There is a pattern here, don’t just look at the grovelling apologies that are demanded of people. Look at what we are not allowed to to talk about.

October 2018: a university professor tweets about concerns about child welfare:

Some students complained. 86 of them signed a letter

The university said some weasel words

The Professor apologised

It wasn’t enough

May 2019: A museum hosted an interactive art exhibition on protest, and a woman posted a sticker with the dictionary definition of woman

The museum removed it and apologised

5 June 2019: Six women speak about women’s rights.

A Green Party politician apologised for attending

(He later resigned, having realised that you can only abase yourself so far.)

June 2019: a children’s charity ended a partnership with a celebrity ambassador because of safeguarding concerns.

150 staff of the children’s charity wrote a letter condemning the decision

The Guardian and the independent added their voice

The children’s charity CEO apologised

The organisation that runs Pride threatened to not allow the charity to take part unless the charity undertook further reeducation.

Some women investigated and discovered that the member of staff responsible for the risk assessment breach was a keen amateur pornographer who liked to film himself on work premises.

The children’s charity’s initial response was to call the women bullies and tell people to report them to Twitter

A newspaper columnist said it was sickening (not the masturbation in the toilets, the fact that women complained)

Two months later the children’s charity dismissed the employee. They didn’t apologise to the women they had smeared.

July 2019: a Labour Party activist retweeted a tweet about the columnist.

He objected

The political group she was part of apologised profusely and she agreed to that statement saying I “am very sorry”

In September 2019 a women’s rights group held a meeting alongside the Labour Party conference. Protestors shouted, pounded and kicked at the glass

An MP defended their right to freedom of speech and to constructive debate.

She hasn’t apologised yet:

October 2019: A magazine commissioned an article by a gender critical author arguing that the design of new toilets at a theatre disadvantages women.

There were complaints

The magazine apologised

The author of the article giving the counter view apologised

January 2020 a Labour MP apologised:

…for this two year old set of emails recognising that the issue is complex:

In November 2020 an organisation of lesbian, gay and bisexual people broadcast a webinar of four gay men talking about their concerns about gender ideology

A magazine for gay men suggested that their readers might be interested to watch it.

The troops were rallied:

The magazine apologised

Two national AIDS charities condemned them and one withdrew from a partnership for HIV testing week.

The owner of the magazine withdrew his apology and came back fighting. He has set up a new media project as an alternative source of news and opinion.

An advertiser recently came under pressure for advertising with the magazines.

They promptly apologised.

In February 2021 a magazine for lawyers in Canada published an article about compelled speech and pronouns in court.

They came under pressure,

60 lawyers signed a letter:

The magazine removed the article

Calls for reeducation followed

In December 2020 a Welsh nationalist politician retweeted this tweet from a gender critical Professor:

She was forced to apologise

But of course that wasn’t enough

She apologised again and submitted herself for reeducation.

The person who made the complaint issued a letter saying it wasn’t enough.

In March 2021 a writer of popular feminist books tweeted about the fear that women can feel walking outside alone.

She apologised and deleted the tweet.

My advice is: never apologise. They will keep hounding and humiliating you until you break anyway.

But if you are forced to sign one of these hostage statement apologies be sure to leave a sign. Andy’s apology (presumably written by someone else) said there were five women speakers — this is what it said on the pre-publicity, when everyone who was there knew there were six.

Helen Mary Jones left an odd bit of font (where presumably someone else had strongly suggested the words she might be feeling moved to say).

Or you can transcribe James’ Dreyfus’s heartfelt apology to the ant community . I have made all the apologies I intend to make.


On 2 July 2021 Antony Forster, Vice Chancellor of the University of Essex made an extraordinary apology.

The university had published a review by barrister Akua Reindorf concerning the “deplatforming” of two academics because of their gender critical views.

It highlighted the role of the university’s LGBTQ+ Forum in agitating forthis deplatforming; calling the academics “transphobes”, and groups such as Woman’s Place UK “hate groups”.

The report criticised the way the university had responded to these bullies, and stated the university’s policies, adopted on the advice of Stonewall were not in line with the law. The University apologised to the two academics and said it was working to remedy the issues raised by the review. At the time that the review was published the Vice Chancellor said:

After that brief moments of adults taking responsibility and finding their spine, two weeks later Forster apologised to “trans and non-binary students” who felt hurt about the outcome of the review.

Forster said “I have been asked to provide a number of apologies” including for anyone having been “made to feel unsafe as a result of the review” and that it was released during “Pride Month”.

He will be sending an apology to the LGBTQ+ Forum that agitated for the deplatforming of the academics.

This is mainly where I write about sex and gender