Defending your terf

It was a usual morning; someone on BBC Woman’s Hour was talking about Caribbean cookery but doing it in the new, to my ears, strange language of woke: ‘Cookery is a vehicle.’ Long important pause. ‘Cooking is about identity. It’s about learning your history.’ 

On Twitter I asked if anyone recognised the origins of this new- speak, which perhaps originates on social science courses. I got distracted, the joy of Twitter, by an Irish lady complaining about male violence and the risk posed by allowing transgendered men into women’s spaces such as lavatories, changing rooms, schools and prisons. She insisted that all men were violent. I quipped that perhaps putting on a dress doesn’t change that. 

That wasn’t why my account was instantly banned. This has happened twice before, and the reason isn’t always obvious. The first time I was barred after I retweeted a tweet from Helen Belcher, trans-activist and former LibDem candidate who stood against the Tories in Chippenham in 2017. In it she wrote and I repeated, that if women don’t like transgendered men entering their private spaces, they can go to law about it. The second suspension came when I said dear Helen in her blonde wig, ‘still looked like a bloke’ to me. 

This time my crime was to ask, ‘Did you protest against those vests emblazoned with: ‘I punch TERFS?’ 

‘TERF,’ ‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ is a term of abuse used by the ‘trans-community’ against women who want to maintain some spaces for women and children alone. Which bit of my tweet the algorithm objected to is not clear, but I was instantly warned that I was, ‘Violating our rules against abuse and harassment,’ and told I could, ‘not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.’

That’s me gone, knocked off my platform. Asking if someone disapproved of violence, as I do, put me in league with bigoted activists and violent criminals, the type of men who go around in vests saying, ‘I Punch TERFS.’ 

As I pointed out in my appeal against the ban, my question was based on fact. In September 2017 at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, London, a sixty-one-year-old woman was punched in the face three times, knocked to the ground, kicked and her camera smashed, as she filmed a talk about gender recognition.

Video on social media showed a confrontation between two groups, feminists sceptical about the idea of sex and gender as mere ‘social constructs,’ and transgendered men some holding placards railing against misogyny and shouting, ‘When TERFs attack, we strike back.’ 

During the trial, which took place in April, 2018, the defendant, Tara Wolf, 26, a six-foot- tall Deliveroo driver, was surrounded by supporters who brought fighting dogs (Dobermans and Mastiffs), to stand outside the court, as well as a huge sound system blaring death metal. Strangely machismo for a group purporting to be women. 

Despite what Belcher believes, going to law is not always useful for women. The judge made his feelings plain, telling the woman assaulted that if she referred to Wolf as anything but ‘she,’ she would be in contempt of court. Wolf said she was acting in self-defence, beating the elderly woman because the transgendered are ‘A target for the far-right.’ She also admitted posting on Facebook ahead of the event: ‘wanna f*** up some TERFs. They’re no better than fash (fascists).’

The judge refused the prosecution suggestion that this constituted prior intent to commit violence. Wolf’s defence lawyer argued that autism and ‘Oppositional defiant disorder,’ diagnosed aged six, were mitigating factors and asked to the court to consider Wolf’s desire to be a ‘role model for other trans people in the trans community,’ and work in the ‘transgender charity sector.’

Employing this strange new language with its buzz-words such as ‘autism,’ ‘role-model’ ‘trans,’ and ‘community,’ how could the judge not be persuaded. Perhaps he was also responding, in advance, to a proposed amendment to the 2010 Gender Recognition Act, introduced by Mrs May’s government, which aimed to make any criticism of transgender people another ‘hate crime.’ Mrs May fell before that bill could be passed but it seems now to be tacitly taken to be the law, by police, courts, teachers, university councils, publishers and social media. 

The hefty young man who had conducted ‘targeted harassment’ and incited hatred on line, then beaten an elderly woman to the ground, walked away with a fine of £430. It’s a strange world out there and sometimes I’m glad that I no longer speak or understand its language. 

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

26 Comments on Defending your terf

  1. [continuation of previous discussion in which Heinlein and Rand were mentioned]

    Harry Black: I apologise for any offence. It grieves me that I offended you, and it also grieves me that I recently offended Catherine Blaiklock. My tendency to dismissive jesting would work better if you could both see the affectionate look on my face when I type my replies to you.

    In terms of IQ, I probably ought to be one of Rand’s 0.01% of “contributors”; in terms of genuinely liberal education I probably have few equals among my contemoraries; and in terms of theology I’m probably not far behind Fr Mullen: but I’m no better than an Andaman Islander when it comes to being polite to people on the Internet.

    Please forgive me, and please continue to read, think and argue.

    • PJR -warm greetings!

      Please, I assure you, you have done me no harm.

      Still, I compliment you on your gentlemanly -I say manly, actually- expression of regret and request for forgiveness.

      And still again, if you would welcome my forgiveness, I freely and happily offer it to you.

      ( I know that many times, in many ways, I have hurt others by way of wayward words -for which I feel guilt and self-reproach.)

      I add this:

      In my experience, over these many decades, while based successively on three continents, working with people of eighty-plus nationalities, many of whom had/have high levels of responsibilities for others’ lives, livelihoods, money, I have seen this:

      Many individuals, whose IQs, as measured by the IQ measuring industry, and whose quality of education could both be regarded as below median, make excellent contributions to their less-endowed fellow-folk and to the well-functioning of the social-economic systems in which they live and work.

      For example, I have been deeply touched and personally assisted by persons whose skills and motivations are focused on comforting those in dire straits of various kinds, and in helping such Lost/Anguished Ones to find their own motivation and capabilities to conduct self-sufficient and productive, contributing lives.

      And I see other such below-median individuals who start and build businesses that provide employment and disposable incomes to many who’d never be able to find or pay their own way in life without such constructive work by creators whose IQs and formal education are below median.

      But yes, every community -in every walk of life- relies mightily on those among the 0.01% who get weaving, and stay weaving, all their live-long days.

      All best to you PJR -Harry.

  2. I think they’ll push this nonsense further, which may be beneficial to the sane.
    How about them ‘arguing’ that animals are of equal value to humans, as we are animals anyway ?
    Then they can present as ‘facts’, that plants like trees and vegetables are worthy of respect , should not be eaten or even cut down, as they have feelings ?
    Finally they can blur the demarcation line between living organisms and inanimate ones, like rocks and stones.
    No, there’s lots more ‘fun’ and madness for the academics to squeeze out, as they busily trash our civilisation.

  3. As far as I am concerned, any man who beats on a woman is yellow scum. By man I mean anyone with a penis, by woman I mean anyone with a vagina. That definition has served us since we evolved into mammals, and as we are still here and reproducing millennia later, that definition is the only one that matters. All the rest of the trans rubbish is merely the product of decadent Fascist minds who, having lost all connection with life, truth and morality, have become unhinged. Just as their ancestors did in Nazi Germany.

  4. School assistant Kristie Higgs was sacked because of online posts described as prejudiced to the LGBT “community”. When she explained that her objection to her son being told that a women could have a penis was rooted in her Christianity, she was told to keep her religion out of it, not a “protected” belief. When a wasprevious woke-victim sacked for refusing to use trans pronouns and said that natal sex immutable, the judge said her beliefs were unworthy of respect in “democratic” society. This last judicial action is the most significant and alarming of all. (Toby Young, Spectator, 26 September.

  5. A whole list of “hate” crimes on the way – even more than the currently numerous TV adverts that feature people EXCLUSIVELY identifed pigmentally as less than 5% of the population estimated from the last census (watch out e.g. for the stereotype “Just Eat” with its gangsta-bling aspect).

    As for “woke” themes & terminology of the dominant pathocracy, their trajectory from the sociology departments of the Anglosphere academy is easily traced, and already (if belatedly) dofcumented. See e.g. “New Discourses”, 24 March 2020, “The Roots of ‘Woke’ Culture”, online.

  6. I suspect that the trannie thing is the end of the line of Marxist exploitation of the liberal principle of self-authoriality. I can’t think of anything else that Marxists can generate from the Jewish/Frankfurt/postmodern tradition of destructive critique, and I’m not aware of anything else coming down the academic turnpike.

    It has taken only two decades for trannyism to develop from its intellectualisation to its government-enabled oppressive legalism. The intellectual push only began in the late 1990s, I believe. The first time I encountered it was on-line in 2003 at the Canadian Marxist site C-Theory, which seemed oddly obsessed with the notion of gender (ie, not sex but “a personal choice”) fluidity (ie, a “fact” dictated to normal people who recognise the bounds of Nature). One imagines that the dictate’s potential for destruction, as an absolutist denial of Nature, is what attracts Marxists to trannyism. Probably not one of them cares a damn about the tragic creatures of trannyism.

    At the end of the Marxist exploitation of self-authoriality abides only dictate and oppression. North of the border the SNP government is dragging discussion of the whole thing under the rubric of hate speech (another gift of a certain small, restlessly vocal ethno-religious group). As with everything else that is going wrong, our people are reduced to sullen, resentful silence, like some dumb family animal that has no right to will its own destiny. Those who do not wish us to be farmed are too powerless and too confused to organise. The future is our ethnic obliteration. It’s not a cultural or institutional or constitutional thing – those are proxies. It’s existential. If you know that you are a nationalist.

    • But there’s that philosopher fella at Yale who reckons a couple apes are worth the same as a human being.

      Singer’s his name.

      Oh, there’s much, much more to come.

      Note that the marxist-inspired Greenists have plans to change the way the Earth’s resources are used and distributed -that can only result in the population being re-set at about 10% of what it is now.

      Who will comprise the ten percent?

      Perhaps ask Professor Doctor Singer?

      • Peter Singer is so far out on the equalitarian limb (he’s hostile to ritual slaughter and even wants Israel, his own people’s homeland, to cease its “racism” in respect to Palestinians) that he opposes open borders because it would get the far right (eg, Trump) elected. Yes, you read that right. He is so hostile to the politics of European people’s life-interests that he would give up the means of sweeping them away quickly via mass refugeeism. When you’re that far round the u-bend there isn’t much likelihood that the power elites in Wall Street and the City of London, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, et al will et behind you.

        Even so, it’s worth watching out for the first signs of discourse framing … the first ads seriously suggesting that an animal life has the same value as a human life. Right now though, I think they’ve got their hands full with convincing us, via our television viewing, to accept the Africanisation of Everything.

      • Harry Black:

        Richard Dawkins thinks that anthropoid apes should share in “human rights”. If one accepts the leftist understanding of the concept of “human rights”, it’s not easy to argue against him.

        Another nutty professor, whose name escapes me, was all over the BBC a few months ago with his theory that 6-year-old children should be allowed to vote.

        At present both these theories seem bizarre, but we’ve learned in the past half century that today’s bizarrerie is tomorrow’s unchallengeable orthodoxy.

        In the assault on everything that has been universally agreed without question for thousands of years, no weapon is too bizarre to be used.

        • Yes PJR.

          I’m thinking of that Full Collapse/End-Of-Almost-Everything scenario in which a small number of families secure themselves somewhere safe (somehow) and raise their children to handle Reality, with all its terrible features, which requires the development of the capacity to take responsibility for oneself-

          -and “rights” are regarded as elements that can only legitimately occur within in a regime of personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and contribution to others, in the context of community.

          And from that endeavour a New Day Dawns, and Real Humans start it all again.

          • Harry Black: You sound like Robert Heinlein. There are worse people to sound like, such as Ayn Rand, who sadly neglected the need for “contribution to others”.

            But before I join your survivalist community, I’ll need to know what the designated mother of my reality-handling children will look like.

            But it’s all fantasy, isn’t it?

          • PJR,

            To me, Heinlein was among the most inventive, most knowledgeable and most incisive of those who contributed in the field that he did-

            -and was very clever too in his use of English sentences to point out very significant matters pertaining to the human condition, and to the social/civic orders that humans use to try to organise themselves and keep themselves fed, and to deal with the various human weaknesses -incl their propensity to monster/dominate/control others and take their stuff.

            So I will thank you for the compliment -even though the way you put the matter, using Rand, could be taken as an insult.

            And Rand pointed out that the special 0.01% make positive contributions to the Rest, whether the Rest know it or not, or whether that 0.01% care that they do or are recognised for their essential, constructive contributions to the Rest.

            In my view, Rand was right about that, even though I am not a member of the 0.01%.

            Emphatically, I am grateful for the positive contributions made to me by that highly positively constructive 0.01%.

            And I say that scheme I describe in my comment is about
            survivors who apply the best that is known to contribute to the challenge of maintaining the proper human project.

            It is not about “survivalists”, in the way that word is used by some to denigrate people who pursue full self-sufficiency -so as to survive consequences of collapse of civil order.

            All best to you PJR -Harry.

    • Gasarbeiter writes: “I suspect that the trannie thing is the end of the line of Marxist exploitation of the liberal principle of self-authoriality. I can’t think of anything else that Marxists can generate from the Jewish/Frankfurt/postmodern tradition of destructive critique, and I’m not aware of anything else coming down the academic turnpike.”

      I predict that the next barrier to be broken will be paedophilia. The age of homosexual consent has been reduced (at a speed that would amaze Stirling Moss) from 21 to 18 and now to 16. And, despite a minor setback in the High Court this week, the “rights” of children to be chemically mutilated for sexual purposes is pretty generally accepted by our lords and masters. If one combines these tendencies and extrapolates from them, one can safely predict the legalisation of paedophilia within twenty years.

      There may be ways of resisting or even reversing this tendency, but your babbling about Jews is unlikely to help.

  7. Does anyone here have the technical knowledge of what is described as “the law”, a sense of what plain people will put up with, and a bit of imagination, to describe the full extremity of the collapse of the civic order, with emphasis on the total absence of safety for children, and the violent terror put upon happily heterosexual women, to which we are headed, given Jane Kelly’s above report?

    • No. But qsince the 1970s, university law departments have been colonised by postmodernist lawyers who consider the law is a “narrative”. Its gone to the very top. vis Brenda Hale last August repealed clause 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights in a judgement about prorogation- the judgement is unconstitutional, poorly argued, inaccurate on key facts, and predicated on rumour. That comes from the “Supreme Court”. The identity promoters are present and active in every Whitehall ministry; in HR departments of corporations and also in the CoE. Read your Telegraph, and you’ll see that the Eton Headmaster is a devotee. By the way, Attenborough is Prince Charles alter ego, and Meghan is as pc as they come.

      • It’s bad alright Jonathan.

        And to use a cliche, that light at the end of the tunnel is an on-rushing locomotive pulling many wagon-loads of anti-Westernist/anti-white anti-personnel munitions.

        (Thank you for the info re Brenda Hale sacking the 1689 Bill of Rights.)

        • Bob, The Long March image does not suffice.

          It’s more like this:

          The Anglosphere has been devastated -to the degree that Germany’s 6th Army and its allies were wiped out at Stalingrad.

          It’s just that only a very few white, non-marxist denizens of the Anglosphere realise it happened.