Twitter experiment

It is hilarious to watch these ‘leaders’ struggle with the most basic concepts.

I have had some fun doing an experiment on Twitter this week.

I deliberately pursued some high-profile female leaders and their ilk who sprout progressive nonsense such as “anyone who wants to identify as a woman can be a woman.”

I asked the incredibly simple questions – “How do you define the term woman? And how can a person identify as a woman if the term is not defined?”

I mostly aimed the tweets at people like Gladys Berijiklian, her minister for Women Bronnie Taylor, Tanya Plibersek, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, Natasha Stott Despoja and CEO of the Diversity Council Australia Lisa Annese.

They are all speaking at a Future Women event that costs $1300 per person to attend.

The average woman in Australia, who is not tax-payer funded like most of them, could not afford to go to such an event and they know it.

They don’t want you there disrupting their little echo chamber. They want to get away with sprouting such nonsense as anyone who wants to be a woman can be, even a man with a penis who wears a frock and some make-up.

Biology clearly doesn’t matter to them. Neither do your thoughts on the matter.

Samantha Maiden, the political editor of couldn’t resist responding. Perhaps she thought she was being funny by tweeting at me to log off?

She refused to engage and answer the most basic of questions – what is the definition of the term woman? But took a swipe at me instead.

I think it is so sad when a female so-called journalist can’t even define the term woman. Don’t you?

Don’t words matter to journalists anymore? I thought definitions would be extremely important to those who use words to make a living.

I have asked several other female journalists to have a go but all are too scared or arrogant to do so as well.

What I would love to know is – what is more important to and Samantha Maiden and all of the other journalists– scientific reality or an ideological agenda?

One minute these journalists spruik ‘trust the science’ but when it doesn’t fit their narrative they mock, deflect or ignore.

If radical gender ideology prevails then who gets to decide which ideology has more value? What if Islamic ideology, or Jewish or Christian ideology is at odds with it? Which they are. The cult of LGBT seems to always get preference don’t you think?

Sally Rugg, director of and a spokesperson on LGBT issue couldn’t help herself either. She screenshotted my tweet and made comment.

When I asked her to define the term woman, she failed dismally as well.

I wouldn’t want to assume anything but she either poorly attempted mockery of women by comparing us to a platypus or she simply has no idea how to define the term woman.

I suspect it has more to do with being called out on a very sensitive and hot topic.

As a spokesperson on LGBT issue she either has to side with lesbians who say biology matters or transgenders who say ideology does.

Many lesbians are crying out to be heard as more and more males, with penises insist they too are lesbians.

But we all know a frock and heels, jewellery and make-up doesn’t define womanhood. We all know that biology matters. We all know that women, and lesbians, don’t have a penis.

But people like poor old Sally can’t say that without getting in trouble. Big trouble.

If she agrees biology matters then she offends the powerful and strong trans lobby who fund much of what she does.

Instead of tackling the issue head on these people deflect, ignore, mock or ignore us, and reality, in the hope we will get tired of them an give up.

Well I am not tired at all. I intend to keep asking and I invite you to do the same.

Define the term woman and explain how a person can identify as a woman if the term is not defined.