Right. And how do we know his paper wouldn’t still have been accepted without his self-censoring?
I’m not saying I don’t believe him, or that we shouldn’t take such concerns seriously, but he could at least have acknowledged that this is effectively unfalsifiable conjecture.
I don’t quite understand how you’re able to acknowledge the rarity of such a sensationalised case as Isla Bryson’s, yet still use it to justify your support for policy that would hurt the trans people you know.
On the other hand, other parents may well wish to have access to cherished stories from their childhood to read to their own children _without_ first having to re-read them all in advance and prepare their own annotated versions.
I'm not even necessarily agreeing with the publisher's approach here, but I can certainly see there being a market for "modernised" versions of older books that tired parents can relax into reading aloud as a bedtime story, without that constant low-level unease about the possibility of some dodgy dated stuff popping up out of nowhere.
I don’t think this necessarily is evidence of his not being smart, as it could just as well be ascribed to malice.
Perhaps this will finally prompt Paul to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt though. I’ve long been flummoxed as to why he had continued to, long after it becoming obvious to most that it was not deserved.
I’m not saying I don’t believe him, or that we shouldn’t take such concerns seriously, but he could at least have acknowledged that this is effectively unfalsifiable conjecture.