As Grania predicted, it was only a matter of time until Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay’s “hoax” article on the conceptual penis was construed as hate speech by Regressive Leftists—even though the reviewers and the journal saw the paper as pro-feminist and progressive.

And, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades, we have our first Offended Person, flailing his horns around like a bull stuck by a picador:

"oh hey gender dysphoria exists and people kill themself over it, so let's mock it by writing a fake paper and laughing at everyone." — Dan Arel 🏴 (@danarel) May 20, 2017

so apparently mocking trans people is a "hoax" now. — Dan Arel 🏴 (@danarel) May 20, 2017

you're a fucking transphobic piece of human trash https://t.co/gWF7XM0ED8 — Dan Arel 🏴 (@danarel) May 20, 2017

this shit is bigoted and disgusting. i'm so fucking embarrassed to have done any business with the parties involved. new atheism is cancer https://t.co/hhR4wH6UD4 — Dan Arel 🏴 (@danarel) May 19, 2017

The poor lad was SO infuriated he even thought that hoax paper was written by DAWKINS!

But wait–there’s more!

You will find other attacks on Boghossian and Lindsay on the thread of my original post. Bleeding Heart Libertarians published a critique of this hoax, calling it a “big cock up” because the journal was poor, but they missed the point, a point that one prescient commenter made:

I don’t know what all this proves, but it’s entertaining, like a soap opera unfolding.

Finally, for those misguided souls who argued that a publication in a substandard journal doesn’t prove anything, and that the standard of scholarship in other feminist or culture studies journals is high, see here, here, here, and here.