LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back

I could use a break from my current draft (which is already over the 3,000 word mark, alas), and this is certainly worthy of my time:

I propose that on Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024 (the first day that both the House and Senate are back in session), all of us who are invested in this issue and have a platform (whether it be a blog, newsletter, column, podcast, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc.) publish a piece with the shared title: “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.” Yes, I know, it’s a cheesy title, but it holds Democrats accountable to their own talking points and makes it clear that backsliding on LGBTQ+ rights is nonnegotiable for us.

Easy peas- wait, “Democrats?”

What you write or say or express in your op-ed or article or video or podcast etcetera is up to you. I encourage you to make it personal and feel free to tailor it to your audience. My only request (other than all of us using the same title) is that you implore people to contact their Congressperson and Senators (and perhaps even local politicians) and tell them that 1) you will not tolerate any backpedaling on LGBTQ+ rights whatsoever, and 2) if they fail to strongly stand up against these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, then you will take your vote elsewhere next election.

Ah, this is somewhat US-centric. Unfortunately, I live in their hat and thus I doubt any Democratic politician would listen to me.

However, I do live in a province with a government that’s decided to demonize transgender people. Bill 29 is quite draconian: sports organizations are supposed to “establish, implement and maintain policies respecting fairness and safety,” which they must report to the government. They must also report any complaints about those policies, “requests for” or “the establishment of mixed-gender or mixed-sex leagues, classes or divisions,” and “other matters.” Anyone carrying out those orders is shielded from legal liability. What constitutes “fairness and safety?” That’s not up to the sporting organization, oh no; the government’s cabinet has full authority to prescribe “provisions or content that policies must include.” The language is very vague, with plenty of loopholes a bigot could exploit.

It has been widely condemned, a legal challenge has been launched, and even its mere proposal has made national sporting organizations rethink hosting events in our province. During its second reading, where it was supposed to be debated, both MLAs who rose to speak about the bill condemned it:

Hon. Hayter (NDP, Calgary-Edgemont): This bill is only going to discourage youth from participating. Bill 29 states that you want to have sports participation, but it really is just going to add more red tape for people to participate. Based on this government’s announcement, this bill is the first step forward barring trans women and girls from participating in women’s sports at all levels, starting at school level to being a professional athlete. …

Last year a nine-year-old girl – nine years old – participating in track and field in B.C. was harassed by people because she had short hair, so they made the assumption that she must be trans. A little girl. This government is giving a free pass to harassers in the name of protecting women in sport. This makes all women unsafe, especially Black, Indigenous, and other racialized women as well as women who are now going to be considered insufficiently feminine.

Hon. Elmeligi (NDP, Banff-Kananaskis): I want to zoom in on this idea about this unfair advantage, that somehow trans women have an unfair advantage over other athletes in sport. This idea is not supported by any science at all. … Really, this idea is based on the assumption that trans women have more testosterone, so let’s explore that a little bit. More testosterone leads to bigger muscles, faster times, tends to be associated with being stronger and faster, but that is so wrong, Mr. Chair. Again, we find a government basing policies on stereotypes, assumptions, transphobia, and just utter nonsense.

Here’s the reality check. In Judith Butler’s book Who’s Afraid of Gender? she really dives into this, and I highly recommend that all members in the House check out this book. Basically, the research shows that testosterone varies widely between and within genders. The research shows that there is considerable overlap in testosterone levels between genders: 16 and a half per cent of men have very low testosterone, 13 and a half per cent of women have higher than average testosterone, and there’s a lot overlap in those levels between genders.

It passed its second reading 43-31, with no amendments. More importantly, though, no one dared voice support of it. Even the bigots know that it’s indefensible! The silence is telling: the UCP know this isn’t going to earn them votes, if anything they’ll lose support should it become more widely known. If you’re an Albertan, now would be an excellent time to hammer that point home. Page 32 of the written record for that session lists every MLA who voted for or against Bill 29. The Alberta Government helpfully lists every current MLA. Get in touch with your MLA, and either thank them for voting against Bill 29 or politely ask them why they won’t defend their vote.

I’ve already done that process myself, and I can say it was well worth my time. My MLA has vocally supported transgender people, and they voted against Bill 29 on second reading. Now it’s your turn! I can guarantee it’ll be more satisfying than doom-scrolling US politics.

[HJH 2024-12-03] Whoops, I made the amateur mistake of assuming the second reading of this bill took place over one session. It actually was spread over three that occurred November 6th, 21st, and 26th. During the first session Hon. Schow (UCP, Cardston-Siksika) brought up the inherent strength advantages that men have over women (irrelevant, oversimplified) and that fairness demands transgender people be excluded (false). Hon. Armstrong-Homeniuk (UCP, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville) brought up the fairness of sport and the transformative power of sport (also covered by fairness). Hon. Petrovic (UCP, Livingstone-Macleod) again banged the fairness drum (it’s their best argument, which is damning). During the second session Hon. Johnson (UCP, Lacombe-Ponoka) recycled the “fairness” and “inherent strength” talking points from earlier.

One new argument comes from Hon. Petrovic’s name-drop of Reem Alsalem, who claims that nearly 890 medals were “unfairly” won by transgender athletes. Turns out it’s absolute batshit nonsense that hinges heavily on appeals to authority. Hon. Schmidt (NDP, Edmonton-Gold Bar) inadvertently spotted the game being played here:

With respect to science we heard the Member for Lacombe-Ponoka as well as the minister for sport refer to this report by the special rapporteur to the United Nations on women and gender-based violence. There is a quote in there, that the Member for Lacombe-Ponoka said, about the hundreds of medals that have been stripped from women competing in dozens of sports, and if you look at the footnote for that in the report, that claim is made by an organization called the Womens Liberation Front, which according to their website also unapologetically supports abortion on demand. So I look forward to the members opposite also endorsing the other work that the Womens Liberation Front is proposing.

Oh, so Alsalem sourced that figure from Women’s Liberation Front, that “gender critical” organization with strong ties to the US Christian nationalist movement. And as I touch on in that blog post, TERFs have been lobbying the UN for years to add the aura of authority to their arguments. If the evidence isn’t on your side, misinformation and authoritarianism are your only hope to getting your policies implemented.

Which, I suppose, explains why the cause is so attractive to our United Conservative Party.

Resist Gradualism

Human beings are terrible at judging risk. Either the sky is falling, or it isn’t falling at all. We have a difficult time handling the case where the sky is sort of creeping downwards gradually. It may happen unevenly in places or threaten to accelerate at a moment’s notice, but unless one of those chunks falls on our heads we default to thinking there’s no downward movement at all. Since risk assessments guide actions, the consequence is a tendency to over- or under-react to things.

The worst case of all, though, is when we’re told the sky is falling, nothing lands on our heads, and thus we conclude the sky is rigid. [Read more…]

Burying the Evidence, Accidentally or Otherwise

One way to mis-handle a problem is to just keep on trucking. Another is to actively bury it. That might seem impossible in the internet age, but not only is the internet gradually losing information, it’s opened up whole new ways to bury things.

Speaking of denying you, if you go to check any of [Rachel] Oates’ videos or live streams referenced throughout any of our exposés, only to discover that they’re no longer available, this is because Oates has taken to deleting and privating said evidence. Now, we’d originally prepared for this possibility by mirroring key pieces, unpublished, linking said mirror below the link to her original. Sadly, Rachel Oates saw this as an opportunity to abuse YouTube’s copyright system to try and have the channel taken down. The string of DMCA claims Oates filed put the channel a single strike away from the three required to be deleted, permanently, putting the future of the channel and my sole source of income as a trans person in jeopardy. We naturally won our appeals over the coming weeks, leading YouTube to reinstate said videos. Yet we decided that it was best to remove them to prevent Rachl[sic] Oates filing further DMCA takedowns from different channels, continuing to legally harass us or even potentially spreading out said claims so that she got the necessary three strikes.

This was my inspiration for circling back to old controversies: Rachel Oates has been trying to hide the evidence of past misbehaviour, and in a rather clever way. Don’t want people to see something? Delete it. Someone else mirrors or clips from the deleted content? Not only can you abuse the copyright system to have those mirrors taken down, do it often enough and you can financially harm the person trying to hold you accountable!
[Read more…]

Richard Dawkin’s Discontinuous Mind

I mostly agree with Dawkins on this:

Everywhere you look, smooth continua are gratuitously carved into discrete categories. Social scientists count how many people lie below “the poverty line”, as though there really were a boundary, instead of a continuum measured in real income. “Pro-life” and pro-choice advocates fret about the moment in embryology when personhood begins, instead of recognising the reality, which is a smooth ascent from zygotehood. An American might be called “black”, even if seven eighths of his ancestors were white. …

If the editor had challenged me to come up with examples where the discontinuous mind really does get it right, I’d have struggled. Tall vs short, fat vs thin, strong vs weak, fast vs slow, old vs young, drunk vs sober, safe vs unsafe, even guilty vs not guilty: these are the ends of continuous if not always bell-shaped distributions.

Imposing discrete boundaries on something which lacks them is quite dangerous, indeed. It’s also necessary to survive: imagine if I had to stop and consider whether or not a portion of a wall could be opened via the application of force, and where that force should be applied, instead of going “looks like a door with a twist handle, lemmie twist it to escape the fire behind me.” Some level of imposed boundaries are a must, otherwise words cannot exist, but it’s also important to remember these are abstractions imposed for convenience instead of fundamental features of the universe.

As a biologist, the only strongly discontinuous binary I can think of has weirdly become violently controversial. It is sex: male vs female. You can be cancelled, vilified, even physically threatened if you dare to suggest that an adult human must be either man or woman. But it is true; for once, the discontinuous mind is right.

…. Oooo-kay. Dawkins is claiming that biology has a discrete boundary, between the vast majority of the subject that lacks discrete boundaries, and one small portion (sex determination) which has discrete boundaries on a fundamental level. This smells heavily of special pleading. What makes sex determination distinct from the rest of biology? [Read more…]

Get off Twitter NOW

[2022-12-9 HJH: If you caught this early, scroll to the bottom for an update.]

You remember Bari Weiss, right? She’s behind the “University” of Austin, an anti-woke school I haven’t discussed much but PZ has extensively covered. She’s also whined about COVID, complained about censorship of conservative voices at universities, but most of you likely learned of her from her fawning coverage of the “intellectual dark web.” Her resignation letter from the New York Times editorial board is exactly what you’d expect, given that background.

… a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

This received a bit of pushback from her peers at the time, which was rather remarkable given these were employees publicly critiquing their own boss. But I’m getting a bit distracted here, the key point is that back in 2020 Bari Weiss had a beef with Twitter. It was not only part of the woke left that was stifling conservative voices, in her opinion, it was the vector her employees used to slander her good name. I seriously doubt any of us paid much attention to that back in the day, as Twitter has long been a target of conservatives for allegations of “shadowbanning,” or reducing the visibility of certain tweets or Twitter users. Who cares about yet another conservative with a conspiracy-fueled grudge?

On Friday, a more unexpected sighting came in the form of Weiss, the conservative newsletter writer who was previously a New York Times opinion columnist. Weiss was in the San Francisco office that evening, speaking and “laughing with” Musk, two employees said.

By Saturday, Musk said Weiss would take part in releasing what he’s dubbed “the Twitter files,” so far consisting mainly of correspondence between Twitter employees and executives discussing their decision in 2020 to block access to a New York Post article detailing material on Hunter Biden’s stolen laptop. Now, Weiss has been given access to Twitter’s employee systems, added to its Slack, and given a company laptop, two people familiar with her presence said.

The level of access to Twitter systems given to Weiss is typically given only to employees, one of the people familiar said, though it doesn’t seem she is actually working at the company.

Oh. Oh dear. It gets worse, too! Remember the firing of James Baker? He was one of Twitter’s lead lawyers, until Matt Taibbi and Weiss realized who he was and accused him of preventing their full access of Twitter’s internal records. Which, of course he did! If you were going to give a third party extensive access to sensitive internal documents, you’d be daft not to have a lawyer present to ensure there’s no legal consequence. Which leaves us with the question: when Musk fired Baker, did he substitute in another lawyer to vet the access given to Weiss and Tabbi? Given his love of flouting the law, it’s a fair bet he did not. So it was basically inevitable a terrible situation would get worse.

A screenshot of Twitter's internal dashboard, showing details of the Libs Of TikTok's account.

This screenshot, shared by Weiss, set my hair on fire. Just by looking at it I can tell it’s an internal Twitter dashboard pointed at the Libs of TikTok account. Most of the identifying information has been cropped out, though that still leaves a lot behind. I now know Chaya Raichik uses a custom domain as her private Twitter email, which likely changed some time between April and December and is probably [something]@libsoftiktok.com. The image itself is a crop of a photo taken on an Apple phone on the evening of December 8th, so Raichik hadn’t been back on Twitter since she’d posted a tweet a day or two prior. Raichik has two strikes on her account, including a recent one for abusing people online; she has at least one alt account; and she’s blacklisted from trending on that platform, which is a good thing. Parker Malloy points out that, despite was Weiss says, this screenshot is evidence conservative accounts are given special treatment. The banner up top says that even if a Twitter mod thinks Libs Of TikTok has violated Twitter’s policies, that mod is not to take any action unless Twitter’s “Site Integrity Policy and Policy Escalation Support” team signs off on it. In other words Twitter has given Rachik a few Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free cards for policy violations, even though she’s a repeat offender.

Notice the faint text on the screen? Based on that, a former Twitter employee was able to conclude either Twitter’s current Vice President of Trust and Safety was logged in at the time, or someone with a similar level of access. Zoom in, and you’ll note the text follows the curve of the lens; in other words, that text was overlaid on the monitor and not the photo. Remember how Reality Winner was tracked down by the CIA because The Intercept didn’t purge the watermarks on a printed page? This is the same thing: by forcing the operating system to overlay this text on the screen, Twitter could track down anyone who leaked a screenshot or image of Twitter’s sensitive internal information. This isn’t an employee-only page Weiss is looking at, this is the equivalent of a Top-Secret document that the vast majority of Twitter staff aren’t trusted with. She’s one click away from learning when Raichik paid $8 for her verification mark, or what her email address is, or her phone number, or … reading all her private direct messages.

That, right there, is at least a two-alarm fire. About the only good news is that the person with this level of access is Bari Weiss. Sure, she could read the private messages of Democratic members of Congress, but her past in the media makes her unlikely to do much with that info. She’s probably not much of a threat, unless you’re a New York Times reporter.

Our team was given extensive, unfiltered access to Twitter’s internal communication and systems. One of the things we wanted to know was whether Twitter systemically suppressed political speech. Here’s what we found:

– Abigail Shrier @ 5:28PM, December 8th 2022.

THAT is a four alarm-er. Abigail Shrier is a former lawyer, but after her 2020 book she’s become an anti-LGBT crusader testifying before the US Congress and peddling misinformation. She’s published private information in an effort to shut down an LGBT club at a school and attempted to get two teachers fired as a result. Thanks to her legal experience, she likely knows how to push the limits of what is considered legal. And now, if what she’s saying is accurate, she’s got the same level of access to Twitter as Bari Weiss. She could read the private messages of any LGBT person or group on the platform, or learn of their phone number or private email address.

I’m not prone to alarm, but this news has me trying to ring every alarm bell I can find. Get the fuck off Twitter, as soon as humanly possible. That may allow someone to impersonate you in one-to-twelve months, but that’s better than giving these assholes a chance to browse your private messages.

=====

Alas, in my panic to bang this blog post out ASAP, I missed some details.

eirwin4903ZWlyd21u863, repeated over and over on all the screenshots from that internal tool.
– Dustin Miller @ 8:17 PM, December 8th 2022

this couldn’t possibly be new twitter head of trust and safety Ella Irwin (@ellagirwin) letting Bari Weiss rifle around in a backend tool that clearly says “Direct Messages” in the sidebar could it?
– tom mckay @ 9:26 PM,  December 8th 2022

Correct. For security purposes, the screenshots requested came from me so we could ensure no PII was exposed. We did not give this access to reporters and no, reporters were not accessing user DMs.
– Ella Irwin @ 10:22 PM, December 8th 2022

These watermarks are meant to prevent anonymous leaks. But usually this is for front-line people, like Customer Svc/tech support, etc. Weird it’d show up for the head of trust and safety, but elon is a paranoid dude.

Without any trustworthy explanation, this could be the head of trust/safety giving out her credentials for the non-production/testing environment. It looks so, so, so bad.
– Eve @ 12:55 AM, December 9th 2022

I’ll give Ella Irwin the full benefit of the doubt. Even though she was hand-picked by Elon Musk to be the head of Twitter’s Trust and Safety team, she did not let any third party access direct messages or any other private or personal information of Twitter users. Can she prevent that from happening in future, though? I’ve already mentioned the firing of James Baker. Matt Taibbi described his sins thusly:

On Friday, the first installment of the Twitter files was published here. We expected to publish more over the weekend. Many wondered why there was a delay.

We can now tell you part of the reason why. On Tuesday, Twitter Deputy General Counsel (and former FBI General Counsel) Jim Baker was fired. Among the reasons? Vetting the first batch of “Twitter Files” – without knowledge of new management.

The process for producing the “Twitter Files” involved delivery to two journalists (Bari Weiss and me) via a lawyer close to new management. However, after the initial batch, things became complicated.

Over the weekend, while we both dealt with obstacles to new searches, it was @BariWeiss who discovered that the person in charge of releasing the files was someone named Jim. When she called to ask “Jim’s” last name, the answer came back: “Jim Baker.”

“My jaw hit the floor,” says Weiss.

As I pointed out earlier, there’s nothing odd about Twitter’s legal council pumping the brakes in this situation. There’s no evidence presented Baker was hiding or manipulating anything. Taibbi describes Baker as a “controversial figure” later in the thread, which is an odd way of phrasing “he didn’t say nice things about Trump and was partially involved in the FBI’s Russia investigation, which made the US far-right declare him to be an enemy.”

One thing I didn’t point out is that Bari Weiss publicly shared private messages made by Yoel Roth on Twitter’s internal Slack. Yoel Roth is also a “controversial figure” for the US far-right, which was reason enough for Weiss to violate his privacy. It’s not a large leap from sharing the private Slack messages of a “controversial figure” to sharing the private Twitter messages of a “controversial figure,” and given the positive reception Weiss has gotten for her “reporting” from the US far-right I figure it’s only a matter of time before she asks. Best case scenario, Irwin says “no,” the conflict is escalated to her boss Elon Musk, and he’s not in a firing mood.

Thing is, despite Irwin’s claim that there’s no personally identifying information in those photos, I’ve already shown there was. Not a lot, admittedly, but it doesn’t speak highly of Twitter’s new Trust and Safety head that she didn’t realize how much a photo can reveal. On top of that, remember that Weiss and Irwin were communicating with one another. Irwin could have explained what the photos actually showed, but either did not do that or did so and was ignored by Weiss. If the latter starts asking for Twitter DMs, I’m not convinced Irwin will give much pushback.

So while we may have dodged a bullet there, more shots are planned and I’m not convinced future ones will miss. My advice remains the same: get the fuck off Twitter, ASAP.

Is the Gender Critical Movement Still a Cult?

When sitting down to type up this post, I thought I’d do a little follow-up on an old story. I was surprised when I ran across this:

“PinkNews and Julie Bindel are pleased to confirm that they have settled the case over the article PinkNews published on 17 May 2020, which chronicled a young American’s account of their recruitment to and time involved with a ‘gender critical cult’. The article made a number of serious allegations of misconduct and PinkNews accepts that if the allegations were understood to refer to Julie, they would be wholly untrue.

“Julie Bindel accepts that PinkNews published the article without intending to make any such reference to her. PinkNews is sorry for the distress the article caused. It has taken down the article and will not be republishing it. PinkNews has revised its editorial processes.”

What?! Beau Dyess had quite a few screenshots in their corner, so how could the story turn on a dime like that? [Read more…]

Russia Has Invaded Ukraine

I had grand plans for yesterday. Then I spotted Twitter reacting to Zelensky’s last-minute plea for peace (here’s a snap translation). I spotted the rumours Russia would start bombing Ukraine at 4AM. I saw the Twitter reaction when Putin declared war on Ukraine, in the middle of a UN Security Council meeting no less. I saw the reaction as Russia launched an invasion on at least three fronts, rolling out tanks and bombing airports all around the country, an hour after the rumoured start time. The goal: regime change and mass executions. Like most of us, I didn’t see the warnings that an invasion was going to happen.

During a recorded speech at the State Duma on Dec. 2021, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the ultranationalist leader of Russia’s Liberal Democratic Party, discussed Putin’s sham proposal to NATO. Zhirinovsky told fellow parliamentarians: “I liked one phrase from what the President said yesterday… he said that we won’t allow our proposal to result only in futile discussions… They either fulfill it, or we’re moving forward with another option… Let it be February 22, 2022 at 4 a.m.” Zhirinovsky added: “The year 2022 is the year of the tiger. It’s a breakthrough, a jump by the Russian tiger…This won’t be a peaceful year, but a year when Russia will become great again and everyone will have to shut up and respect our country.”

I woke to anti-war protests in Russia, and Russian celebrities condemning war, despite heavy pushback. Poland has opened their borders for Ukrainian refuges. Russian troops are trying to capture the Chernobyl nuclear plant have captured the Chernobyl nuclear plant, for dog knows what reason. “Mobile cremation units” now occupy a small part of my brain.

And Ben Shapiro found a way to blame transgender people for it all.

My grand plans for yesterday were scrapped, and replaced with a mad scramble today. I don’t have time to type up my usual thousand-word analysis of it all, so I’ll just leave you with this.

Stay strong, Ukraine.