FIRST DUTCH SLANDER-CASE IN COURT
Yesterday I was in court. I sued a lady / ‘transman’ / ‘non-binary’ for slandering me on @LinkedIn and @instagram.
She served as prosector, judge and executioner all at once. The digital scaffolding was put in place.
1/ ->
She was handing out the eggs to her connections. Saying my worldview is so despicable that they should warn their connections to tell them: “She dedicates her life to dehumanise transpeople.”
She also accused me of being an ableist and a racist and some other unfunded deep insults and claimed that because of this I was unfit as a coach. And everybody should know about it. And isolate me, so my company would go bankrupt.
3. ->
The last two sentences are mine. They illustrate that the ‘other side’ sees a lot more tactics applicable in this gender wars: they use personal emotional, reputational and financial warfare against women and supportive men.
4. ->
I told the judge that if I laid a path of the offensive tweets that have come in my direction in the zeven years that I speak out as the first feminist against transgender ideology in the Netherlands, I could lay it from the tip of the north in Groningen to the south in Limburg.
The personal attack on LinkedIn is of a different order. It is directly aiming at my business and as I am a selfemployed breadwinner, this is becoming a sort of existence-threatening.
This has to stop.
I need to act and stop it.
6. ->
Three things happened in court that I want to reflect upon as they are illustrative for the whole gender-non-debate:
1. Pronoun pushing.
2. Vicious ungrounded personal attack to avoid debate.
3. Just reading what TERFS say out loud is enough proof of their desinformation.
7->
As I am in the habit of correctly sexing people, I addressed the transactivist as ‘she’ and ‘her’ and got interrupted by her lawyer twice. After the first interaction I bluntly refused to say ‘he’. The judge suggested I used her last name. I agreed to that.
8->
But I was really struggling to find a way to describe her and so I used “her” again and interrupted by her lawyer again. But this irritated the judge, because in the Dutch courtroom, interruptions are not allowed. You need to wait until it’s your turn.
9->
But the pronoun-pushing influenced my emotions and my mind and thus my speech.
When I clearly state that I don’t want to take part in your Live Action Play and you still try to push me to collaborate, you do not respect my boundaries at all. You enforce your genderreligion on me.
10->
2. Vicious personal attacks instead of countering with arguments.
In stead of denying the allegations the lawyer of the slanderer chose to frame me as a bad person spreading the worst kind of desinformation and that would justify the personal attack on me.
11->
The demands we had in court where to remove all slanderous posts from social media and to post a rectification. And for the future to not write about me ever again.
How necessary that is, was proven by the activist who in court was asked by the consequences of the presumed misinformation.
12.->
She personally blamed me for
- the decline of acceptance of the LHBTQ community
- the fact that genderdysphoric children are thrown out of their parents home
- suicide of transpeople
All without providing any proof.
13. ->
My brilliant young lawyer Floris Vulto, intervened and said it is this kind of accusations without grounds that we stand in court for.
He also pointed out that just summing up what I have written on social media doesn’t prove that something is desinformation. Arguments are needed.
14. ->
But the lawyer of the person that aims to bring me to bankruptcy because of my despicable views started to read out loud an article I have written: nine realities of transgenderism again as if reading my social media posts out loud is enough proof of their desinformation.
14. ->
Even in court they think they are right because that is a fact and they don’t need any argument at all to back up their claims.
It’s toddler-logic, embedded in full grown gaslighting.
15. ->
My lawyer said the accused used the digital pillory to execute a punishment after her accusations and judgement to expose me as a villain and this has to stop. He called it short circuit of conscience to attack someone so viciously for their point of view.
16. ->
He said I have freedom of speech in a democratic society and should be able to execute that right without being accused of being a hateful person, and among other strong insults, a racist ánd ableist.
We will have to wait till the 10th of july for the the judicial decision.
@threadreaderapp please unroll
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.