Blog

pi” style=”display: inline”>

[Photos © Cristina Coral]

addest impact for me as a university teacher is the impact on my female students. Female bodies and biological sex have become the new 'unmentionables'. In their written work, students avoid using the word 'sex' – they might use it when quoting from a document – and use other textual strategies to hide the fact that female people exist. We have created a new cognitive burden that disproportionately impacts women students. Those that are gender critical conceal their true thoughts, and those that try to be trans inclusive tie themselves in knots in order not to upset a group whose interests they regard as more important than their own. We have failed our students as feminists and we should hang our heads in shame.

And again:

I've been precarious in academia since finishing my PhD over ten years ago (and I don't expect that change). I've always worked on feminist theory but I teach across a range of areas. The creep in gender ideology has increased since I began my PhD/ teaching career and accelerated over the last couple of years. I'm frightened that my publications and teaching are going to lead to my vilification as a 'transphobe' and put my livelihood in jeopardy because I don't have a secure contract. I won't stop writing and talking about sex as a material condition of women's lives, I won't indicate my pronouns, and I won't pretend to be on board with the idea that sex is somehow not real, but I also haven't 'come out' as gender critical (which feels far more difficult than coming out as a lesbian). This causes me anxiety and acute guilt because I'm letting other – braver – women fight a backlash that threatens women's rights. 

My university is trans-focused and the discourse is that 'TERFs' are evil. Senior academics on Twitter and in public events use the term easily and uncritically, and I've got to the point where I worry about who I follow on Twitter and certainly wouldn't indicate engagement with gender critical material. The ironic thing is that I follow some male academics who do explicitly talk about sex-based rights and face none of the backlash experienced by the few women who do speak out. I know a small number of academics who are in exactly the position I'm in but it's taken time to get to the point where we've been open with each other about our views. I panic about the day a student asks me directly what my position is (I'm astonished that hasn't happened yet) because I won't lie. 

In short, I haven't had the horrible experiences that I've seen reported by other academics but that's only because I haven't been brave enough to directly and publicly enter the argument. The university environment where I can't even voice an opinion feels oppressive, frightening, and downright sexist. 

Plenty more on the same lines. It's like reading Soviet-era samizdata smuggled out to the West.

Stephan Wöllenstein, the company’s China chief, says that Volkswagen is ‘concerned’ about the situation in Xinjiang, but adds: ‘I don’t think that to steal away from the region would solve the political problems.’

Given the central importance of the Chinese market for Volkswagen, there is a certain crude economic logic at work here, despite the car giant's, um, unfortunate history with slave labour. 

But now evidence emerges of more direct German involvement in the exploitation of Uighur slave labour:

German companies are supplying the technical backbone for the vast textile industry in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, where at least half a million members of the persecuted Uighur minority have allegedly been forced to labour in the cotton fields.

Leaked trade figures from the Chinese customs authority underline the extent of Germany’s commercial entanglement in the region despite numerous claims of human rights abuses and “cultural genocide”.

Investigations by researchers and foreign activists have suggested that more than a million of Xinjiang’s mostly Uighur Muslims have been held in detention camps without due legal process. There have been reports of rape, torture, forced sterilisation, the destruction of dozens of mosques and shrines, and “cotton gulags” in which Uighurs are compelled to work in degrading conditions for little or no pay. Xinjiang produces about a fifth of the world’s cotton….

Germany has come under pressure over its trade with Xinjiang. Customs data obtained by the South China Morning Post show that sales of German parts for textile machines to Xinjiang rose thirtyfold over the past three years, to £30 million. No other country sold more than £500,000 worth.

Not just "cultural genocide" in inverted commas….actual genocide.

Jerry Lee Lewis may have made his name as a rock'n'roller, but he's no slouch with those Country songs – like this version of the Hank Williams classic from 1979:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xZyh8VBFQ&w=550&h=309]

I don't think anyone has quite the same relationship with a piano as Jerry Lee.

Country from The Killer previously – What's Made Milwaukee Famous (Has Made a Loser Out of Me).

othesis was that the virus (the nearest relatives of which were known to be in bat caves about 1,000 miles away from Wuhan) jumped from an animal to human. To these two possibilities, the WHO added two more favored by the Chinese government: That it was introduced into China by people from outside the country, or that it arrived in frozen food from elsewhere, but provided little evidence for these.

Thus, the investigation went well for the Chinese government, and they made sure it did: It was delayed for a year, during which time viral evidence and witnesses disappeared. It only lasted two weeks (the committee was in quarantine two weeks), only several hours were spent in the lab in question, asking questions, not looking at samples or doing forensics, and the itinerary was controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, as, for that matter, was the committee composition, which included 17 Chinese members. “International members” included the very high profile researcher Peter Daszak, who himself closely collaborated with, and passed funding to, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and who was thus basically investigating and absolving himself. He praised those there for allowing a “Frank, open discussion.”

The Chinese participants were of course aware of what happened to physicians and researchers who spoke their minds on the issue. Chinese physicians who had sounded the alarm during the original outbreak were threatened with prison for sharing information with medical colleagues and the world. They were not interviewed. Dr. Ai Fen, head of the Emergency Department at Wuhan Central Hospital, saw many of the first cases and would have known where her patients might have been prior to getting sick. She dared to publish an article on the topic in China’s People. But the article disappeared, within hours, and then she disappeared. Censoring speech, and erasing brave people often go hand in hand. On news of the outbreak, public health officials in other countries wanted access to the original virus samples to develop therapeutics. But key samples from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were also “disappeared” over a year ago. Chinese officials even admitted to destroying some of them—as a precaution to protect the public, of course—lest the coronavirus escape from the lab. (Was there ever a more superfluous precaution taken, considering the virus was already out and about in China and had infected tens of thousands?) The WHO committee made no comment on these forensic mysteries. All this raises two questions: Why would a government eliminate evidence and witnesses, stall for a year, curate every detail, and stack the WHO investigating delegation, if a fair investigation would have shown the virus had an innocent, “natural” origin, had been introduced into China by a foreigner, or had arrived in a package of frozen food from another country? And why would the WHO go along?

There is, arguably, another way to approach this matter, which involves sorting through some of the most likely reasons the samples were destroyed and witnesses to the origins were silenced; an approach which may also help explain the WHO’s aiding and abetting such an obvious sham. It is to take into account that, among other things, the WIV lab was performing a form of research called “gain-of-function.”

"Gain-of-function" is the process whereby viruses are manipulated to make them more deadly, and more likely to cross over into the human population. Hmm.

Read on….

est their speed, skill, and strength in a fair competition, while also not forcing them to submit to a designation they may find inaccurate or demeaning. 

That's quite clever in a way, because it would undermine the claim from trans women that, as self-defined women, they shouldn't be expected to compete in the men's category. But it'll never take off, for the simple unspoken reason that so many trans women enjoy competing in women's sports because they do so well. Combine the thrill of actually coming first after years of competing unsuccessfully against other men with the buzz from these "grandiloquent progressives" on the sidelines telling them how brave they are, and it's – well, a winning formula. Provided of course that they don't mind trampling on the whole idea of women's sports, and the actual women they beat as they power their way to victory. But, for most, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

presents obtained through the source, the sweets included a bag of candy, two bags of snacks, a bag of bean candies and two rice crackers.

The school supplies included 72 pencils, eight erasers, a set of 12 crayons, a 12-color watercoloring set, two gel ink pens, three ball pens, one pencil sharpener, one pencil case, four rulers and a school supply bin.

The authorities reportedly gave these supplies only to children entering elementary school from the upper class of kindergarten. This indicates times are so tough they are unable to secure sufficient supplies.

However, the authorities wrote on the gift list the line, “A gift sent by the Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, our Dear Father, to mark the Day of the Shining Star.” This suggests the goal is to promote unity by stressing how “the Supreme Leader’s love for children remains unchanged” despite the country’s economic difficulties. 

I imagine the Supreme Leader stayed up late the night before, personally wrapping all those gifts like a great big socialist Santa, shedding the occasional tear as he had to acknowledge to himself that the gifts were indeed very much on the miserable side. 

.

Oxford University’s equalities policies, which are typical of the sector, claim “gender identity” is “assigned at birth” and define women as a “gender” rather than as a sex — which we legally are, under the Equality Act 2010. This is an ideological stance rather than evidence-based policy. It leaves those of us whose teaching and scholarship concern women, or rely on sex-disaggregated data, open to complaint and attack for our lawful view that biological sex exists.

Universities, and the government, cannot uphold free speech while championing such policies.

Todd, as well as her recent run-in with the Oxford Labour Club for her supposed transphobia – that is, she thinks biological sex is real – was no-platformed a year ago from an event celebrating Women's Liberation at 50.

ll regarded, should be able to use a diversity scheme to exert pressure which is at best (on Stonewall’s case) intrusive and at worst (on Allison’s case) unlawful. 

So will the Diversity Champions Scheme be revealed to be little better that an extortion racket? (ooh, what a shame if word got out that you're a transphobic organisation!) which gives Stonewall the right to interfere any time an employee steps out of line. Are the wheels about to come off the whole sorry enterprise? We shall see.

From the latest Private Eye: