For most of human history, gender ideology had no place in legal policy or when it came to justice. But that is no longer the reality for a lot of people in the Western world.

J.K. Rowling sounded off on a new policy that endorses the use of “preferred pronouns” in Southern Australian courts as a "matter of respect" to ensure "public confidence in the proper administration of justice."

Rowling blasted the move on X saying that "Asking a woman to refer to her male rapist or violent assaulter as 'she' in court is a form of state-sanctioned abuse. Female victims of male violence are further traumatized by being forced to speak a lie.”

According to Fox News, The Chief Justice issued a statement that said the policy recognized "the correct pronunciation of names and use of the preferred gender pronoun" as "a matter of respect and is an important component of ensuring public confidence in the proper administration of justice."

Other jurisdictions have implemented similar policies, according to Fox News.

"A practitioner may provide guidance as to the gender pronouns of a person in square brackets directly after the name by inserting the preferred pronoun," the statement note stated. "For example: ‘The defendant [they/them]’ or ‘The defendant uses the pronouns they/them,’” according to Fox News.

The court subsequently released a statement claiming that Rowling was wrong about her understanding of the policy.

“Unfortunately, Ms Rowling has misunderstood the protocol. It does no more than allow lawyers and others to inform the court of the correct pronunciation of their name and their preferred gender pronoun so that proceedings are conducted respectfully. However, the presiding judicial officer retains control over all forms of address used in court.”

So a female victim may still hear her alleged attacker referred to as "she". Got it.

When one person said that she couldn’t imagine being compelled to do something like that, Rowling said: “Personally, I wouldn’t be compelled, I’d take contempt of court. It’s time for mass non-compliance with this bull***t.”

Obviously, critics have slammed Rowling for being sensible and standing up for women who have become victims of some of the worst crimes known to humanity.

A troubling realization from all this is how hard it is to comprehend how justice will be severed if the court doesn’t believe in basic biology. Compelling a woman to speak a lie who is testifying under oath is not only a perversion of the court but turns the justice system into theatrics.

Such active rejection of blatant truth may subsequently cause serious implications for social policy, as seen through the Australian court system. But that said, no matter how many times people endorse a lie, it will always be a lie. And trans women are definitely not women.