For my first year introduction to Geographic Information Systems, I was tasked with an enjoyably nonspecific final project: “essay on maps”. They expected the class to go away, do some data analysis, and write a report on what we found. I decided to take them a little more literally.

[CN: transphobia, gender dysphoria, sexual harassment, rape]

Recently, I had a long discussion with some of my partner’s friends about the safety implications of trans access to single-sex spaces: specifically the risk posed by men pretending to be trans, rather than by trans-women themselves. These are highly intelligent, well-educated and well-meaning people, who likely haven’t a transphobic bone in their bodies – by no means were they suggesting trans people shouldn’t have access, only that they could foresee potential for abuse. Ultimately, I think their concerns are misplaced, but I think they’re probably representative of a large swathe of the population in both concerns and their self-confessed lack of engagement with the issue. They aren’t involved in the wider discussion currently going on, often in bad faith, lead by transphobic “feminists” who wield exactly these misplaced concerns in order to curtail the rights of trans people – but this discussion is now reaching boiling point, and so it’s that which I want to talk about today.

When defining neural networks, even in a framework as concise as Keras, you often find yourself writing far too much gumpf.

In my last post I detailed why an article for the Daily Mail was knowingly misleading in a number of ways. I mentioned a “few other idiots” and then said I couldn’t be bothered to deal with one of them. This is that one. Anyabike made a medium post which is now doing the rounds [1] – including an endorsement from Andrew Neil, who really should know better. It’s clearly wrong on some counts but I’ve seen it twice today so I’m following it up. I suggest you read it before continuing.

Addendum: In another piece, I’ve definitively shown that the monument I talk about in this piece is next to the graves, contradicting the Daily Mail statement that it is in “another part of the complex”.

The Daily Mail recently published yet another attack on Corbyn [1], accusing him of memorialising “Munich terrorists”. They say that, in response to this accusation, he “insisted” that he was there to commemorate the 1985 bombing of the PLO base in Tunis [2], but then show him pictured in front of the graves of those same “Munich terrorists”.