Trannies try to demand ‘Trans-acceptance’ at Science Journals

Trannies try to demand ‘Trans-acceptance’ at Science Journals

Round and round we go and where this will all end nobody knows.

That to me is the slogan of our current age of globalhomo-enforcing gender-bending biology-denying mobs of Wokespirators and now a creature – I am not quite sure if it biologically female or male – named Chelsea Gohd has written a column for ‘’ about how ‘trannies need to have their transitions accepted’ by science journals which has been syndicated to other more mainstream science sites such as ‘Live Science’.

Now before I look at its argument, I will note that Gohd has been arguing for stupid linguistic changes to how reality works – because as we all know Black Holes suddenly become red when we call them Rose Buds (anyone get the reference to sodomite sexual practices?) – since at least 2017 when it was shrieking about Donald Trump’s rejection of the CDC’s use of weasel words like ‘evidence-based’ (after what evidence is more important than there just being evidence).

That being said let’s move on to Gohd’s argument concerning what it considers to be the correct ‘trans-acceptance’ response to ‘tranny astronomers’ changing their publishing credentials ex post facto.

It writes that:

‘When scientists publish their work in a journal, they do so under their name. However, people change their names later for a number of reasons, and there remain policies in place at some journals that prohibit authors from changing or correcting the names they have listed on previous publications. This might result in confusion or career difficulties for some, but for transgender scientists, it could cause very serious safety issues.’

There are two things here to note:

Firstly, Gohd necessarily wishes to present this is a simple operation as otherwise it renders her argument manifestly ridiculous and a good example of special pleading.

It is not a simple operation because it involves formally re-editing an article that was submitted and accepted to a journal and which is now ‘official’ so-to-speak.

This means the journal needs to go back and change that article’s authors and its accreditation on the electronic journal signatures (this second part is the easy bit) and then re-PDF and re-validate the whole of the journal article before it is republished lest the paper’s authors accuse the journal of ‘falsifying’ their research or other authors accuse the journal of the same for their own ends.

Now this is only the electronic copies. What does Gohd want the journals to do about the hard paper copies held in subscribing university libraries around the world? Recall them, pulp, re-print and issue them back out all because some ‘scientist’ decided he wanted to cut his dick off, grow breasts and call himself Sheila?

How about no?

That is the individual scientist’s decision not the journals.

Secondly, Gohd wishes to bleat about ‘confusion’ and ‘career difficulties’ as well those ominous sounding but unquantified and unspecified ‘safety issues’.

Now if I wanted to change my name then I would have to adhere to certain legal requirements to do so and also know that this brings certain consequences should I choose to do it. One of those consequences is that I will need to demonstrate that the corpus of work that I have written and published over the years is actually mine (and not somebody else’s) and thus I would need to tell any future academic employer about my name change and also provide evidence, so they know what name to use to check my previous papers.

What is wrong about that?

It is my choice to publish under my name and also my choice to change my name and not the journal’s problem. The option to change the name you published under is not a right; it is a courtesy which journals are not required to give and quite understandably so given the first point noted above.

Gohd continues by breezily claiming that:

‘People change their names for a multitude of reasons — for example, after getting married and deciding to change their last name. However, as the authors of the open letter make clear, restrictive name update policies at scientific journals can have much worse consequences for trans scientists who change their names and need to correct their previous names, or "dead names," in prior publications.

This open letter, which specifically called for a policy change at A&A, argued that these policies don't just need to be changed to allow retroactive name corrections, but also that the process should remain confidential to ensure the safety and anonymity of the author.

"If a paper has your old name on it, then every time you tried to promote your research, you're having to out yourself, and it wouldn't be a very pleasant thing to have to go through," Hunt told Hunt added that there can also be added danger "when people go and do science in countries that are less accepting or have collaborators from countries that are less accepting."’

Again, where is it acknowledged that it is an individual’s choice to try and LARP as a woman when it is biologically a man and that there are consequences to this decision?

One of these is that – for example – Saudi Arabia and Russia might not be so keen to invite that scientist to speak at their conference in a similar way that as a National Socialist I am hardly going to be invited to speak at AIPAC or USHMM now: am I?

The difference is I accept that as just how things are and as the consequences of my convictions where-as trannies and their apologists like Gohd want to have their cake and eat it too. They should beware the fate of those who tell others to ‘just eat cake’ for it does indeed have an unfortunate historical precedent.