As the UK takes a step towards sanity on sex-based rights, the gaslighting cranks up

On Wednesday 16th April, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of ‘woman’ means biological women and excludes trans women, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate. The ruling was sparked by campaign group For Women Scotland, who challenged the interpretation of a Scottish law (the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018) which requires that at least 50% of non-executive board members of any public body should be women, on the grounds that these members should be defined by biological sex rather than the subjective term ‘gender’. The ruling will have implications far beyond that law, though.

The Supreme Court’s decision was met with jubilation by many on the sane gender critical side, many of whom observed that it was surreal that they had had to fight so hard for the law to recognise common sense and simple biology.

It’s strange to think that as little as ten years ago, the idea of trans women literally being women was still considered ridiculous and somewhat sinister, and people who espoused that idea seriously were still considered extremely-online weirdos. But smartphone use - which has been shown to be harmful to mental health - has ballooned since then, COVID locked everyone indoors for long periods with just their smartphones for company, and as a result our understanding of reality has become warped and ‘subjective’.

Mainstream media of ‘the Left’ (i.e. the Fake Left), who have been as instrumental in normalising gender ideology as social media, talked about how the ruling is turning back the clock, put campaigners’ warnings of “dire consequences” in their headlines, and featured dramatic and misleading images like this as their article’s thumbnail:

Many articles written about the ruling focused on trans campaigners and trans women, who opined at length about how this ruling made them feel unsafe - never stating how or why - and how For Women Scotland “are taking this as a victory and that is potentially dangerous about where they go next”. Trans-identified man Kerrie Meyer, who had gender reassignment surgery at the age of 72 and whom the BBC deemed important enough to quote and use as their article’s thumbnail, said that the Supreme Court had “failed to take into account the dire consequences and untenable results that will occur". ‘Untenable results’ like what? Realising that even though you’ve mutilated yourself, no one is legally obliged to affirm your autogynephilia any more? It’s back to the narcissist’s trick of treating “what I want” as normal, and anything less than that as oppression and injustice.

All the interviews with trans rights campaigners warning of ‘dire consequences’ serve to give the impression that something terrible might happen to trans women if they are forced to go into men’s spaces, which of course ignores the threat that those trans women present to real (or ‘cis’) women in women’s spaces, which has been the primary motivation of the entire gender critical movement. It’s another example of projection and DARVO (Deny, Accuse, Reverse Victim and Offender) being used ever more desperately to attempt to hide predatory and antisocial behaviour behind dubious claims of victimhood.

It’s hard to find in the liberal media many interviews with women (or men) who see the obvious positive effects of the decision, which can only lead one to believe that those outlets chose to only talk to transgender people and their ‘allies’ who would have a negative opinion of it. The BBC article even quotes Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman in an interview with the BBC’s own Good Morning Scotland, that the decision would "stoke the fires of the culture war", as if that wasn’t exactly what she and the BBC were doing.

A horribly written and typo-laden Metro UK article leads with a quote from the owner of the G-A-Y chain of bars, that “we’re ready to break the law to keep trans people safe”, but like all of these articles it never specifies how they will break the law or how that will keep trans people safe. The same article includes this quote from Zoe Williams, director of the hilarious-sounding Vagina Museum:

Biology is not a clear-cut binary, and what you learn in school is grossly oversimplified

That’s a strange and disingenuous thing for a supposed gynecological historian to say, because sex actually is a clear-cut binary and the small number of people who have intersex or DSD (Differences in Sexual Development) conditions, have conditions that may give them characteristics of both sexes - but these features are still consistent with one of the two sexes. No one has a condition that causes them to develop non-binary or genderfluid characteristics, because they don’t exist. Learning that there are two sexes is absolutely not a gross oversimplification, but using a gender unicorn to teach that gender is a social construct and anyone can be anything they want, is a gross and unnecessary overcomplication that can only serve to confuse children… almost as if that was actually the point.

The over-the-top response to a ruling that merely confirms common sense, might hopefully be a catalyst for more people to question why so much of our media is uniformly pushing such a counterintuitive narrative. This could be the first ray of sunlight that might get them to wonder why academia and the legal system have also been so captured by an ideology that really does not stand up to clear-eyed scrutiny. Perhaps if more people start to notice that the emperor has no clothes, they might become open to questioning some of the other things the media says, too - and they might see that this is precisely why the media has to respond so viciously to a challenge to its dictum, because words are all it has. Once its audience realises that the booming voice they’ve been paying attention to has just been three kids in a trenchcoat all along, they’re finished.

This isn’t from the UK and may not be recent, but it sums up neatly the histrionic mindset of those convinced that the world hates them for being trans: