Trans activism has jumped the shark

The unhinged reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling could signal the demise of gender identity ideology.

According to Maggie Chapman, an MSP for the Scottish Greens and former Rector of the University of Aberdeen, the Supreme Court is a den of ‘bigotry, prejudice and hatred’. Chapman is upset that the court has established that the word ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, and that no-one can change from male to female or vice versa under the law. She made these remarks at a protest in Aberdeen, much to the delight of the crowd. Here is the footage:

As deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and as an elected MSP who is required to uphold the reputation of the judiciary, Chapman’s comments are almost certainly a violation of her professional obligations. The Faculty of Advocates has now complained to the committee in the strongest possible terms:

‘Not only do comments such as these – which as they stem from an elected politician and Deputy Convenor many will take seriously – fail to respect the Rule of Law; not only do they constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary (s.1(1)(a) of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008); but they go further than that, and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves. This behaviour is irresponsible and reprehensible.’

Chapman has since doubled down, and in various interviews has defended her comments on the grounds that she was accusing the Supreme Court of institutional transphobia, rather than pointing the finger at individual bigots. Here is a video in which she babbles through this effort at postmodernist analysis, with such inelegance that it surprises me she was ever elected to office in the first place.

This is the typical get-out clause of intersectional activists. Power structures, they maintain, are so deeply embedded in society that they are only visible to the enlightened, otherwise known as the ‘woke’. The likes of ‘whiteness expert’ Robin DiAngelo, for instance, are able to detect racism everywhere, even where it seems non-existent. This is, of course, rather convenient given that such detections are the source of DiAngelo’s considerable income. But then, where would a witch-hunter be without her witches?

Jolyon Maugham - that bonkers lawyer with the hero complex and a sense of self-importance so cartoonish that it seems deliberately parodic - has inevitably decried the court as ‘hubristic, reckless or bigoted’; how could it be otherwise, having the temerity to disagree with him?

We expect such nonsense from Maugham, whose every utterance is gloriously self-satirising. But we should be more troubled when elected MSPs are displaying the equivalent degree of truculence and disregard for the law.

That said, Chapman’s foolish comments might have a positive net effect. This is where the benefits of freedom of speech become apparent. In taking this line, Chapman has revealed herself to be incapable of serious discussion on this topic. She has reacted in the manner of an overgrown infant, and cannot possibly have read the sober and compassionate judgement handed down by the court. Having seen her rant, few will now take her seriously. She has, in other words, allowed the mask to slip.

Not that the mask was particularly well affixed in the first place. Let’s not forget that this is the same woman who had previously criticised biology textbooks in schools for stating that sex is binary and who has suggested that children as young as eight should be able to transition. It is to the benefit of a civilised democracy that such people are free to articulate their delusions.

We might broaden this analysis to trans activism more broadly. On Saturday, protesters gathered in Central London to rail against the decision of the court. The forced jollity of the flags of pink, blue and white could not shield the darkness on display. It was a carnival of rage, at once clownish and sinister, not unlike something from the mind of Hieronymus Bosch. Activists were screaming, urinating, and crying out incoherent slogans such as ‘One struggle, one fight: Palestine, trans rights’.

One wonders how well this kind of display would be received on the streets of Gaza. Perhaps for all their crazed antisemitism and genocidal mania, Hamas has a fondness for gender fluidity and the works of Judith Butler.

Banners at the London protest proclaimed ‘I’ll piss where I like’ and ‘I ❤️ pissin’ on TERFs’. In this, they were echoing the sentiments of militant activist Sophie Molly who, at another protest in Dundee, boasted about his intentions to continue breaking the law: ‘After this protest, I’m going to use a women’s toilet. And then another women’s toilet. Fuck you J. K. Rowling you’ll never stop me from peeing’. He went on to advise the crowd to ‘take a shite’ on Rowling, referring to her as a ‘bitch’. How ladylike.

Well, Molly needn’t worry. Rowling doesn’t want to stop him from peeing. Like virtually every sane person in the country, she simply wants him to use the facilities appropriate to his sex. Again, we should not underestimate the self-discrediting nature of Molly, a former candidate for the Scottish Greens, who is seemingly determined to embarrass himself like this in public (with Maggie Chapman mooching around in the background of the footage, of course). But then, as Rowling pointed out on X: ‘the worst crime here is that skirt’.

And this really exposes the nature of the divide. While the likes of Rowling are able to retain their sense of humour in the face of ongoing threats and harassment, these trans activists cannot stop themselves from behaving like the aggressive, abusive and entitled blokes that they are. If they genuinely wish to persuade the public that they are a ‘vulnerable minority’ and that they are ‘just like other women’, they might want to rethink their strategy.

The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was quick to note the contradiction: ‘Aggressively dominant male mammals typically urinate to scent-mark their territory. They think they’re women. But can you imagine a better walking, talking, reeking advertisement for toxic masculinity?’

Then of course there were the placards directly celebrating violence against women who believe in biological reality.

I have written before about the way in which violent rhetoric and death threats have become entirely normalised within the trans activist movement. It is almost impossible to witness a ‘pro-trans’ rally that doesn’t feature some kind of public threat that is seemingly tolerated and even encouraged by the crowd. We all remember when two SNP politicians were photographed next to an activist holding a placard with the slogan ‘Decapitate TERFs’, along with an image of a guillotine, and they didn’t even notice. Nor was the bearer even investigated by police, even though his image had been disseminated widely on the internet.

Again, the benefits of free speech are apparent. While direct threats are and should be illegal, these kinds of vague pronouncements of rage only serve to undermine the people responsible for them. The problem has always been that such behaviour has always been denied by so-called ‘allies’ of the genderist movement. As journalist and author Helen Lewis has pointed out: ‘What gets me about this obvious misogyny is that no one at the top of the movement - trade unions, charities, big activists, politicians who speak at these rallies - ever condemns it. Even noticing it is treated as falling for a right wing trap.’

The turning of so many blind eyes has meant that this grimly sadistic aspect of tans activism has been largely missed by the general public, and many have even fallen for the myth that such rhetoric is common to ‘both sides’ in this debate. But no-one ever sees threats of rape and death coming from women’s rights campaigners. Has anyone, for instance, ever seen gender-critical feminists behave like this?

Or holding banners suggesting that people commit suicide?

Those in any doubt about this trend should browse through the ‘TERF is a slur’ website, which collates screenshots of violent threats against women. Here are just a few examples:

The supreme court ruling has been seismic, and for once the mainstream media has been forced to report on a development that advances the cause of rights for women and gay people. While journalists have studiously pretended that the WPATH Files never happened, that trans activist violence is non-existent, that the Cass Review was ‘problematic’, they could not so easily overlook this moment. And now everyone has seen how trans activists behave when they don’t get their way. And it isn’t pretty.

Our two-tier policing system has long been evident, with threats issued by trans activists ignored while others have been arrested for the sin of ‘misgendering’. True to form, the Met Police has issued a statement claiming that these open calls for murder are unworthy of their attention and that ‘the images and signs are from historic events, did not take place in London’ and ‘do not constitute a criminal offence’.

None of this is true. In fact, one of the most egregious images was posted by Jo Grady, General Secretary of the University and College Union. Grady’s key message – ‘Hate will never win’ – was somewhat undermined by the fact that one of the images she posted featured a protester holding a placard that celebrated the execution of ‘TERFs’. It’s a fine example of the ‘crybully’ phenomenon, whereby the most vicious and overindulged in society are sanctified as victims.

And yet, the incoherent bleatings of politicians such as Chapman, the misplaced ‘allyship’ of the likes of Grady and Maugham, the rage and ferocity of male protesters in lipstick and bad wigs, all of this has made more visible the problem that women’s rights campaigners have been warning about for a long time. They are permitting the public to see them for what they are. And for that, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

---