apology.

It goes on and on and on. It’s all sickening.

There’s a petition to prevent women from talking.

We are members of the University of Edinburgh staff and student community concerned about the rise of transphobia on our campus. As a collective of PG students, we write this statement to unequivocally condemn transphobia.

The recent announcement of a transphobic ‘Women’s Sex-Based Rights’ event hosted by Edinburgh University Moray House on the 5th of June is unacceptable.

But was it in fact an announcement of a transphobic event? I’m betting it wasn’t. Let’s ask the Google.

Nope, that’s not what it’s called.

Women’s Sex-Based Rights: what does (and should) the future hold?
by The University of Edinburgh, Moray House School of Education

Nothing about transphobic. Let’s read the details.

The Institute for Education, Teaching and Leadership at the University of Edinburgh invites you to a discussion on the future for women’s sex-based rights, featuring a distinguished panel of feminist academics and activists. Whether you’re already familiar with the topic or whether you’re wondering what all the fuss is about (or somewhere in between), we’d love you to come, listen and participate in the discussion.

Earlier this year, feminists from across the world launched a Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. The Declaration is premised on the belief that women’s rights, as enshrined in the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), are at risk and need to be reaffirmed. The writers of the declaration say that, “Recent changes replacing references to the category of sex, which is biological, with the language of ‘gender’, which refers to stereotyped sex roles, in United Nations documents, strategies, and actions, has led to confusion which ultimately risks undermining the protection of women’s human rights. The confusion between sex and ‘gender’ has contributed to the increasing acceptability of the idea of innate ‘gender identities’… ultimately leading to the erosion of the gains made by women over decades.”

With sexism and misogyny still sadly much in evidence, are the writers of the Declaration justified in their belief that women’s sex-based rights are potentially being undermined? What protections are still needed? And what can, and should, be done to reassert and protect those rights, globally and here in Scotland? This multi-disciplinary panel will consider future ways forward for women’s rights in a world of complex sex and gender relations. There will be plenty of time for open discussion and all viewpoints are welcome, though we remind all participants that dialogue should be measured and respectful in tone.

Speakers:

Julie Bindel: Writer; co-founder of law-reform group Justice for Women
Professor Rosa Freedman: Professor of Law, Conflict and Global Development, University of Reading
Lucy Hunter Blackburn: Policy analyst, MurrayBlackburnMackenzie
Dr Louise Moody: Research Associate, Philosophy, University of York
Professor Sarah Pedersen: Professor of Communication and Media, Robert Gordon University

Chair:

Dr Gale Macleod: University of Edinburgh

It sounds good, doesn’t it. I’d go if it were nearer.

But the people behind the petition think it sounds evil. They want it stopped.

We are calling for this event to be cancelled immediately on the grounds that it: (1) affords credibility in an academic context to views expressing hate and phobic sentiments towards members of the University community, (2) puts our trans and non-binary colleagues and friends at risk of physical and psychological harm, (3) provides material support to speakers with a transphobic agenda, and (4) seems to contravene the University’s own policies on equality and diversity.

We disagree with the notion of transphobia as a legitimate academic debate. As feminist academics we welcome debates on the complexities of gender and sexuality but strongly believe that debates that are premised on denying the rights and legitimacy of a marginalized group in society are not fair debates.

There it is again. What rights? What rights are being denied? The putative right to say you’re a woman when what you mean is that you feel like a woman in your head despite having a male body? And to force the rest of the world to agree with your claim?

The University of Edinburgh should not be a safe-haven for hate speech. In facilitating this event, the University is allowing a situation to go ahead that will leave students and staff feeling unsafe, excluded, and unwelcome.

So let’s exclude women who want to talk about women’s rights. Fair?

Well that’s nice.

Over Memorial Day weekend, everyone who cares about the future of women’s sport saw their worst fears become a reality.

Transgender woman CeCe Telfer, who was born and raised as Craig Telfer and competed on the Franklin Pierce University men’s track and field team during her first three years of college, won the women’s 400-meter hurdles national title at the 2019 NCAA Division II Outdoor Track & Field Championships. Telfer dominated the competition, winning in 57.53 as second place was way back in 59.21.

Let’s all give CeCe a great big hand!

Prior to joining the women’s team this season, Telfer was a mediocre DII athlete who never came close to making it to nationals in the men’s category. In 2016 and 2017, Telfer ranked 200th and 390th, respectively, among DII men in the 400 hurdles (Telfer didn’t run outdoor track in 2018 as either a man or woman). Now she’s the national champion in the event simply because she switched her gender (Telfer’s coach told us that even though she competed on the men’s team her first three years, her gender fluidity was present from her freshman year).

Ah yes, of course it was. It sloshed around like a glass of beer on a sailboat. But what is “gender fluidity” exactly? Is it the propensity to become a woman when it’s time to run a race?

Ostensibly, the NCAA has a policy in place to protect cisgender women athletes and prevent male-to-female transgender athletes from dominating the women’s category. The NCAA transgender handbook states that an MTF transgender athlete must take “one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment” in order to compete in the women’s category, but the vagueness of that statement is remarkable. There is no mention of a minimum testosterone level that must be achieved or a minimum level of medication that must be taken, nor how those levels are to be monitored.

Never you mind. We must respect trans rights. Trans rights are human rights. Not respecting trans rights is transphobia. Is that clear?

The coach says Telfer won because he worked harder. Uh huh.

Again with the issue of truth versus free speech: Think Progress on Facebook’s breezy indifference to truth:

The latest instance of Facebook doubling down on its failure to avert the spread of misinformation came after an altered video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went viral on the social media platform last week. Facebook was widely criticized for refusing to take down the video — even after admitting that it had been doctored to make her look like she was slurring her words or drunk.

What was particularly shocking is that in defending this move, Facebook told the Washington Post, “We don’t have a policy that stipulates that the information you post on Facebook must be true.”

We now live in a world where “information” doesn’t have to be true.

Equally stunning is what Monika Bickert, the company’s head of global policy management, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday. “We think it’s important for people to make their own informed choice about what to believe,” Bickert said. “Our job is to make sure that we are getting them accurate information. And that’s why we work with over 50 fact-checking organizations around the world.”

But how can a doctored video be considered “accurate information”?

Facebook didn’t say.

This kind of thing.

SNP Students puts out a Statement (or Declaration or Affirmation or Prose Poem) on Twitter that is full of…no one can tell what.

At SNP students, we have one simple belief. Trans rights are human rights. No ifs, no buts. #TransAlly pic.twitter.com/8qEn1XWtfr

— SNP Students (@SNPStudents) April 17, 2019

Trans rights are human rights.

Ok, fine, but what are we talking about? What are trans rights exactly?

We believe that regardless of someone’s sexuality or gender identity they should be respected.

Ok, fine, but what are we talking about? “Respected” how? Not bullied or persecuted? Well, agreed, of course. Not disagreed with? That’s not “respect” and it’s not a “right.”

SNP Students will stand up for the rights of the trans community, we will continue to push for trans rights to be expanded and we will not hesitate to call out transphobia wherever we see it.

Ok, fine, but what are we talking about? Again, what rights exactly? And if they are expanded, what will those rights be? And what exactly is “transphobia”? Is it hatred and bullying? Or is it disagreeing?

It makes a difference.

The Guardian reports:

Boris Johnson has been summoned to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over claims that he lied by saying Britain gave £350m a week to the European Union.

This stems from a crowdfunded private prosecution.

Johnson lied and engaged in criminal conduct when he repeatedly claimed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the UK handed over the sum to Brussels, Westminster magistrates court was told last week by lawyers for a 29-year-old campaigner who has launched the prosecution bid.

The judge in the magistrates court has ruled that there’s enough to go to trial. There will be further hearings before a trial. By the time it goes to trial BoJo could be prime minister.

Acting for Johnson, Adrian Darbishire QC, told the court last week that the application by Ball had been brought for political purposes and was a “political stunt”.

“Its true purpose is not that it should succeed, but that it should be made at all. And made with as much public fanfare as the prosecution can engender,” he said. “The application represents an attempt, for the first time in English legal history, to employ the criminal law to regulate the content and quality of political debate. That is self-evidently not the function of the criminal law.”

However, in her ruling , the judge said she was satisfied there was a prima facie case for the allegation that there had been an abuse of the public’s trust in a holder of office.

She referred to statements provided by Ball’s team from members of the public that addressed the impact that “the apparent lie” had had on them. She also cited the contention by Lewis Power QC, counsel for Ball, that “there will seldom be a more serious misconduct allegation against a member of parliament or mayor than to lie repeatedly to the voting public on a national and international platform, in order to win your desired outcome”.

This is a recurring issue. Is lying part of free speech? Should believers in free speech be defending people’s right to lie?

Last week Facebook refused to take down a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi that made her look drunk or sick. Facebook said people should make up their own minds. But how can people “make up their own minds” about a doctored video? How can people “make up their own minds” about any lies or fakery when the whole point of lies and fakery is to convince people of an untruth?

There was no immediate reaction from Johnson but a source close to the MP said: “This prosecution is nothing less than a politically motivated attempt to reverse Brexit and crush the will of the people.”

But that just goes around the issue. What about the issue? Is it fair and legitimate free speech for a public official to tell a factual lie in aid of a desired political result?

The ruling was also criticised by fellow pro-Brexit Tories, including David Davies, who said it was “deeply sinister” that Johnson faced being “dragged” into court. He added on Twitter: “EU supporters falsely claimed that a leave vote would collapse the economy. No action being taken against them.”

Not the same thing. A mistaken prediction is not a lie. If BoJo had said “at the rate we’re going we will end up giving £350m a week to the European Union” that would not have been a lie. Predictions entail uncertainty; the claim that Britain gave £350m a week to the European Union was specific and checkable and false.

Not actually new; just tweaking the date.

Time for a new one.

An item or two I want to look into further.

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1064565119101865989

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1064556378054905856

We have never in American history seen an administration with such contempt for the Constitution, from Trump's launch with blatant violations like emoluments & the first Muslim Ban, to this continuing assault on @acosta & @cnn — and so the First Amendment. https://t.co/7TNdfpVirH

— Norm Eisen (#TryingTrump out now!) (@NormEisen) November 19, 2018

Okay four. We live in interesting times.

Ladies-only public pool in London made fully accessible to trans women. A GOOD MOVE. https://t.co/4HHkALmsrV

— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) May 28, 2019

A GOOD MOVE, shouts Peter Tatchell about a move that takes a women-only pool away from women, because Peter Tatchell doesn’t think women should have any right to get away from men in public places.

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1133419636819714048

Peter, this is so sad. Do you not see that women's rights to protection on the basis of their sex is important? You have been a campaigner all your life, you live for it & are respected for how you devote yourself to it. You have not & can NEVER lived the fenced life of a woman.

— AquatintDeliberatelyDefiantandDistasteful (@Aquatint) May 28, 2019

He got ratioed.

Huh. Jon Ronson’s squalid betrayal of Graham Linehan to the trans army yesterday wasn’t his first rodeo.

In case you were in any doubt about Jon ronson here he is yucking it up with transphobes underneath the women's march defending inclusivity pic.twitter.com/YUjXZgRis9

— Ewan (@jelly_pack) January 21, 2019

“yucking it up with transphobes”=joking with Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman. How very dare he. He must have told “@jelly_pack” to fuck off, right?

Uh – I am not transphobic and the only stuff I have ever written about trans people has been extremely positive, like this: https://t.co/MhpThlbX2G

— jon ronson (@jonronson) January 21, 2019

Hadley who? Never heard of her.

Another Twitter cop wasn’t going to let him get away with it that easily.

Ok. I was feeling a little silly and giddy last night and didn’t realize I was leaping into a minefield so I will delete that tweet.

— jon ronson (@jonronson) January 21, 2019

BAM! That was Hadley going under the bus.

Deleted now. I hope this train can now move on without me, as I find twitter storms extremely debilitating and anxiety-inducing.

— jon ronson (@jonronson) January 21, 2019

Please please please please do it to her, don’t do it to me.

Brief philosophy.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1132976462800121856

Remember, McKinnon teaches philosophy.

What does the poster communicate? “A person of a type claimed to be a potential threat was here at this toilet and nothing bad happened.” What does McKinnon want us to think it communicates? “A person of a type claimed to be a potential threat was here at this toilet and nothing bad happened, therefore nothing bad ever will happen when any person of that type is at any toilet anywhere.” I think that makes the problem reasonably clear? You can’t get from “this one incident involving one person at one place” to “all incidents involving all similar people at all places.”

It’s the so far so good fallacy – no that’s not a real fallacy, I just made it up. It’s not a good way to do risk assessment, or indeed prediction of any kind. It’s cloudy at the moment, so it will always be cloudy? No. The stock market didn’t crash today, so it never will? No. Banks didn’t fail today, so they never will? No.

The claim is not that all trans women will assault women in toilets every time there is a woman present to assault. The claim is that some men assault women when the conditions are right, and shared restrooms could present such conditions. The fact that one trans person used a toilet without harming anyone does nothing to address that claim. Nothing.

And yet McKinnon teaches philosophy.

None of the literal, physical, natal women were good enough. They never are, are they.

I think I can now announce that I have accepted the position of Director of Women's Studies at Rutgers University – Newark. Relatedly, we can finally answer the age-old question "how do I know when my transition is over?"

— Cat Fitzpatrick (@intermittentcat) May 21, 2019

Remember that story about the private Facebook group of male students at Warwick University that featured a lot of rape threats (virtual rape threats, since they were confined to the private group) against fellow students of the female persuasion? The BBC has a new documentary on it.

Early last year, Anna, then 19, was sitting on the sofa in her student house when a stream of explicit messages began popping up on her friend’s laptop.

As more came through, she asked him what they were about, and he laughed.

“He said: ‘Well, if you think that’s bad you might want to see our lads’ chat’,” Anna says. “That’s when he took me through a year and a half’s worth of rape threats.”

As she sat there, she saw in the Facebook chat that he and his friends had changed their names to those of notorious serial killers and serial rapists.

“They were talking about a fellow student. They were talking about abducting her, chaining her to the bed, making her urinate on herself, and then sleep in it.”

I wonder if anyone is shouting at the BBC for kink shaming yet. Isn’t abduction and chaining to the bed and piss play just innocent harmless kink? Isn’t talking about it even more innocent harmless kink?

At first, Anna says her male friend dismissed the chat’s contents as “how boys talk”, saying it was a joke.

She continued scrolling, taking screenshots as she went.

“I just told him that it was for my own peace of mind,” Anna says. “He could see me getting more upset and more upset. And I think that’s when it started to dawn on him that this was probably a lot more serious than he thought it was.”

So then he started to pretend he found it unacceptable too, but she wasn’t buying.

But as she flicked back through reams of messages about gang rape and genital mutilation, her instincts told her otherwise.

“I didn’t know what to do because these people [in the chat] were a huge part of my life,” she says.

She got panic attacks when she started preparing to go back, and at that point she decided to make a complaint. She and a friend did so and were told they would be interviewed. By? The university’s press officer – you know, the guy (yes, guy) in charge of protecting the university’s reputation.

As head of the press office, Peter Dunn was responsible for dealing with the media and protecting Warwick’s reputation as one of the top universities in the UK.

As investigating officer, he was responsible for examining misconduct allegations and recommending which punishments – if any – the men should face.

Mr Dunn held both of these roles, despite the case gaining national media attention after it was reported by the student paper The Boar.

In February 2019, the university admitted “the potential for conflict” between Mr Dunn’s two roles, but insisted relevant press duties were “delegated” during the investigation.

It’s downright Trumpian. “Certainly, we will hear your complaint, here is our PR person to ask you the questions.”

A month after the women were interviewed, five of the men involved in the chat were banned from the university. Two were banned for 10 years, two were banned for one year, and one was given a lifetime campus ban.

Anna and her friend said they were not kept informed of the outcome and instead found out in the press, meaning they didn’t know which punishments corresponded to which men.

But her case wasn’t closed – the two men who had been banned for 10 years appealed against the decision.

After a four-month wait – which the university put down in part to a staff member taking a late summer holiday – they had their bans reduced from 10 years to just one.

Anna and her friend were told there was “new information” but not what it was, or anything else that would justify that decision, a decision that meant they would have to be around these two men a year later. They protested but the vice chancellor told them the case was closed.

Oh well, it’s all just cis privilege, right?

I can’t help it, it made me laugh. I tried to scowl but I couldn’t sustain it – his solemnity, his toddler-careful word-saying, his little across-the-abdomen gesture, his use of the word “happy” – I crumbled and laughed helplessly.

To anyone unsure if Donald Trump was the dumbest human being alive…

He just wished a Happy Memorial Day to the JAPANESE Military pic.twitter.com/u5AIoL0Y2t

— ALBΞRT MacGloan (@AlbertMacGloan) May 28, 2019

One bit of good news though: UKIP did very badly in the elections and Tommy Robinson and (wait for it) yes Carl Benjamin got hosed.

Ukip candidate Carl Benjamin, also known as his YouTube name Sargon of Akkad, was also hit with milkshakes (and fish) on the campaign trail.

His policies were overshadowed by controversy over rape “jokes” he directed at Labour MP Jess Phillips, for which he refused to apologise.

Mr Benjamin appeared with right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been condemned for his remarks on subjects including feminism, paedophilia, trans people, race and religion, and has called for journalists to be shot.

He failed to win a seat in South West England, where Ukip won just 3 per cent of votes.

Eleven people have died on Everest so far this year.

Mountaineers have suggested difficult weather conditions, a lack of experience and the growing commercialization of expeditions as contributing factors to the backlog.

British climber Robin Haynes Fisher was one of those who had warned of the dangers of overcrowding.

“With a single route to the summit, delays caused by overcrowding could prove fatal so I am hopeful my decision to go for the 25th will mean fewer people. Unless of course everyone else plays the same waiting game,” he wrote in a captioned Instagram post on May 19.

He’s one of the eleven; he died on the way down.

During the week beginning May 20, crowds of climbers became stuck in a queue to the summit, above the mountain’s highest camp at 8,000 meters (26,247 feet). The summit of Mount Everest is 8,848 meters (29,029 feet) high.

If there’s any place on the entire planet you don’t want to get stuck in a queue it’s the last few meters of Everest.

Veteran climber David Morton spoke to CNN from base camp on the Tibetan side of Mt. Everest. He had just descended after getting around 100 meters from the summit for a research project.

“The major problem is inexperience, not only of the climbers that are on the mountain but also the operators supporting those climbers,” he explained. “Everest is primarily a very complicated logistical puzzle and I think when you have a lot of inexperienced operators as well inexperienced climbers along with, particularly, the Nepal government not putting some limitations on the numbers of people, you have a prime recipe for these sorts of situations happening.”

I don’t understand why people keep doing this, apart from the narcissistic desire to say you’ve done it. The reason it’s so difficult, the reason so few people have done it, is not because the climbing is ultra-skilled, it’s because it’s too high. It’s about the oxygen, not the climbing. That’s why it’s possible for rich people to climb it with minimal experience, and it’s why so many people die in the attempt. That’s not a test of skill, it’s just a test of how long you can survive at high altitude. Who cares how long anyone can survive at high altitude? It’s like a stunt, but an especially destructive, expensive, wasteful stunt. Everybody just cut it out.