Twitter’s free speech threatens radical trans activism – The Spectator Australia

I sat down to write this article about how Elon was being held captive in some areas in his expressed mission to free speech on Twitter. I was going to give an analysis on why key figures in the gender critical movement are still not back on Twitter, even though dissident individuals from the centre-right are. I would have felt a tad silly now that I, and many of the cancelled gender criticals, are back on the grotty old bird app.

Some of the famous gay rights activists have been reinstated like Fred Sargeant and women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen. Even comedy writer Graham Linehan is back shuffling out his dangerous speech all over the place. I was reinstated Christmas Day, which was a nice gift (but maybe not for my family). The following Tuesday, Melbourne academic and feminist philosopher Dr Holly Lawford-Smith was reinstated after spending over three years in Twitter exile.

The issue with the Musk takeover of Twitter is not that the Left are frightened of hearing right-wing opinions (they all know what they are), they are not worried about Hitler rising from the dead, and they are not even worried about the identities of the imaginary gendered. The new establishment Left are worried about their inability to create universal regulatory capture. If Twitter doesn’t submit, that is a big deal, and gender identity is a vital cog in a very authoritarian wheel.

The current rise of authoritarianism is in the takeover of the mechanisms of government, media, and corporate life by forms of regulation that have real legal teeth, where most hinge on discrimination legislation and faux population healthcare initiatives. Via this legislation and the invention of imaginary oppressed groups, entire workforces can be brought into compliance to a new cultural system that is as incoherent as religion while being generated by the mechanisms of government itself and tremendously far-reaching in its power.

Those who control Western regulatory and policy systems can wield a form of unaccountable control that is greater than the reach that any elected official could dream of, especially since it’s coupled with technology that can look into your home and cut off your bank account. The vast wealth of the Western taxpayer is then repurposed to affirm the ideology that reinforces the state religion of equity, social justice, and the new world order.

In my feminist side of the political pool, we say that an organisation is ‘captured’ if it has accepted the ideology that human beings are capable of changing sex with gender confessions. Once an organisation that you work for has accepted this ideology, (which is central to the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI) run by ACON), if you are found saying that men can never be women on social media, in printed opinion, or at a dinner party that someone can overhear, your income can be in jeopardy.

The vast regulatory infrastructure throughout the world means that those who define ‘hate’ have the same power as those who once defined ‘sin’. The regular rejections to my appeals from Twitter that litter my inbox accuse me of ‘hateful conduct’. I was banned for saying that men pretending to be lesbians is rape culture. Denying that a special group of men have a born and natural right to enter into lesbian spaces for dating purposes is hateful because special gender identities are not just ‘Woke’ nonsense, they have real power.

Professors are the new priests, and after years of government funding they have discovered a gender soul, not in the actual science obviously, but in the social sciences. This special soul, wrapped in the mysticism of social justice, is so powerful that it will override male pattern violence in men with a gender declaration.

This magic declaration, made from a male person to a female person, immediately instructs that female person to be silent, to pack up her instincts, and tell the lie, if she does not tell the lie, she will face discipline. Gender identity does not so much erase women, as it puts them in direct and legal subjugation to the worst of men. This is why trans activists (TRA’s) and men’s rights activists (MRA’s) have almost identical arguments. There is a fine line between an MRA and a TRA, and it’s drawn with an eyebrow pencil.

The capture of Twitter and the removal of many gender-critical feminists was a vital aspect of the way governments have snuck in terrible and dangerous legislation throughout the Western world. The gender critical position differs in one key area from the conservative political position in the gender wars, and that is in its unwillingness to compromise about sex in law in any way. Conservatives will sometimes engage in a kind of ‘meet halfway’ discussion about accommodating ‘trans people’ in women’s spaces.

Gender-critical people like myself are not just opposed to the gigantean-titted manual arts teacher making headlines lately, we don’t just want boys out of girl’s sport, we are opposed to the category of gender identity in law completely. Gender identity is such a useful category for government, neither side is likely to want to remove it completely without broad-scale popular resistance.

In the ‘gender equity’ suite of claims, governments claim to be able to eradicate male violence completely with cultural intervention in the population. This is the utopia of the religion. Naive players like Grace Tame enter the political fray with bold statements that sexual violence can be eradicated; she wants to believe it, I want to believe it. But as a survivor and a grown-up woman who understands things, I don’t see any evidence that government has the means to eradicate male pattern violence, and I’ve really listened to their arguments.

How do the progressives claim to be able to eradicate male violence against women, I hear you ask? It’s through ‘gender’, ie. culture. I studied social science and culture, so I’ll run you through the maths here.

1. Men commit almost all violent crime.
2. Gender (the culture of sex) is more important than sex itself in human behaviour (there is no actual evidence for this).

3. Therefore criminal pattern exists in the male gender, what we call ‘masculinity’.

4. If we can abolish bad masculinity, we can eradicate male violence.

5. Ergo… any man who performs a feminine gender identity is free of male pattern violence.

These assumptions underlie the ideology that is placed in almost all the protective mechanisms and infrastructure for women and children in the Western world. The theory that gender is the driver of violence is so embedded and repeated in international women’s rights documents that it informs almost every dollar that goes into domestic violence funding in this country, they call it ‘primary prevention’. The seeds of the oppression of women is now woven into our protective infrastructure.

This simple fiction that gender is prominent over sex is now being used to remove Western women’s right to politically assemble in protest against terrible and dangerous legislation.

I was recently involved in a series of protests in Brisbane against proposed new Births, Deaths, and Marriages legislation. The legislation that was about to be introduced allows any man to change his sex marker on his birth certificate in Queensland with a declaration of gender.

In response to our protests the local, ‘queer’ paper wrote a hit piece calling us ‘bitches’. To finalise a series of protests on the Self ID legislation we planned to meet in a Brisbane hotel to hear a series of talks; the booking was cancelled by the Hotel after they were lobbied by trans activists. The feminist meeting was held in secret.

The self ID legislation was introduced into the Queensland Parliament on the last day of sitting of 2022 via the new Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2022. The bill is every bit as horrific as you can imagine. You can read the legislation here and follow this link to the submission details where you can tell the Queensland government what you think before midday on the 11th of January 2023. More was the speech of Queensland Attorney General Shannon Fentiman in introducing the legislation where she claims that any suggestions that someone will identify as female for nefarious purposes are ‘ludicrous’ and that certain ‘groups’ ‘cloak their transphobia in the guise of women’s safety’. To be so grossly misrepresented to the Parliament by an elected representative is quite something.

After the legislation was introduced a local ABC presenter invited Fentiman on his program as well as Sall Grover, a Gold Coast businesswoman opposed to the legislation. Fentiman declined and Grover’s appointment to give the gender-critical perspective was pulled from the segment at the last minute by ABC management. ABC are consistent winners of AWEI prizes. The local ABC radio then read out a statement by the government and played audio of Fentiman explaining how the legislation was to ‘affirm’ trans people.

I don’t know if Elon Musk is the second incarnation of Satan, but I know it will only take one dissident oligarch, and if he is serious about this ‘Vox Populi, Vox Dei’ stuff, then that might be all we need

You can follow me on Twitter again at @msediewyatt where I deny that humans can change sex and where I continue to be not that nice.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Favorite