I see. Threats are ok, but calling a man a man requires investigation.

A city councillor in Hobart, Australia, is under investigation for a social media post describing a trans-identified male as a “man.” Louise Elliot, who was previously the subject of a tribunal inquiry for saying “trans women are men,” was previously the victim of threats from the very individual who reported her for “misgendering” him.

The one who is a man. The kind of man who threatens women. How dare women call men who threaten us “men”?

On July 24, Elliot announced via her X account that she was being subjected to yet another investigation, this time for labeling a trans-identified male who threatened to assault her as a “man.” The incident had occurred the day before while Elliot was campaigning at a shopping center. The man, who cannot yet be named, reportedly walked by Elliot and told her “I’m going to rip you to shreds.”

And she’s not allowed to call him a man? But he is allowed to tell her he’s going to rip her to shreds?

Why is it bad for her to call him a man (which he is) but not bad for him to say he’s going to rip her to shreds? I’d love an explanation of that.

On X, Elliot says she says the individual was overtly male in appearance and behavior.

“I described them as a man as that’s what I saw; an obvious male person with heavy male build, male jawline, male gait, male voice, and definitely male aggression,” Elliot wrote. “This person threatened me, and now I’m the one being investigated for ‘misgendering.’ There was no visible name badge, no ‘transwoman’ tattooed on forehead. I have lawyered up to fight this, again.”

We’re supposed to know that men who claim to be women are men who claim to be women on sight with no visible clues or other ways of discerning that they are men who claim to be women? How does that make sense? How are we supposed to know?

Although details of the allegations are limited while the investigation is underway, Reduxx has seen documentation confirming that Elliot is accused of “possible incitement to hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on the basis of gender identity” by “misgendering and insulting transgender women” and “referring to their ‘abuse.’”

However, in a 17-page document outlining Elliot’s alleged offenses, it is claimed that her language may “go further… and may have the effect of inciting hatred towards transgender women and transgender people more generally.”

And yet his yelling at her that he’s going to rip her to shreds gets zero page documentation of his offenses? Why? Why is she being investigated for saying he is what he is while he is not being investigated for loud public physical threats?

I don’t understand the people in charge of this crap. I never will.