Yes, I know: Some of you want me to be aware of a ‘typo’ in the title. Thanks for your concerns, but that might mean you are not fully up on the latest in the gender wars. Yes, you are right, a “turf war” is ‘an acrimonious dispute between rival groups over territory or a particular sphere of influence’.
But in the whacky world of the sexual militants, there is now a new kid on the block: a “TERF”. It is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’. This is ‘a person whose views on gender identity are considered hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.’
Two recent high-profile cases of the trans lunacy taking its toll on women can be discussed here. Both entail trans activists targeting terfs – women who believe that women should be defended and protected and that we should stop pretending that a biological male can ever be a woman. Let me look at each.
J. K. Rowling
Just think of J. K. Rowling and what she has been going through of late. For daring to defend women and girls against fakes in their midst, she is being treated like absolute dirt. She is NOT backing down in her rejection of the trans lies and deceptions. She knows that a biological male putting on a dress, growing his hair, or chopping off his bits is NOT a female, and never will be.
She has very publicly been defending women and their rights to have things like women’s sporting events, rape-crisis shelters, bathrooms, shower and locker rooms and prison cells remain single-sex. But for daring to affirm biological truth and reality, the militants have gone after her big time. The transgender activist India Willoughby has even reported her to the police for ‘hate crimes’.
So she is now up for possible charges of hate speech in Scotland. This has to do with Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act that came into force last week. You can now be criminalized for ‘stirring up hatred’ of others on the grounds of their ‘sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics.’
Rowling has strongly opposed all this madness, as have so many others. Her tweets on this had led her to believe she would soon be arrested. But just the other day a spokesman for Police Scotland said: “We have received complaints in relation to the social media post. The comments are not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken.”
As she recently stated, “In passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls.”
And again: “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
And while a flood of complaints about supposed hate crimes have poured in since the law came into effect, even the leftist Guardian has admitted that most have been bogus:
Police Scotland has said only a small number of the thousands of reports lodged so far under Scotland’s controversial hate crime act were authentic. The force released data showing 3.8% of the 7,152 complaints it received in the first week the hate crime act was in force were judged to be legitimate. Two hundred and forty complaints were logged as hate crimes and 30 as non-hate incidents.
She was defended in an opinion piece by Pamela Paul in the New York Times:
Nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.
And the associate editor of the Telegraph, Camilla Tominey recently wrote a piece with this headline: “JK Rowling is right: a trans woman is not a woman, and it’s not illegal to say so.” She said in part:
Now, I’ve got no objection to using people’s preferred pronouns so I’m happy to refer to Willoughby as “she”. But “a woman”? No. It is a simple fact that she is biologically male, regardless of any gender reassignment surgery. She’s a trans woman but she’s not a woman and never will be. Trans activists have tried their hardest to turn a feeling into fact when they insist: “A trans woman is a woman.” But the truth of the matter is that a trans woman is a man who identifies as a woman.
Willoughby and her supporters might dislike her being described as a man. They might find it at best impolite and at worst deeply offensive. But it is not “hateful” to believe that men are men and women are women. You cannot change biological sex and under the Forstater ruling, it isn’t “illegal” to say so.
It’s ludicrous that I am having to defend these scientifically proven, chromosomally-evidenced truths in a national newspaper but, unfortunately, we live in an era when Willoughby can reasonably expect the police to stop investigating offences which really are “hateful” and “malicious” in order to probe the extent to which she feels put out by a woman who disagrees with her.
Personally, I’d rather officers focus their attention on actual crimes as opposed to hurt feelings, but this is what happens when a vocal minority creates such an environment of fear that the police think they can’t call out an attention-seeking time-waster when they see one.
Sall Grover
But it is not just overseas where all this craziness is raging. We have similar issues here in Australia. Consider just one such case of lawfare. We now have the ongoing court case involving Sall Grover. She had set up a women-only social media app, but a biological male who thinks he is a woman tried to get on it. He was later removed and has now sued for ‘discrimination.’ As one media report states:
A court has heard that the founder and CEO of a women-only social media app will not address a transgender woman as “Ms”, saying “I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman”. Roxanne Tickle is suing Giggle for Girls and its CEO, Sall Grover, for alleged unlawful discrimination after Tickle’s membership of the female only networking app was revoked in September 2021. Tickle is seeking damages. On the second day of the trial, Grover gave evidence for more than two hours at Sydney’s federal court on Wednesday morning before federal court justice Robert Bromwich.
And as with the Rowling situation, the sexual radicals are divided on all this, with some of them supporting Grover while others siding against her. Consider what one homosexual site said about this case:
Sall Grover is the Australian founder of an independent female-only social media, networking platform and app called ‘Giggle’. Giggle was created by Sall as a platform centred around women connecting with, and supporting, other women. The purpose was to provide an app that allowed women to safely connect; an important consideration when dealing with strangers. Giggle uses biometric technology to scan faces to ensure the app remains single-sex.
Sall is being taken to court because she wants her Giggle app to remain female-only. Sall Grover has been tremendously supportive of lesbian and bisexual women on her Giggle app over the years, and their need to have female-only spaces. Her new independent Giggle app will feature a dating platform for lesbian and bi women, which will be a secure way for women around the world to chat and meet, and even date.
This is a landmark case that is about to go to the Federal Court. If Sall Grover wins the case, it will be a big win for sex-based rights for all LGB people across Australia. Please consider donating to this important crowdfund to support Sall’s case; to fight for women and girls, as well as LGB people. Thank you.
The case is continuing, with an evolutionary biologist set to testify today on Grover’s behalf. Katherine Deves, the legal representative for Grover, said this: “Our client has been dragged through the courts for almost two years, but she continues to fight to uphold the simple principle that women are different to men; and that they deserve the opportunity to meet in female-only spaces if they want to.”
And as Kirralie Smith of Binary put it:
It is extremely frustrating, costly and quite frankly mind-boggling that women even need to go to court to state that men cannot be women. This is an important case we must all get behind. Sall summed it up perfectly with a post on X: “At the end of the day, discrimination laws can be changed, definitions can be eliminated, hate speech laws can be introduced, and men will still not be women. There is literally nothing that can be done in reality to make them women. You’re gonna have to cope eventually, fellas.”
As can be seen with these two brave females, both are quite happy to let the homosexual community do its thing, and even the trans community. But what they will not stand for is the erasure of women. They do not mind so much if some biological male identifies as female, but they DO mind – as we all should – if they expect us to affirm them in their delusions.
These women need our support. Enough is enough.
