Once-celebrated author J.K. Rowling has been mobbed online for recognizing that womanhood is determined by biological sex, not feelings, tweeting support for a British feminist who lost her job over the issue.

Vox, the “explainer” site, cannot fathom how biology comes into play when determining who is and isn’t a woman. Its article went so far as to say Rowling’s tweet in support of Maya Forstater was “transphobic,” and that Rowling “just ruined Harry Potter.” Other social media accounts label her and anyone who believes in the reality of biological sex with the derogatory term TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists).

Progressives claim to encourage you to “live your truth.” But there are some truths you just can’t live, you see. Forstater lost her job at a think tank because she pointed out that a male does not deserve to be given awards meant for females, and for numerous comments supporting the idea that biology determines one’s sexual identity, not feelings.

Forstater’s contract with her employer was not renewed because of her beliefs about the biological reality of sex, so she sued under the Equality Act, saying she was unfairly discriminated against for her feminism.

But in order for Forstater’s understanding to be protected as a “philosophical belief” under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, it must adhere to five requirements set forth by a previous court decision. One reads: “it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”

Forstater ran afoul of this extremely subjective requirement and lost her judgment. The requirement demonstrates that virtually the only thing one can be sure of in this brave new world is the primacy of feelings over any other consideration, including dignity and the right to think differently than some in the government would prefer.

Trans Ideology Versus Women’s Dignity

Forstater criticized Phillip “Pippa” Bunce for receiving an award meant for women. The director of Credit Suisse, who spends half his time “expressing” the persona of Pippa by wearing makeup, a wig, and dresses, was included in The Financial Times HERoes Champions of Women in Business list, although there is an equivalent list for men.

According to the employment tribunal, Forstater’s criticism of men assuming the roles and placements of women, who have fought since time immemorial for their rights and accomplishments to be recognized, violates “human dignity.” This is where we see what the gender revolutionaries really think of women.

Human dignity? What of Forstater’s human dignity, as a woman? Is it not demeaning and insulting to women for a married father of two to show up to work in fishnets and lace dresses and claim this is a genuine expression of womanhood? And if it isn’t a genuine expression of what he thinks is an aspect of his identity, what is it? A farce? Even worse. Is it not a rejection of the dignity of biological womanhood to accept an award meant for female executives?

Biological females who recognize that they are such (“cisgender,” in the gender parlance) aren’t the only ones who feel demeaned. Individuals who have had their bodies surgically altered to make them appear more feminine or masculine, and been living as the opposite sex for a long time, were furious that Bunce received an award.

According to The Sun, trans broadcaster India Willoughby lamented the decision, saying “Transgender has become totally meaningless.” And why shouldn’t Willoughby think so? “Pips” has made a mockery of the very idea of gender transition, of the idea that an insufferable feeling of being in the “wrong body” can be treated by trying to imitate the opposite sex. Neither drag queen nor truly transgender, he flips from Phillip to Pippa as quickly as he can change in and out of a wig and high heels.

If Thinking Makes It So, Transgenderism Is Meaningless

Yet even transgender people complain of being discriminated against because their efforts at femininity aren’t convincing enough to make people feel comfortable, particularly with transgender bathrooms. So what gives?

No sweeping legal protections of “human dignity” will hold this mess together. “Gender-fluidity” and transgenderism can’t co-exist, even though the latter was bound to lead to the former. If all it takes to diagnose oneself as transgender is how you feel, then how Bruce/Pippa feels is just as valid, right? The only difference is that one depends on the binary and the other claims to reject it.

There’s no board that certifies you as legitimately transgender. To be protected from discrimination as the Equality Act defines it, you don’t have to live as the opposite sex for a certain number of years or get certain surgeries, all you have to do is be convinced that you want to attempt to live as if you were the opposite sex.

Willoughby is right. If all you need to be considered transgender is a firm declaration that you are so, and to make some effort at “dressing the part,” then of course the term is meaningless.

If Gender Fluidity Exists, It Applies to Everyone

Now is a good time for trans individuals to think the primacy of feelings through to its logical conclusion: to be consistent with the new gendering, you have to admit that we all are gender-fluid, and that our sexes are indeed merely “assigned” at birth instead of observed.

How ironic. First the meaning of womanhood is erased by transgenderism through its recategorization of biological women to “cisgender,” and now the meaning of transgenderism is being undone by the concept of gender fluidity. Well, what should you expect when you ditch the concept of biological sex to begin with—when you accept there is such a thing as “gender,” as distinct from biological sex? This yanks out the tent stakes in a windstorm.

It appears sola feels is rapidly gaining ground: the doctrine that feelings have primacy over objective and spiritual truth. It’s captivated the language—male, female, manhood, womanhood, feminine, masculine—and now it is armed with everything it needs to prosecute WrongThink.

Forstater’s judgment reads, “The specific belief that the Claimant holds as determined in the reasons, is not a philosophical belief protected by the Equality Act 2010.” You are not entitled to believe certain things anymore. Not only is there no freedom of speech (even though Forstater said she was willing to use people’s preferred pronouns), there’s no freedom of thought. Again, ironic, because the premise of gender expression is, “I think, therefore I am.”

The Equality Act? Please. Legislators have made laws protecting certain feelings and beliefs over others. As I’ve written before, trans rights are coercive rights. They exist only by violating the rights of others. There is no equality to be gained by forcing other people to do your bidding.

First transgenderism destroyed the meaning of womanhood. Now, gender-fluidity and non-binary have destroyed the meaning of transgender. And the whole chaotic, destructive process is based on feelings over concrete, objective truth. Tent, meet windstorm.