And you may ask yourself.

Well, how did I get here?

Almost exactly three years ago today I wrote about Laurel Hubbard competing in the female category of weightlifting. When the female athletes were asked to comment on the entry of men into their sport, all three women on the panel at the press conference refused to comment.

Breaking the silence, American weightlifter Sarah Robles leaned forward to the microphone and said, “no thank you”.

In the article I wrote.

“’No thank you’ are the words many young girls of colour and white girls alike, will have to say in their life when they want to say something much stronger, something louder, something ruder, something entirely prohibited.”

“No thank you” has since become an equivalent phrase in the gender critical world to “go fuck yourself”.

The online editor told me that my article briefly crashed The Spectator website because of the additional traffic. I received a message from a popular Canadian podcast asking me to come on and talk about the issues I had raised in the article.  I told them that I would, but they needed to be aware that I am a gender critical feminist.  I never heard from them again.

In September 2021 I wrote about the trans identified MMA fighters Alana McLaughlin and Fallon Fox, after McLaughlin had defeated his female opponent with a “rear-naked choke” and Fox had left Tamikka Brents with a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and staples in her head.

I explained in the politest way I could imagine, that apart from the individual danger the female athletes, the visuals and rhetoric around the acceptance of men in women’s sport was even more dangerous for populations of females in general.

I said;

“Without the ability to define sexual boundaries and the cultural consensus to have her instincts about danger in males validated, women and girls are at greater risk.  A society that indulges this gender nonsense to the level that it encourages the mass gaslighting of girls and women out of factual understandings and natural instincts, is in serious trouble.”

Today again, we face the obvious reality online, that regular people do not want to see men beating up women. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) tried to handball the issue early on in the 2024 games, when it was clear that men were going to compete for women’s boxing medals, by saying they had to accept the sex that was listed on the passport.

I want to remind you that when self-identification on official documents was pitched by our government, it was claimed it was to avoid intrusive surgery, this nonsense idea was even platformed by the conservative Murdoch press.

Now we have seen, in an Olympic boxing ring, female boxer Angela Carini forfeit a fight for her own safety, because from the first punch, she knew her opponent was playing with a different set of genetics to what she had. I won’t go into the science, because ultimately this is not about science, it’s about power and politics and the ongoing oppression of women by men.

At the centre of the storm is the fake human rights category of “gender identity”. Gender identity is not a minority protection category, it is the erasure of protection.

Gender identity is an attempt to erase the “woman problem” everywhere with as little fuss as possible. By the “woman problem”, I mean the obligations that the western state has been forced to recognise and protect of female vulnerability, based largely in the female reproductive path. The state has amassed obligations to females over two hundred years of, sometimes militant, feminism. Gender identity is not ‘feminism gone too far’, gender identity is feminism purchased and put on the fire to warm the hearts of the worst of men of both political sides.

Some of those men punch women, like Imane Khelif, others just like to laugh at the show and blame the crazy cat women, while farming engagement at the outrage, men like Matt Walsh. Gender identity is useful to the left and the right. 

In the party-political, gender identity is like the sexual tension between stars in a romantic sitcom, once the politicians do what the people want, the show will be over. Gender identity is for the right what abortion is for the left, once they find a solution that most people are pretty happy with, they lose the political tension that is their stock in trade.

In government, gender identity is a population management experiment that has emerged from international organisations, funded by all sides of governments and embraced with gusto by capital. In 2022 I wrote about how consistently unpopular “the sport issue” is for progressives who promote gender identity in law. The Transgender Law Centre and Lake Research Partners in the United States conducted extensive research on the Democrat base and swinging voters, and found that the issue of men in women’s sports is resistant to “any and all arguments” on their side.

Hisorically a convincing narrative for the Democrats, and specifically for the Clinton and Obama campaigns, has been the race-class narrative. This is where narrative consultants link whatever battle they are fighting, with the historic battles of black civil rights and the rise of the western working class from generational poverty.

In short, high-level Washington based consultants are paid massive amounts of money to steal the political capital of blacks and the working class to push whatever nonsense that rich powerful progressives are trying to sell to the masses. Progressivism is the new opiate of the masses.

The Transgender Law Centre and Lake Research Partners have gained legitimacy for gender identity with what they call the race, class, gender narrative. Unfortunately, their own research has consistently revealed that the issue of men in women’s sport is resistant to the magic narrative, even in progressive populations. When it comes to the punch, people just don’t believe that men change sex with gender feels.

The problem for the progressive movement is, if sex exists in sport, then sex exists in other places, and therefore governments and capital may have to recognise male pattern violence, reproductive vulnerability and sex trafficking, as things that women pay their government to protect them from in material ways. Historically government on the left or right have not been enthusiastic to defend women and girls from men. It is a really hard thing to do.

Today, we see a storm. In response to the storm the IOC has made a statement saying that after the games they will have a little think. Tomorrow, they all hope, people will forget what we saw, and we can start to talk about “nuance” and protecting the mental health of men who need to punch women to affirm their gender identity.

If a gender affirming punch in the face at the Olympics is your line, your line has already been pushed too far. For me, gender-based pronouns are a punch in the face. Every time a man enters a facility allocated for women and girls; it is a punch in the face. The Australian Workplace Equality Index removing female facilities at work, is a punch in the face. The Queensland government changing birth certificates, is a punch in the face. Women being silenced in the workplace, is a punch in the face.

I have lost my goodwill, and now believe that anyone who advocates for the removal of sex protections for females does so as an act of aggression.  Some people do it for money, some people do it for social power, maybe very few people are brainwashed.

To the consultants on the left and the farmers on the right, no thank you.