36

I am so fucking pissed off at these "left wing" men who don't even take a second to consider whether they are right before talking over women on this issue.

https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1456652542658678790

This guy, Eoin Higgins, was the main person on twitter who disseminated the false narrative that the WiSpa incident was a transphobic hoax. That narrative was later picked up by Salon, The Guardian, and other media outlets, but Higgins was the one who spread that lie first and most widely.

If that weren't bad enough, Higgins was also the main person on twitter who spread the narrative that the Guardian (which blatantly LIED about the WiSpa facts numerous times) was in fact "transphobic" and had engaged in "censorship" for editing the Judith Butler interview they did last month. For those who don't remember, the author of the interview with Butler, Jules Gleeson, originally had a question to Butler about the 'transphobic hoax' at the WiSpa. It was in response to this question with its flawed premise that Butler compared GCs to fascists. Right after the Butler interview came out, an arrest was made in the WiSpa case, and so the Guardian contacted Gleeson about editing the original question to reflect the actual facts in the WiSpa case, rather than spreading a debunked lie. Gleeson refused to edit the question or add a note reflecting the fact that the WiSpa case was NOT a hoax, so the Guardian had no choice but to remove both the question and the answer from Butler. (A decision that many GCs in fact opposed, because they wanted the world to see how insane Butler's comments were.) But Higgins and others immediately pointed to this editorial decision as "transphobic censorship," even though Gleeson was the one who opted against a correction to the facts -- probably because Gleeson (a TIM) didn't want people knowing about the very inconvenient WiSpa case. Higgins was the one who published an interview with Gleeson making the allegation that the Guardian's editorial decision to remove the question and answer was rooted in "transphobia."

Now, Higgins is playing the victim because the Guardian has demanded he retract claims that "transphobes" are the "dominant faction" in the leadership of the Guardian newsroom.

Seriously, fuck this fucking guy. This man is such a misogynist that he has managed to get deep in the weeds of this issue without ever considering the positions of any actual female people besides Judith Butler, and has no compunctions about spreading misinformation, covering up for a sexual predator, and slandering actual journalists.

As a left-wing woman, I'm flaming mad and I plan to email him and tell him why. Helpfully, his email is right in his twitter bio if you want to join me.

I am so fucking pissed off at these "left wing" men who don't even take a second to consider whether they are right before talking over women on this issue. https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1456652542658678790 This guy, Eoin Higgins, was the **main person** on twitter who disseminated the false narrative that the WiSpa incident was a transphobic hoax. That narrative was later picked up by Salon, The Guardian, and other media outlets, but Higgins was the one who spread that lie first and most widely. If that weren't bad enough, Higgins was also the main person on twitter who spread the narrative that the Guardian (which blatantly LIED about the WiSpa facts numerous times) was in fact "transphobic" and had engaged in "censorship" for editing the Judith Butler interview they did last month. For those who don't remember, the author of the interview with Butler, Jules Gleeson, originally had a question to Butler about the 'transphobic hoax' at the WiSpa. It was in response to this question with its flawed premise that Butler compared GCs to fascists. Right after the Butler interview came out, an arrest was made in the WiSpa case, and so the Guardian contacted Gleeson about editing the original question to reflect the actual facts in the WiSpa case, rather than spreading a debunked lie. Gleeson refused to edit the question or add a note reflecting the fact that the WiSpa case was NOT a hoax, so the Guardian had no choice but to remove both the question and the answer from Butler. (A decision that many GCs in fact opposed, because they wanted the world to see how insane Butler's comments were.) But Higgins and others immediately pointed to this editorial decision as "transphobic censorship," even though Gleeson was the one who opted against a correction to the facts -- probably because Gleeson (a TIM) didn't want people knowing about the very inconvenient WiSpa case. Higgins was the one who published an interview with Gleeson making the allegation that the Guardian's editorial decision to remove the question and answer was rooted in "transphobia." Now, Higgins is playing the victim because the Guardian has demanded he retract claims that "transphobes" are the "dominant faction" in the leadership of the Guardian newsroom. Seriously, fuck this fucking guy. This man is such a misogynist that he has managed to get deep in the weeds of this issue without ever considering the positions of any actual female people besides Judith Butler, and has no compunctions about spreading misinformation, covering up for a sexual predator, and slandering actual journalists. As a left-wing woman, I'm flaming mad and I plan to email him and tell him why. Helpfully, his email is right in his twitter bio if you want to join me.

19 comments

[–] ScissorHand 15 points Edited

Wow wow wow, so instead of sending journalists on the ground, talking to the police, the victims, the locals, or even the sex offender himself. These "media" are just reporting what randos say on Twitter now? This is how they get their "facts"?

Everyone is an asshole here.

Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog did an episode on this recently. I know they are somewhat controversial among GCs (and they irritate me a lot too sometimes) but I think they are useful because they point out exactly where journalists and news outlets fall short.

I believe that the idea that the WiSpa incident was a "hoax" was first circulated in the Los Angeles Blade (LA LGBT newspaper.) The Blade quoted an anonymous source in the LA police department suggesting that police speculated it might have been a hoax. Unusually, the author of the Blade article was also anonymous. (that is not standard journalistic practice at all)

Other news outlets like Salon, the Guardian, and, unbelievably, the Los Angeles Times, all repeated the Blade "reporting" uncritically without doing any of their own reporting. I'm not sure the exact timeline, but Eoin Higgins also went viral on twitter authoritatively called the incident a "hoax." More people probably saw Higgins' tweet than read many of the articles.

And yes to your broader point, I 100% agree. This madness would never have gotten this far if journalists were doing their jobs. The Los Angeles Times in particular failed in the WiSpa story. They didn't seem to even call the victims, call prominent people who were at the spa when it happened and said it wasn't a hoax. They never ran a standalone story on the arrest. For months they bafflingly just refused to do basic reporting on a story of major local and international interest. And they ran a fucking editorial calling women who object to penis in changing rooms bigots and comparing them to racists. Of course, now they have covered the Netflix crybabies ad naseum, when they couldn't be bothered to do one story interviewing the women who were victimized by a sexual predator.

Do you know if Salon, The Los Angeles Times, and other news outlets will have to retract their original position about Wi Spa, or are they allowed to not say anything and pretend it away? Honestly, I want all of the journalists and news outlets who reported on the Wi Spa hoax to eat crow, retract their articles, and then write honestly about what happened.

They have not really eaten crow, but they should. We should write to the editors and publishers of these outlets. The reality is that most of the editors are bound to be older and more experienced journalists who instinctively agree with us, but they feel ignorant of the issue and defer to young gender ideologue colleagues.

[–] [Deleted] 5 points Edited

Salon "printed" a correction on their hoax article, but they still have it up. That's it. Damage is done, and they did nothing to really correct the record except edit the article that had already misled so many people and was not going to be read again by those people.

Anything to bury the real story.