Meanwhile in Denmark....
Lotte Ingerslev AT lotteingerslev
My press statement about today's ruling on my court case (AI-generated translation): A PERSON’S BIOLOGICAL SEX AND INTERNET HISTORY ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
The court in Lyngby has today ruled in favor of Lotte Ingerslev, stating that it is not defamatory to refer to a man by his biological sex, to mention his coarse language towards and about others, or to show images from a few of the many fetish-pornographic videos that he himself had published on various open porn platforms.
The court’s reasoning confirms that it is of public interest to critically examine DBU’s recommendation to allow men who identify as women to change behind a curtain in women’s locker rooms, as Lotte Ingerslev’s article did. However, the court has ordered Lotte Ingerslev to pay compensation for what it interprets as a linking of the images in question and the information about Nadia Jacobsen’s fetishistic online history, which the court believes gives the impression that Nadia Jacobsen has a particular sexual interest—and that this interest is what motivated DBU’s recommendations for the inclusion of more gender identities in Danish football, including the design of locker rooms.
The court finds that this alleged linkage goes beyond what is permissible in a debate on a socially relevant issue. The reasoning also confirms that Nadia Jacobsen sued Lotte Ingerslev for alleged defamation and invasion of privacy—not for harassment.
Lotte Ingerslev states: “Since 2022, I’ve warned about the consequences for women’s rights when biological men are granted the protections and rights that women have fought for over centuries. When DBU last year approved recommendations that compromise women’s safety and security, I raised the alarm. I’m pleased that the court in Lyngby has agreed that this is a matter of public interest, that I won’t be fined or forced to delete my article, and that it is of course not defamatory to describe reality or show images from Nadia Jacobsen’s online history.
But I’m naturally disappointed that the court believes I made a linkage simply by asking DBU a series of questions, and I will discuss with my lawyer whether this should be pursued further in the legal system. I still hope that DBU will reconsider its recommendations. That a very small part of the population struggles with their gender should not give them the right to demand that others accept that they have a different gender than what biology has determined. And it certainly should not give men access to enter women’s locker rooms, toilets, sports competitions, and other spaces where women should be able to expect that men do not enter.”
Background: Last year, Lotte Ingerslev criticized DBU’s [the Danish football/soccer association] recommendation that men who identify as women should be allowed to change behind a curtain in women’s locker rooms. In the article, she asked whether DBU truly believes that even men with a transvestism fetish should have access to women’s locker rooms. She also questioned why DBU had chosen a person (Nadia Jacobsen) to help formulate its recommendations who had published pornographic, fetish-focused videos of herself and who shames women on social media.
Furthermore, Lotte Ingerslev rhetorically asked how long girls and women must be gaslighted by individuals who deny that it can be fetishistically motivated when men wish to present as women. All claims were substantiated in the article, and in its first version, a few images were included for documentation—among them, stills from several of the many fetish-pornographic videos that the plaintiff had published herself.
These videos were publicly available on platforms without requiring login or payment, had been viewed many thousands of times, and Lotte Ingerslev had removed genitalia from the images shown. Lotte Ingerslev was sued for violations of privacy and defamation by the mentioned member of DBU’s working group, including demands for a fine, compensation of DKK 100,000, and the complete removal of the article from her blog.
That last demand was later changed to require only specific quotes and images to be deleted from the article. The demand for a fine was based on the claim that showing six specific images of the plaintiff constituted a violation of privacy. The demand for compensation and deletion was based on Lotte Ingerslev’s reference to the plaintiff as a man/he/him and her mention of the plaintiff’s own fetish pornography and images thereof. Additionally, the demand was based on the display of images from the plaintiff’s public fetish-oriented online dialogues and a challenge to the plaintiff’s many followers, where the “prize” was that the plaintiff would no longer satisfy themselves as a man, but only as a woman, if a text and image were shared enough times.
^The mentioned images were also part of the demand for compensation and deletion. In the verdict, the plaintiff is referred to using female pronouns. Lotte Ingerslev finds it offensive to freedom of speech and legal certainty that the Danish legal system refers to a man as if he were a woman in a case that precisely concerns a woman pointing out that the power of trans ideology in Denmark threatens women’s rights and boundaries. Lotte Ingerslev’s article can be read at the following link: https://transkoen.dk/2024/03/06/afsloering-en-mand-som-der-findespornografiske-fetich-fokuserede-videoer-af-til-offentligt-skue-paa-nettet-harmedvirket-til-at-udfaerdige-dbus-nye-inklusive-anbefalinger-om-at-lukk/^
It remains Lotte Ingerslev’s view that DBU should change its recommendations so that men are under no circumstances advised to gain access to women’s sports, toilets, and locker rooms—even if they state that they identify as women.