Dominic Lawson in the Mail part 2:

…the Today programme interviewed Veronica Ivy, born male, but who as Rachel McKinnon (I know, it’s confusing) became the first transgender world track cycling champion in 2018, at an event for women in the 35 to 44 age bracket.

Wait a second, let’s talk about why it’s confusing. It’s confusing because Rhys McKinnon changed his first name to Rachel because he Became a Woomonn, but then he changed the whole thing to Veronica Ivy because ?????? I don’t think he ever said why – it appears to be just another bit of attention-getting weirdness.

Armed with the knowledge that peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrate that, even after the testosterone reduction sporting bodies have demanded of trans women entering female competition, those born male have unique physical advantages, Nick Robinson put it to Ivy: ‘You can’t undo male puberty…do you accept that?’

Peer-reviewed scientific papers along with what we all know because we live in the world.

Ivy responded, astonishingly: ‘People have claimed that, but the scientific evidence does not support that.’ Or perhaps not so astonishing, as Ivy has advocated that ‘in some special contexts, we can lie’.

But when Robinson asked the obvious consequential question, ‘Why don’t we just abolish women’s sport, if that’s the case?’, Ivy repeatedly refused to answer.

Because what would he say?

Dominic Lawson writes (in the Daily Mail, usual apologies apply) about not getting abuse for writing about the mismatch between trans demands and women’s rights:

As it turned out, I encountered no abuse at all, just a lot of mail from female readers of this newspaper to the effect that they were delighted I was speaking up for them. 

Yet I am sure that if I were a woman and had written such a column in the issue of April 8, 2019, I would indeed have been monstered on social media, especially Twitter.

Look at what has happened to J.K. Rowling, who has endured death threats and the foulest of personal abuse after she defended Maya Forstater.

And what happened to Maya, and what happened to Kathleen Stock, and what happened to Julie Bindel, and on and on.

Whatever the reasons, it is an observable fact that women, regardless of the issues under discussion, receive much more toxic abuse on social media, and generally, than men. We call this misogyny, and it is a real thing.

It’s a real thing, and like trans activism, and gender critical feminism, and other ideas and trends and movements, it gains fuel and momentum and recruits via social media. That doesn’t explain the discrepancy between the abuse women get and that “thanks for talking about this” that Lawson got though.

But I had another explanation, which is that women, such as Dr Stock and Maya Forstater, who say, ‘You can’t change biological sex’ are telling those who are born male but feel viscerally that they are ‘in the wrong body’: sorry, but we won’t let you into our club.

For many trans women (though by no means all), this is an appalling insult, and actively cruel. Whereas I, as a man, am entirely irrelevant to this and possess nothing that they want.

That’s not an explanation though, it’s just the same question restated. Why isn’t it every bit as much an appalling insult and actively cruel when men say it to trans men? Why is it appalling and cruel coming from women but not coming from men?

Setting that aside, this idea that it’s an appalling insult and actively cruel to say a man is not a woman is a new and silly belief that ought to fade away. (Sudden vanishing would be even better, but we have to deal with realities.) Men are by definition adults, and adults are generally expected to leave their fantasies and pretendings at home. There’s a very broad exception carved out for religion, but then that’s why workplaces generally don’t encourage proselytizing. Most of the time in most situations we’re really not expected to endorse and believe other people’s fictions. It’s too much to ask, and it’s silly. Imagine Charlie from down the block comes bouncing up to you in a Superman costume and expects you to pretend he is Superman. Come on. Life isn’t like that. So how did it suddenly become like that on this one particular brand of pretending? Here comes Charlie in a skirt and tottery shoes, so we have to pretend he’s a laydee? Give me a break.

India Willoughby doesn’t get it.

And there’s more. Lots more.

Not jealous, no no, not at all.

Soooooooo let’s just start over from the beginning as if nobody had ever said anything over the past 5 or 10 years, that should be fun and productive.

In comes a flood of replies and quote tweets saying “You know where: everywhere except women-only spaces.”

This I think is partly the fault of all those Guardian and BBC and Independent pieces talking about trans people and transgender activists when what they mean is trans women. The media carefully obfuscate the issue, so it’s not entirely surprising that LP loses track. The media have trained her, and others, to lose track.

It’s still annoying though.

Ev. Ree. Where.

Yes but where though?

The riddle is “how are feminists like racists and anti-Semites?” and the answer is they’re not.

Feminists who fear [that] a radical overhaul of transgender laws in Scotland will threaten their rights and safety have been compared to racists and anti-Semites by a minister in Nicola Sturgeon’s government.

A woman, at that.

Lorna Slater, who was handed a ministerial post last year under the SNP’s coalition pact with the Greens, was accused of making “grossly offensive” remarks as she appeared to demand that media organisations censor critics of the Scottish Government plans.

In remarks about the trans rights debate published on Sunday, she said the BBC had “only recently stopped putting on climate deniers because they required balance”. She added: “We wouldn’t put balance on the question of racism or anti-Semitism, but we allow this fictional notion of balance when it comes to anti-trans [views]. The whole thing is disgusting.”

The views are not “anti-trans.” Gender critical feminists don’t want to harm trans people. We dispute the ideology about sex and gender that tells people how to think about people who say they are the opposite sex.

The SNP/Green Government at Holyrood recently published legislation that would allow anyone aged 16 or over born or resident in Scotland to change their legal sex by self-identification, removing the need for a medical diagnosis or doctor’s approval.

It seems to me if you think about it really hard for 30 seconds or so you can see how that arrangement could damage some rights of women.

Ms Slater’s comments, to The Herald on Sunday, came after Shona Robison, the SNP minister steering the legislation through Holyrood, called for a “respectful” debate without “offensive or abusive” comments on either side.

However, Ms Slater, who is entitled to a salary of £98,000 in her role as biodiversity minister, said a perceived backlash against the trans community was “hideous” and that she feared for the safety of trans women standing as Green candidates in the council elections.

“These gentle, hardworking women are being portrayed as if they’re inherently dangerous,” she said. “It couldn’t be further from the truth.”

Interesting choice of words. “Gentle.” I guess that’s supposed to cancel our awareness that they’re men? But that’s the problem, see – we don’t want that awareness canceled. Our safety depends on it, and so do some of our rights. I understand that that’s painful to some men who identify as trans, but I still think we get to defend our safety and rights all the same.

Meanwhile of course this is fine.

Do what we tell you or we will kill you.

The pink blue and white flag is sacred.

The University of Melbourne said they have counselled one of their academics over a ‘transphobic’ post on social media on Transgender Day of Visibility.

And the next thing we see is a trigger warning – not a warning about misogyny or anti-feminism but a warning about, of course, “transphobia.” I wonder if stories about violence against women include trigger warnings after the first paragraph.

Trigger Warning: This story has details of a transphobic post, which might be distressing to some readers. For 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention call Lifeline on 13 11 14. For Australia-wide LGBTQI peer support call QLife on 1800 184 527 or webchat.

Any numbers for women to call? No? Sorry, stupid and selfish of me to ask.

Faculty of Arts Associate professor Holly Lawford-Smith on March 31, had posted a photo of a trans pride flag painted on the premises of the University in a Facebook group. The post said, “every entrance to unimelb today” and was accompanied by vomit emojis.

I wonder if there are feminist flags at every entrance to unimelb on any day of the year.

Australian drag performer Pauline Pantsdown was the first to call out the post. “Amazed that The University of Melbourne is fine with an Assoc. Prof posting vomit emojis about the existence of some students. Her research focused on climate ethics when hired; in 2018 became radicalised into anti-transgender activism & took over a feminism course. Zero priority for student safety.” 

Man who calls himself Pantsdown seeks to silence feminist woman. Naturally.

Unless they’re feminist women, of course.

Last week Grace Lavery, this week Veronica Ivy.

Now, maybe the idea is to give these creepy misogynist men the rope to hang themselves with, but is it worth it? And maybe that isn’t the idea, maybe the idea is just provocative, name recognition, noise. Rhys McKinnon is a loathsome, sadistic individual who relishes cheating women out of opportunities to race and medals. It’s not really cute to reward him with a chance to preen himself on Woman’s Hour.

Fake Gay History:

A recent video of a young teacher…shows her awkwardly speaking into a camera: “There is a way to be sneaky about supporting, say, queer students in your classroom, and I want to show you it.”

The camera pans to a homemade-looking pink triangle on her dry-erase board. The teacher continues, “The pink triangle was used in concentration camps to identify gay women and also people who were asexual and now has been co-opted by the queer community to be a symbol of a safe space. Dropping a pink triangle somewhere in your room makes a huge difference, because kids look for that.”

No it wasn’t. The pink triangle was the equivalent of the yellow star, and it was for gay men.

The Nazis didn’t, in fact, systematically persecute lesbians. Nor did they target “asexuals,” who didn’t claim their status as a distinct sexual identity until well after World War II. Homosexual men were persecuted, and the pink triangle was used to designate them as such within the camps. Before the symbol was apparently co-opted by the generalized “queer community,” it was used by AIDS activists at the height of the crisis to symbolize the US government’s perceived silence and indifference, which they believed was tantamount to a state-imposed “death sentence” against patients.

The video’s one true statement—that some ambiguous “queer community” has co-opted the pink triangle—reinforces the general trend of writing gay people, usually men, out of their own history and expanding it to include all “queer people.” The modern use of the term queer itself represents this flattening phenomenon well. It is a “reclaimed slur,” used increasingly by people who would have never had it hurled at them as an insult, and who never claimed it back when it would have resulted in social condemnation, rather than celebration. The term’s vagueness allows it to be used by virtually anyone—including, apparently, the journalist Terrell Jermaine Starr, who recently “came out,” stating he was “attracted to a wide range of women, but not men at all.”

In other words like most men, so what’s “queer” about him? Not one thing.

The problem precedes the march of apparent heterosexuals into the “queer community.” Overstating or outright fabricating the place of minorities within the community happens often. And these “histories” are often written like mad libs: Insert the name of a group, add an adjective, a verb, and a place, until somebody’s son comes home from school asking about the asexuals at Treblinka.

In short, the Nazis were not queerphobic. Next?

Interesting ranking system the Guardian has.

Depp was asked to leave because of plausible claims of violence against his former wife, and Ezra Miller was videoed grabbing a woman by the throat, but that’s “small beer” compared to JKR having unapproved opinions.

It’s classic. We’re accused of “inciting violence” against “the trans community” by saying things, and men who perpetrate actual physical violence on women are too trivial to discuss compared to JKR saying things.

“Taking ownership” ffs. Jumped up little mimes.

The Guardian edited out “small beer” later.

Too Online Academia is a very good word for it. It always does make me cringelaugh to see actual academics engaging in this playground name-calling no YOU’RE the evil karen seven-headed beast nonsense out in the open where anyone can see them. Imagine the fun of taking a class taught by one of those people.

Woof woof don’t you dare woof woof this is MY bone.

Huh. I saw this one by accident, following a trail via Jesse Singal.

But we don’t “seek to cancel THE VERY EXISTENCE” of anyone. That would be murder. We’re not murderers and we don’t advocate murder.

Ah the community of right-minded people. Ok, I’ll shelve the plans to do whatever that was meant to be, then.

The NY Times on the scabbing of PhDs:

The job would be on a “without salary basis,” as the posting phrased it. Just to be clear, it hammered home the point: “Applicants must understand there will be no compensation for this position.”

The posting last month caused an immediate uproar among academics across the country, who accused the university of exploiting already undervalued adjunct professors, and suggested this would never happen in other occupations. Under pressure, U.C.L.A. apologized and withdrew the posting.

But the unspoken secret had been fleetingly exposed: Free labor is a fact of academic life.

They have to keep the bulk of their funds for the football program.

Very often, adjuncts and other contingent faculty are asked to do unpaid work that is presented not as free labor but as a way to hone their own credentials, according to union activists and some instructors who have received such requests.

Well of course the universities don’t present it as free labor. It’s a privilege to teach at UCLA for bupkis! You get bragging rights!

UCLA advertised an academic job with no pay.

The job listing for an assistant adjunct professor was very clear: “The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at UCLA seeks applications for an assistant adjunct professor on a without salary basis.  Applicants must understand there will be no compensation for this position.”

Sure, that seems normal. Skip minimum wage: we’re talking no pay at all.

The listing went on to describe what the person hired could expect: “Responsibilities will include: teaching according to the instructional needs of the department. Qualified candidates will have a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, or equivalent discipline and have significant experience and strong record in teaching chemistry or biochemistry at the college level. The University of California, Los Angeles and the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry are interested in candidates who are committed to the highest standards of scholarship and professional activities, and to the development of a campus climate that supports equality and diversity.”

All that, for $00,000 dollars a year. (This works out to $00.00 an hour.)

Candidates were asked to submit a CV, cover letter, a statement of teaching (and an optional statement of research) and three to five letters of reference.

UCLA wants the best, in exchange for nothing at all.

They got some angry emails. They’d tell us how many but that requires expensive math skills.

And of course several people compared the unpaid position for an academic with a Ph.D. to the $4 million salary the university pays its head men’s basketball coach, Mick Cronin.

Basketball is important. Simple.

I listened to the Trans Women in Sport segment of Today, which starts at about 1 hour 40 minutes and ends at 1:48. It’s not a conversation between “Veronica Ivy” and Sharron Davies; Ivy gets a segment and then Davies gets one.

Ivy says around 1:41: “Here’s the thing about Emily in particular: because she was a member of the British Cycling academy, they have years of her power data, they know how much her power numbers went down, so they know for a fact that she does not have an unfair competitive advantage.”

Wait. What? Emily’s numbers went down, therefore it’s a fact that he does not have an unfair competitive advantage. But we don’t know how much the numbers went down, or how they compare to women’s numbers. A mere “Emily’s numbers went down” tells us nothing.

That’s especially true because we already know that such numbers go down a little, but we also already know that the gap is large, which is why women’s sports exist. We also already know, and the presenter points out to Ivy, that much of male physical advantage is baked in: males are bigger, heavier, with bigger bones, wider shoulders, straighter thighs, bigger rib cages, yadda yadda.

In short, Doctor Ivy bullshits his share of the discussion.

It seems BBC Radio 4’s Today program had Sharron Davies on along with…Rhys McKinnon aka Rachel McKinnon aka Veronica Ivy. How insulting.

This Veronica Ivy:

That was a race at Burnaby Velodrome in March, which he won, as always by cheating.

This is horrifying.

Alabama lawmakers, she says, have been put on notice “that laws and policies preventing care that healthcare professionals recommend for transgender minors may violate the constitution and federal law. To be clear, every major medical association agrees that gender-affirming healthcare for transgender kids is a best practice and potentially lifesaving.”

Just like that. So every kid who says “I’m trans” or maybe even “I think I’m trans” should be put on the path to trying to change sex? There’s no potential for harm, no risk at all?

Horrifying.