1./ It's HER again. @naomirwolf can't stop talking nonsense but at least her claim in @Openly that her LGB & feminist critics are bots are of a piece with her other delusions. She also tries to defend her book Outrages which was pulped in the US because it was so inaccurate.👇
https://twitter.com/Openly/status/1333062158062522368
2./ In her interview she claims the book had just two mistakes. Sorry, but those "mistakes" were two central planks of the book. She'd asserted that after new laws were passed in 1857 there was a wave of arrests and executions of gay men across Britain.
3./ Forget for a moment that in her much admired queer theory we can't know whether these gay guys really were GUYS...might they not have been transwomen? Or transmen who identified as gay men? Naughty Naomi ...not at least to impose the "sex spectrum"!!
4./ More to the point she didn't bother to research the key legal term that her entire argument was based on..."death recorded" which turned out not to mean, as she said it did, someone had been executed. It was in fact a legal fiction that was used to waive execution. Whoops!
5./ Imagine the sheer entitled laziness that allows an author to go on a tour to promote a book that was a hotch potch of invented baloney. Here's the classic interview where Matthew Sweet disabuses her. It's one of the GREAT radio moments👇 bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-…
6./ First he asks her to explain her claim there was a 50% rise in arrests. She can't cite any evidence. Then he turns to executions. She says there were several dozen and this proves the last one hadn't been as widely assumed in 1835. Executions had continued to the 1880s!
7./ But they hadn't. This was bollocks. What @Openly don't point out is that after her disastrous BBC interview Wolf doubled down accusing the BBC of "whitewashing LGBTQ tragedies from history" and repeated her ridiculous claim of 55 executions that DID NOT HAPPEN.
8./ For someone now complaining about a "wave of online attacks" she managed to mount a fierce attack of her own on the integrity of @DrMatthewSweet who'd done the basic research she so singularly failed to. Here's his amazing account (with receipts).👇
https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1224757987711037440?s=20
9./ No wonder the @nytimes started their review with the classic line: "Naomi Wolf’s long, ludicrous career has followed a simple formula.." They pointed to a series of overblown works rooted in "batty claims". nytimes.com/2019/06/05/boo…
10./ One of her "batty claims" is a woman's brain can WILL her to become pregnant even if she's on contraception. Another: writing a letter to a breech baby can induce it to turn the right way up. Good luck on both of these. Something called medical science is also available.
11./ So THIS is the woman we're supposed to take seriously to research the risks of Self-ID, and who will examine carefully for us the impact of 'gender identity' ideology on gay rights or on society as a whole. Nah, I don't think so Naomi. uk.news.yahoo.com/us-feminist-na…
12./ This is a better link to the interview. The earlier one appears to have been taken down by a tidal wave of malevolent online bots (or alternately a dumb typo by me).👇bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
