One of my subscribers - not a blogger or a podcaster, just a "normal" (within reason etc) social media user - told me of a disappointing, but ultimately unsurprising, experience she'd recently had online, where one of her personal photos came to the attention of a certain "transvestigator", who set about relentlessly trolling her (and whipped up his followers to do the same), on the basis that she was "obviously" trans. It was her clavicle shape, you see.

Perplexed and unnerved, this woman explained to the people writing unkind and accusatory comments on her photos that she was just an ordinary grandmother from a working-class background, not some famous celebrity from an intergenerational Satanist family, whom we might reasonably suspect might be secretly trans (I wrote about this phenomenon - so-called "elite gender inversion", EGI - here).

She was then told that she could be trans and not know about it, as her parents could have been secret Masons who had her covertly transgendered in the womb.

At that point, she stopped reading the comments...

Unfortunately, this sort of thing has become relatively common - that self-styled "transvestigators" start to baselessly accuse, and even harass, perfectly ordinary people who are not trans, on the basis of extremely spurious "evidence", such as perceived bone structure in a photo.

Notably, the larger transvestigation movement has also put out false information (I suspect on purpose) about how to identify those who are transgendered, diktats that are now repeated like mantras, such as "women don't have Adam's apples" (wrong - everyone does), and "only men have a longer ring finger" (wrong - this pattern is more common in men, but also perfectly normal in women). This has inevitably led to many biological women - and not just celebrities, perfectly ordinary, everyday women - being wrongly labelled trans, and sometimes subject to some very cruel abuse as a result.

Now, in the context of this burgeoning and increasingly paranoid and hostile tranvestigatory environment, where so many people are now considered "under suspicion", we have a Supreme Court which suddenly - and to everyone's great surprise - has announced that it knows what a woman is: that a woman is a biological female.

The corollary of this is that so-called "trans women" (biological men who attempt to look like, and live as, women) are no longer legally permitted into single-sex spaces such as women's bathrooms, even if they have a so-called "gender-recognition certificate" saying they are women.

Great news, right?

Well, not entirely.

The problem with this ruling is that, in a world of extremely advanced surgeries and hormone therapies, how can you actually tell for absolute certain what someone's true biological sex is?

I gave examples in my previous essay, of the model Valentina Sampaio, who is openly trans, but looks incredibly feminine. Likewise, of the bald, muscle-bound, bearded Buck Angel, who is biologically a she.

It certainly is not always possible to tell by looking at someone what their true biological sex is, so how would this play out in reality?

Imagine a woman having a coffee in her local Costa, who decides to pop to the loo before she leaves. Perhaps this woman has had thyroid problems (as many women do) and has a goiter swelling in her throat, mimicking a "prominent Adam's apple", or perhaps she's naturally slim, without noticeably curving hips.

"Excuse me, madam," growls the GROPE (gender-recognition overt proof essential) officer on the door. "But can I see evidence of true biological femaleness before you are permitted to use this facility?"

"How dare you!" The woman flushes purple with indignation. "I am a woman and I am not showing you my ID to use the loo!"

"Sorry madam, but in that case you will have to use our specially assigned non-binary facilities. Our sex-segregated spaces are only for those who are true biological females."

"I AM a true biological female!"

"Sorry madam, but the trans individuals say the same. If you can't prove it, you'll have to go to the non-binary section."

Similar - and, potentially, much more aggressive and dangerous - confrontations could occur all over the country. They could happen in gyms and swimming pools, shopping changing rooms, dating events, and the list goes on. Even the production of ID might not always be enough. I mean, how can we be absolutely sure it's not fake? (Perhaps if it was a government-approved digital ID...)

And in reality, who walks around with gender-affirming ID anyway? Not everyone drives (nearly 1 in 3 women don't), and few people cart their passport around with them everywhere. In addition, being expected to whip out identifying documents to use public facilities such as toilets and changing rooms is just another iteration of the surveillance state. Are all those people who so stridently refused to identify themselves to "track and trace" throughout the fake plague, going to capitulate now and show ID to go to the toilet? Doubtful.

Therefore, the attempt to prove someone's biological sex before permitting them to use certain spaces is going to be an unenforceable nightmare in reality, meaning real women - who are, currently, rightfully so thrilled to be properly recognised in law - could quite quickly start to experience "anti-trans" persecution and discrimination themselves.

As soon as I saw the Supreme Court ruling, the fact that it was headline news everywhere, and that such establishment stooges as JK Rowling and Kemi Badenoch were celebrating it, I thought, "this is a psyop meant to trip us up". The ruling classes never ultimately do anything in our interests, so if they are suddenly pretending to know what a woman is, after years of shoving transgender rubbish down our throats, there's a reason for it.

I've been saying for a while that an engineered backlash against wokery, including one of its most central tenets, transgenderism, was coming, as the social pendulum appears to swing in a more conservative direction. But the key term there is engineered. The ruling classes are engineering - amplifying and publicising - this backlash for a reason (if they didn't want a high-profile anti-trans movement, they would suppress and ignore it, not plaster it all over the headlines).

The reason, I believe, is to to ultimately abolish "women" - and therefore biological distinctions between the sexes - altogether.

Because look again at the example of the woman in the coffee shop I gave, who doesn't have her ID, so is forced, after a humiliating encounter, to use the "non-binary" facilities instead.

Wouldn't it therefore be easier, it will be suggested - in order to avoid these kind of embarrassing, potentially dangerous public confrontations - to simply not have sex-segregated spaces at all, but merely to have nothing but gender-neutral facilities, that are open to everyone?

And while we're at it, social subversives will slyly suggest, why don't we go further: I mean, look how many social problems these strict delineations of biological sex have given us. Misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia - all these deep-seated prejudices are ultimately rooted in sex segregation and sex binaries.

If there was no male or female, no man or woman, merely just genderless "people", we would no longer have to tolerate these terrible scourges that have so torn our society apart...

We have to remember what the ultimate endgame is for the ruling classes, and they spelled it out clearly in John Lennon's 'Imagine'. They want a communist dystopia where nobody has any personal identity - no nationality ("no countries", crooned Mr Lennon), no religion, and no possessions.

There are other things the ruling classes don't want you to have, either, because these are also central to your personal identity, and gender is a (if not the) key one. Above everything else - age, nationality, religion, job - the most fundamental part of a person's identity, determining how they see themselves and how they experience the world, is whether they are male or female.

So, of course, the ruling classes want to scrap it.

How are they doing that?

You will note that, alongside the huge upswing in transgendered individuals over recent years, is a concurrent enormous explosion in autism diagnoses. In fact, autism diagnoses coincide with gender dysphoria so often, that one is almost seen as a symptom of the other.

I do not believe this is accidental or coincidental, but rather, that by intentionally injecting neurotoxic poisons into children in their earliest years - some of which contain cells from the opposite biological sex - the ruling classes are not strictly trying to make children "autistic", but rather, they are trying to make them transgendered - or perhaps, more accurately, non-gendered, to help social engineers create their "perfect" genderless citizen of the future.

It is no secret that, worldwide, men are becoming less male - as testosterone and sperm counts plummet - and women are becoming less female, struggling more with hormonal disorders and infertility - all consequences of a poisoned environment that is interfering with male and female hormones alike.

The official line is that these endocrine-disrupting chemicals, that lace everything from personal care products to bottled water, are causing unintended "side effects" as pertain to people's hormones. Yet when effects are this widespread and this entrenched, I think we can reasonably conclude that these are not "side effects", but rather, the intended effects.

In other words, the ruling classes have concluded that a genderless population, that is neither clearly male or female, will be easier to manage and control, so that is what they are in the business of creating.

Of course, having no gender also means having no family, as all family relations are gendered: mother / father; son / daughter; brother / sister; husband / wife (note the increasing ubiquity of the gender-neutral 'partner' to replace the distinctly gendered husband / wife and boyfriend / girlfriend).

Social subversives have always struck at the family, as the single most enduring obstacle between the individual and the state, and have tried various methods over the years to dismantle it, but none will perhaps be as devastatingly effective as legally abolishing gender.

So, that is what I think this most unexpected about-face from the Supreme Court is really all about. That is to say, it's not an about-face at all, but rather, it is about seeking to "prove" to the masses what an ill-advised idea sex-segregated spaces - and, consequently, clearly defined sexes - actually are, by demonstrating that, in practice, trying to enforce sex-segregation will end up discriminating against everyone, not just the transgendered.

Thusly, after several highly-publicised (and very possibly fake) incidents involving real women being harassed, when they can't sufficiently "prove" their true biological sex to enter a sex-segregated space, a new national conversation will be provoked about how helpful it really is to have these strict sex segregations, which just end up penalising everyone.

Wouldn't it be easier and kinder if we just scrapped these "male / female / cis / trans" limiting and out-dated labels, and simply recognised our shared humanity instead?!

John Lennon's Imagine is very clear: it's the differences between people that cause conflict, and therefore, the solution to conflict is to erase difference. If we haven't got any differences - if we haven't got countries, religions, possessions, or sexes to divide us - there's really not much left to fight about, is there?

The idea of abolishing biological sex and gender identity will be given a sheen of academic respectability by those people who (relentlessly...) point to rare chromosomal and hormone disorders, such as androgen-insensitivity syndrome. This is a condition where an individual is born appearing anatomically female, but is in fact biologically male, with XY chromosomes. Observable male characteristics have not developed, due to the body's insensitivity to the male hormone testosterone, that would normally prompt their appearance.

Babies born with complete androgen-insensitivity syndrome are "assigned female at birth" - since they look completely female - and grow up thinking they are female. It is only at puberty, when they don't start menstruating, that the alarm is raised and tests reveal the presence of a Y chromosome and undescended testes.

Now, a disingenuous ideologue might say, are you evil bigots really going to subject these poor young girls, who have lived as girls since birth and look completely female, to going into the boy's toilets at school? Changing with the boys for PE? Seriously?

Very rare and unrepresentative examples like this will be relentlessly invoked to "prove" that biological sex isn't as simple and straightforward to determine as we think it is. In addition, we can also expect androgen-insensitivity syndrome and similar such disorders to increase in frequency as our environment is further poisoned with hormone disrupters.

This has already led to discussions amongst the so-called intersex community (previously hermaphrodites) centring around whether the practice of defining intersex babies as either "boy" or "girl" and bringing them up accordingly - as has been the historical norm - should end, and intersex babies should not be labelled in this way, as it can lead to distress in later life when they do not identify with the gender they have been brought up as.

To avoid this possibility, it is suggested, they should be raised without a gender. Intersex babies "prove", according to advocates, that biological sex is not clearly dimorphic (male/female), but "a spectrum".

Making stark distinctions, therefore, discriminates against not just the intersex and the transgendered, but - as we will see as biological women start to get harassed and ask to "prove themselves" in public - everyone else, as well. That will be the line.

It's all problem-reaction-solution, with the ultimate "solution" being to erase gender identity entirely, which we can determine from the fact that the transgender movement isn't just about a biological man wanting to be a woman, or vice versa: it's about an increasing number of individuals who want to be "non-binary" - have no gender at all. It's why gender-specific terms in medical literature - such as "mother" and "breastfeeding" - have been replaced with the gender-neutral "birthing person" and "chestfeeding".

This is all sold to us as "progressive", since strict gender binaries are repeatedly conflated on the world stage with the worst kinds of extremism, and all of the most repressive regimes strictly enforce them: see Afghanistan in reality, and The Handmaid's Tale in fiction.

So the sex-segregation the Supreme Court has just ruled on will be pushed to similarly unpalatable extremes in our own society, as we will begin to see increased hostility, suspicion, and paranoia, resulting in scores of real women being harassed - and possibly worse - as being trans when they are not.

People who ask them to prove themselves will be framed as medieval bigots for claiming that someone "didn't look enough like a real woman" (while the establishment will intentionally plant more masculine-looking, but nevertheless biologically female, women into female spaces to maximise the chances of confrontations taking place). It will literally become a modern day witch-hunt.

The result of which will be that "something must be done".

If an actual trans person goes into a women's bathroom and gets harassed, insulted, and even assaulted, the reaction from society at large is, "so what? He shouldn't have been in there in the first place".

But what about when it starts happening to real women, now that many people will feel emboldened to demand "prove it!" of every slightly androgenous or less than stereotypically feminine woman going into the women's facilities?

What about when outspoken anti-trans activists start getting publicly accused of themselves being trans (as is already happening with Candace Owens), and are thus subject to the same humiliation and harassment they have directed at others? Furious arguments about who is and isn't trans and who can sufficiently "prove it" will ensue.

It will all basically descend into a nonsensical farce, where it becomes quite readily apparent that nobody can really tell with any reliable degree of accuracy who is and is not a real woman, and so laws segregating people on that basis don't really make any sense, and are, instead, simply making society more volatile and dangerous.

So, how do you stop everyone relentlessly pointing fingers at each other and accusing each other of secretly being this or that gender?

You abolish gender.

It no longer exists...

Women can't be suspected of being men and men can't be suspected of being women, because there are no longer men and women. Legally, the categories have been abolished, and anatomically, as levels of sex hormone continue to plummet, people look less and less definably male or female, and more and more of them have disorders like androgen-insensitivity syndrome where they are not clearly one or the other.

That's where I believe this is all ultimately going, and that the unwitting female populace - so thrilled at finally being vindicated as "real women" - are going to be used as pawns to bring this about. The ruling classes know that the best way to disable a population's vigilance is to make them think they're winning, for the simple reason so well-known in sport that a football team is most vulnerable to conceding a goal when they have just scored one.

So, as always, the price of freedom remains the same - eternal vigilance (and, I guess, not asking to see people's ID when they go to the loo...).

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.