Act 3 Introduction
In Act One, I put forward my thoughts on how we got here and the impact that a lack of social roles has had on men over a long time. In Act Two, I spoke about my story and how I ended up speaking on this subject. Now, in Act Three, I want to show you the results of what we spoke about in Act One, how it has come to impact women, and a kind of crash course into the trans culture war—why most people are so ignorant of the facts that are around it, what trans is, and how we still have very little understanding of how it forms in people. The impact of this on women and girls from trans women. Yet finally, as promised, I will end it on some hopeful notes.
In my view, if we fix what has been done to men as a whole, we will fix what is now happening to women. The root of this issue lies in the start, but the results are becoming more horrific than people want to accept. In the online version of this—the one you’re reading—for the first part, I’ve left out a few examples of women-identifying people causing harm as I want to save some things for the book in hard form. Everything I am about to put forward should be enough for people with even the smallest mind on the subject to see that something is wrong and things need to change.
Part 6: Dances with TERFs
Many people reading this book will not have the context required to understand the deeper arguments surrounding the trans debate and why people even care, so in this chapter, I am going to start from a point of low resolution and slowly zoom in so that people can get up to speed. On the surface, a lot of people still think this—the trans debate—is revolving around two groups: pro-trans and anti-trans. While it is obvious that this isn’t true, it is what the TRA (Trans Radical Activists) want people to believe. This perception protects them in that it allows them to do anything they want under the guise that people are just bigoted and need to accept that trans people are real and let them live their lives.
This argument goes something like this: there are pro-trans people who believe that trans people of all kinds are just trying to live their lives, and the evil religious people are telling them it is against God and they should find religion and stop being trans. There are groups of people going around being hateful transphobes, killing trans people, and denying their rights to exist. Trans people are not bothering anyone, so why do these people care? At this point, most people stop listening and just accept this is true.
After all, it was true of gay rights—why wouldn’t it be true of this? The gay bashers are back, but this time there is a group of middle-aged women roaming around in pickup trucks screaming “You’re a man” at innocent trans people and lynching them, led by the very evil and scary J.K. Rowling, who, from her dark tower, uses some kind of dark transphobic magic to convince all the mothers in the land that we should stop trans people from existing just because she is a bigot and doesn’t like them. They are scared of trans people and live in fear of them simply existing. This is what is conjured in people’s minds in some form when they hear the words “TERF” (trans exclusionary radical feminist) and “transphobe.”
In normal society, people tend not to look into an issue or listen to what people labelled with a nasty label have to say—it scares them. In my view, the reason they are so scared of listening is because they know deep down that these explanations are lacking. Why would an author who wrote a book about magic, viewed by some in more Christian circles as satanic—who, I remind you, a few years before speaking out on the trans issue was on a mission to slowly make all the characters gay, starting with Dumbledore—why would someone who was so accepting of these ideas and minorities that she would retroactively add these characteristics to beloved characters—why would she suddenly have an issue with trans people? It seems odd, doesn’t it? Someone who champions diversity in this way—did she miscast a spell? Did she say the wrong words and, in short order, become corrupted and transform into a bigoted, anti-gay, anti-trans dragon bent on taking over the minds of people so we all collectively eradicate trans people?
Or is it far more likely, given we don’t live in one of her books, that she just learned some new information, saw some things that upset her, and noticed that maybe, just maybe, the trans issue isn’t as simple as people living their lives as themselves—that maybe in this movements, there was something else?
The gay rights movement, for the most part, is about what someone does in private with someone else. You might see some men holding hands or women kissing in public; they might create some clubs and play some garish music. At the very worst, they might throw a parade, and for one day a year, you might, God forbid, see a man dressed as Wonder Woman. All of these activities have one thing in common: while you are invited to them (I’d ask people before you kiss them), you are not required to participate in them.
The trans movement is different as it requires your participation. Gay men never asked us to call them anything different; they never demanded it. Their demands were to be treated the exact same way as everyone else: marriage under the law (there is an argument that forcing churches to marry them is a demand of participation, but many didn’t care for that as long as they got the same rights), the right to love, the right to live. The trans movement is asking you to change the way you speak, use pronouns they just invented. While many, including myself, don’t really feel the pronouns are that big of a deal when they are applied socially, the issue is they are not—they are pushed into law; they become a protected right. This is why Jordan Peterson would speak out at the start of his now long-term tenure in the culture war. Bill C-16, passed in 2017 to protect transgender and gender-diverse Canadians, added "gender identity or expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code hate crime provisions. While it does need to be said that it would only make a person face any consequences due to deliberate misuse and repeatedly doing so, I’m not sure that makes a difference.
The issue with laws like this is they create a situation where you are required to talk in a certain way. In normal hate speech legislation, it is aimed toward things you cannot say—e.g., I can’t go around calling gay people a bundle of sticks (otherwise know as a faggot). Context is always looked at in these cases, but the fact that one could be brought before a tribunal just because they mistakenly misgender someone or said the wrong pronoun, whether the end result is that they are found not guilty, doesn’t matter—people shouldn’t have to go through that. It also impacts religious freedoms. People may not believe, for many reasons, that people can change gender and may not feel okay with referring to them as "he" or "her." They are not saying you can’t be trans; they are saying, "I believe my rights are impacted as you are telling me to participate in what I believe is a lie."
While there hasn’t been any widespread cases of this law impacting people directly, as it is complex and rather hard to prove, the issue still remains. Gender expression is a unique thing for each person; therefore, what counts as discrimination under it comes down to individual feelings of being offended—it lacks specifics. This is, in turn, most likely why it isn’t applied very much; the law needs specifics, but protection of these changeable characteristics means that it is a speech law that lives in flux. It applies to what people want to be called, not what they don’t want to be called. I use the Bill C-16 example not to prove harm has been done but rather to show the issue with the trans movement as a whole.
Never before have we had a movement of rights that demands you respect an individual’s self-expression that can shift at any time.
For real-world examples of speech laws being enacted, we need to look closer to home with what the UK calls non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime hate incidents are defined as incidents or alleged incidents perceived by a person other than the subject to be motivated, wholly or partly, by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.
They are not crimes; they are violations of speech. In 2024, The Telegraph estimated that, based on a report, data from 29 out of 43 police forces in England showed 8,118 NCHIs by mid-November 2024. While these are not crimes, they may as well be, as the police show up to people’s houses and ask them why they said the nasty word, treating people as if they had committed a crime. An unexpected aspect is that NCHIs can appear on Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, potentially affecting employment. So, in the same way that a person gets a criminal record, these checks can impact someone for the rest of their lives. What is hateful is determined by the other party, so someone can, in fact, report someone for practically anything. I could as a dyslexic report someone on Twitter for just making any comment about my grammar or spelling, pretty silly right? But it is the way the Rule is worded.
Back to compelled speech: even without the law playing a role, if I call someone a "he" who wants to be a "she," I can be viewed as hateful and “cancelled,” when in my view, I could just be speaking in reality. Simply calling a woman an adult human female can be seen as hateful in today’s context. Gay people never asked us to shift definitions to change the world we live in to suit them; this is something only the trans movement asks and It is a rather big ask.
But these are just words—small things, right? They aren’t at all impacting people’s actual lives? Let’s move on from the words and definitions and talk about spaces—safe spaces, sports. Some women don’t want what they see as a man in their bathroom, changing room, or even dating app. Why can’t they just let them in, you ask? Simple—they don’t have to, nor should they be made to. While some people won’t care if a trans person uses a toilet for the gender they feel they are, others will.
The debate around toilets can be seen by some as rather trivial—who cares? But if you don’t care, then it is up to the people who do. The simple fact is these spaces belong to women, and they should be the ones to decide who can enter them. If a trans person passes and they want to use the female toilet, most people aren’t even going to notice. The issue becomes an problem when it is about rights, and we start hearing vocally that people have to let them in—they need to let them in. This isn’t a rights movement; it is demanding that they get more rights—they want women’s rights. While, as I said in chapter one, I do think the incentives and perception that women have increased rights is an issue for men, I don’t see what toilets have to do with that. The fight for the toilet is a strange one. We can sum up the issue with the following thought experiment: a woman who has suffered sexual assault by a man goes into a bathroom, sees a trans person in there, has a reaction like a PTSD fit, screams at the person to get out—“There are no men allowed!” This woman, in this case, is the vulnerable one; she is suffering the effects of PTSD, and then she is labelled hateful.
The issue isn’t “Can trans women use the women’s restroom?”—they have been doing that for ages. The issue is that it becomes socially acceptable, the norm, rather than the unspoken rule that it is okay (in some circumstances) . When something becomes the norm, it will invite people who have other reasons for wanting to use the female restroom, and then it invites perverts and people who want to be in there for more than just going to the loo. It creates an incentive for bad actors. The argument on the trans side is frankly dumb—why do you need to be in there? When you break this down, it starts to get strange. Is it because you want to feel you are a woman? In most cases, the male restroom, while very dirty, is perfectly serviceable. So, we are weighing trans people’s rights to be affirmed—right to a clean toilet—versus women’s rights to feel safe, to not be afraid of rape or perverts. Both boil down to belief it would seem (until we see the examples). Most trans people are not going in there to hurt or perv on women; however, just weighing the “why” of this act—trans people basically because they want to, and women (who are anti it) because they want to feel safe—it’s clear that women have the stronger case of why trans people shouldn’t be allowed in.
More than this, we can look to real-world examples where trans-identifying people have caused harm in the restroom. We need only look at the case of Katie Dolatowski, who in March 2018, sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl in the female toilets of a Morrisons supermarket in Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland, involving grabbing the girl and forcing her into a cubicle. The teenager then demanded the girl take her trousers off and threatened she would stab her mother during the attack. One month prior, she filmed a 12-year-old girl in a women’s bathroom at an Asda supermarket in Fife, recording her in a state of undress. Somehow Dolatowski narrowly avoided being sent into custody when she appeared for sentencing and was instead handed a strict three-year community payback order. She has been imprisoned multiple times for breaching court orders, including a 78-day sentence in a male prison in 2023 for skipping bail and a four-month sentence in 2022 for breaching sex offender notification requirements.
To the example given above, many trans activists will say that’s just one example; that person doesn’t represent us. Well, how many examples do we need? How many children exactly? How many women? One is to many.
We once again find ourselves at the point where trans people are asking for rights that impact other people’s rights as well as putting children and women at risk. Perceived or otherwise (clearly otherwise), the right to feel safe in a space that already exists for women supersedes the right for a trans person to feel accepted as a woman.
Women’s sports—we gender sports for a reason. We always have. I could spend a whole book talking about why this is the case, or I could just leave it at this: clearly, men are built to fight, to compete. We are a binary species in this, so obviously, men have an advantage in sports. Trans athletes consistently beat women in female sports, be it at high school or in mainstream competitions.
The number of transgender women competing in women's sports is not precisely known globally, but estimates suggest significant participation, especially at high school and college levels in the U.S. A U.N. report from 27 August 2024 titled “Violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences” states:
“Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males, as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball, basketball and soccer. Instances have been reported where adult males have been included in teams of underage girls. Injuries have included knocked-out teeth, concussions resulting in neural impairment, broken legs and skull fractures. According to scientific studies, males have certain performance advantages in sports. One study asserts that, even in non-elite sport, ‘the least powerful man produced more power than the most powerful woman’ and states that, where men and women have roughly the same levels of fitness, males’ average punching power has been measured as 162 per cent greater than females.”
The report includes cited examples of all the injuries listed. They go on to state, again I remind you with cited examples:
“Male athletes have specific attributes considered advantageous in certain sports, such as strength and testosterone levels that are higher than those of the average range for females, even before puberty, thereby resulting in the loss of fair opportunity.”
And finally on the impact that it has had:
“Policies implemented by international federations and national governing bodies, along with national legislation in some countries, allow males who identify as women to compete in female sports categories. In other cases, this practice is not explicitly prohibited and is thus tolerated in practice. The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against males. According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.”
The impact on women's sports is incredibly obvious to anyone who has a basic understanding of the differences between men and women, yet we were told to wait for the data—there is no proof—and more such platitudes by the trans activists. Well, as seen in the above report, the inclusion of them in female sports was wrong, is wrong, and does cause harm; this is now a fact—we have the data. With that in mind, are we just meant to wait for the data to come in on women’s restrooms, safe spaces? Are we just to wait for people to get sexually assaulted by bad actors? To this, I ask: how many need to be assaulted, how many kids need to be exposed to indecent things, how many exactly until we can admit the obvious—that it is incorrect to allow trans women (biological men) into these spaces? And when we are eventually proven right, as we have been with sports, how will this harm be undone? It can’t. We don’t have to wait for data to stop bad things from happening: if I keep throwing matches onto a pile of paper, I’m pretty sure it’s going to result in it burning. However, I guess if we follow the trans activist view, we need to wait until it burns down the neighbourhood to be sure.
I myself, as mentioned in the last chapter, would attend a "Let Women Speak" event, and this is what I witnessed: a large gathering of women in Hyde Park talking about the issues they faced around trans people and womanhood, their right to not have what they see as men give them intimate medical care or invade their spaces. One woman in a wheelchair gave an impassioned speech about how she was uncomfortable with men giving her care when she asked for female-only care. Attempting to drown out this meeting of women in the middle of a park, nowhere near any trans people by intention, was a group of trans people and young women and men shouting at them about how they were somehow hurting trans people. I can’t help feeling that this picture, as it were, was a perfect representation of why the trans movement isn’t anything like gay rights. These women at the "Let Women Speak" event were just talking about their issues, being heard, and sharing—they weren’t protesting a trans event; they were not requesting that trans people don’t come into the park. Yet, for some reason, the anti-women trans activists were saying they were hurting them by speaking, by sharing. I saw people attempt to assault the women acting as stewards that day; I saw people get right up in people’s faces to tell them they were hateful for simply meeting and sharing thoughts and ideas, talking about stories—really, for women just existing who might disagree with them.
There are a few "whys" that need to be asked: Why do trans people even want to compete against women? Why do they even want to go to the women’s restroom as some kind of civil rights movement? The answers from trans people you’ll get will shift and normally come down to feeling affirmed: “Well, I’m a woman after all, so why shouldn’t I compete against women?” Put simply, because it isn’t fair. People don’t need to bend to your will; they shouldn’t have to accept people into their safe spaces. The rights of one group cannot impact the rights of another. The trans movement is asking a lot of people—far more than just “Let us be treated as you are.” They are asking to be treated better, to have access to spaces beyond the norm. While I will use pronouns for people, as I have no issue with it, it needs to be stated that trans people, whether male or female biologically, cannot change sex. This must be accepted—they are men asking for access to women’s spaces at the core. They could just create a trans-only space, and no one would care. This is not what they are asking; they are asking to be women, to access women’s spaces, and the pushback is easy to understand—they are men, and they don’t belong there. It’s been pushed to far now.
I think there are simple fixes to these issues. Trans people need to accept that they don’t get to be treated by society as women just because they have said they are. They can be trans women, and trans women get the same rights as men, along with some protections against hateful language, as gay men do. You don’t get access to the women’s restroom; you don’t get access to women’s sports; you don’t get access to women’s prisons—but we will call you "she" if you like, not in law, but socially, as friends.
You’ll notice throughout this chapter that I haven’t brought up trans men much. There is a very simple reason for this: men are not under threat from women in a physical way generally. There is an innate fear in women of men, as we have the power in a physical sense to harm them—this is just a basic human fact. So, when a trans man walks into a male restroom, there is no threat, and it’s fine. It is down to human nature. I can comfortably say that I speak for most men when I say trans men are welcome in our toilets, and trans women—they are not really a safe space for us; it’s just a pot to piss in. This will no doute result in longer queues for the men’s, which is one of the main benefits of the male restrooms, but that’s a hit I’m willing to take.
I can go on to talk about changing rooms and how all of this impacts children (the example of Katie Dolatowski should be enough for any reasonable person), but really, it should be as simple as this: people don’t want a biological man in the spaces of women due to the fact that men are bigger and stronger than women. While some trans people might not be, this doesn’t change the fact we make these rules for the general population, not the outliers.
We are very much still at the start of seeing what results these impacts will have on society, so presenting data sets on this is hard. Also, as it is all based on people’s safety and personal feelings, it is close to impossible. As we get further into the book, we are getting more recent, and I want you, dear reader, to think about what incentives we are creating. We can predict outcomes based on incentives; it’s actually quite easy to do. We can see that on a basic level, if we say I will pay you 10 USD to come to a location and say hi, people will come. I can easily say as well that if we allow trans people who have no intention of doing harm into a safe space for women, we will also attract people who do want to do harm. The world is full of bad people with bad intentions, and by opening access to anyone who just puts on some makeup and says I’m a woman, we also allow access to people with perversions, which are numerous within the neo-trans community. People will say, point to an example of this or that, but that is not the point—these changes made the incentives for bad actors.
Another example that is again close to home for me is that female-identifying police officers in the UK can now search women. People have stated this is only if they approve the request. In a situation where a teenage girl has been arrested, do you think she would understand the right to say no when asked? The police thrive on people not understanding their rights; young people are terrible in these situations, and the authority that police have makes it hard to say no. We already know that male police officers have an issue with consent, with a Sky News investigation finding at least 119 UK police officers convicted of crimes, including rape, since March 2021. Some of these include possession of indecent images of children, so are we to believe just because they have slapped on a wig and some makeup, they have solved their consent issues, that they are good people? The police are a hotbed of bad incentives; this would just add yet another one for a sector of people that look for and enjoy gaining power over the most vulnerable people in our society—women and children.
As a final thought while many TERFs have taken this title as a badge of honour I think most of them are not really trans exclusionary; they just don't want men in their spaces, they are not radical as we have seen there are examples of these accesses causing harm. They are in actual fact just Fs: feminists who are protecting spaces meant for women and girls and it is as simple as that.
Now let’s start looking into why people are trans, what the theories are on it, and why some of them, which we know exist, might cause alarm in women’s minds at the thought of them having free access to spaces not meant for them.
If you think I’m harsh in this chapter for calling trans women men, I am not, it is a biological fact. Some readers might think they don’t actually believe that they are women do they? Not all of course but alot do and we are being forced to treat them as such.
Thank you, Sascha. This is a great analysis and article. ‘In my view, if we fix what has been done to men as a whole, we will fix what is now happening to women’. YES!