[Please note: This is an AI generated English version of my original post in Danish from April 15.]
The day after I published my now “infamous” blog article, Nadia Jacobsen wrote on the social media platform Mastodon that he had been in contact with a law firm willing to take on a defamation case on his behalf. The purpose of the lawsuit, he wrote, was:
“They’re not getting away with this. And all other anti-trans activists should be deterred from ever doing the same to others. I’m taking this to the end, they’re damn well going to regret the day they came after me. And it should be remembered in the future what happens when you do this.”
Here and here, you can read about what I was subjected to in the months after publishing the article. Among other things, trans activists involved my family in their harassment, I received emails threatening that I could lose my house, and false reviews of my psychotherapy website were posted on Trustpilot. Additionally, my blog transkoen.dk was blocked by three consecutive hosting providers following complaints from trans activists.
On April 15, Nadia Jacobsen started a crowdfunding campaign for a lawsuit against me. He justified it by claiming that I – according to him – had accused him of “being a danger to women and children.” Of course, I have never done that, but that apparently didn’t stop him from claiming so to his followers.
On August 29 last year, I received a letter from Jacobsen’s lawyer threatening a defamation lawsuit unless I paid 100,000 DKK [approx. USD 15,000] and removed the article from my blog.
On September 3, my lawyer informed him that I refused to do so. And immediately after – on September 4 – I received a summons, which initiated the lawsuit.
In the summons, Nadia Jacobsen demanded that I be punished under two sections of the Danish Penal Code:
Section 267: “Anyone who makes or disseminates a statement or other communication or performs an act that is likely to violate someone’s honor is punished for defamation with a fine or imprisonment for up to 1 year, cf. however Sections 268 and 269.”
Section 264d: “Anyone who unjustifiably disseminates communications or images concerning another person’s private affairs or otherwise images of the person in question under circumstances that clearly can be demanded to be withheld from a wider public is punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months.”
The lawsuit has been ongoing ever since. It has proceeded with Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer and my lawyer alternately submitting documents to the court – and thereby to each other. There has also been a so-called “preparatory court meeting,” which took place via telephone between a judge and the two lawyers. The actual “main hearing” – i.e., what will take place in a courtroom – is scheduled for August 12 from 9:15 AM to 3:00 PM at the Lyngby Court.
Not only have I been sued for, among other things, saying that a man is a man, even when he says he is a woman – I have also been met with accusations of “lying” and “propaganda” when I’ve mentioned it.
In the summons against me, “misgendering” played a significant role in the claim that I had defamed Jacobsen, which I have, of course, documented.
Alongside the lawsuit, many “trans allies” have expressed their unreserved opinions about what the lawsuit is about – on very shaky grounds, to put it mildly. Among other things, I’ve been accused of having written that Jacobsen is a danger to women and children and/or is a pedophile.
In debates on Twitter/X, I have repeatedly asked these people for documentation of where I have written that. And every time, the response has been … silence.
Part of the smear campaign against me has been to portray my article as a hate campaign. Not only that, but as a harassment campaign from my side targeting a random “trans woman” who just wants to live “her” life in peace. I’ve been called, among other things, a “garbage person,” and it’s been written that “the sewers in Kongens Lyngby must be overflowing” [Kongens Lyngby is where I live].
Examples of Nadia Jacobsen’s own many bizarre claims on social media about what the lawsuit is about can be seen here.
He and his supporters stubbornly claim that the lawsuit either isn’t about “misgendering” at all or that it’s only a small part of it, and that I’m engaging in “propaganda” and lying when I say that “misgendering” is a significant element in the defamation claims against me.
Regarding the images that were necessary to document some of the main points in my article, Jacobsen’s supporters have claimed that they are “revenge porn” – or if they don’t quite fit into the legal category popularly known as “revenge porn,” which they obviously don’t – then at least something on the same level of maliciousness.
Below is a small conversation about my lawsuit in the “trans ally” circle on Bluesky from December 2024. A man named “Marcello,” whom I’ve mentioned before, posted something I had written about his smear story about me. This prompted another Bluesky user to ask if it was me who had been sued by Nadia Jacobsen for “misgendering.”
A third Bluesky user, Stefan Blomme, immediately responded. He corrected the person. “No,” he wrote. He continued: “She was sued for defamation, not for misgendering. The idea that it was about misgendering is a lie spread to gain sympathy from someone who doesn’t deserve it the slightest. She had made a post that was clearly intended to destroy Nadia’s life and also contained revenge porn.”
The claim about “revenge porn” is, of course, legally completely baseless. But again, we probably shouldn’t assume that Nadia Jacobsen’s supporters who make this claim are aware of whether it holds any legal ground. The claim is likely made primarily to portray me as someone who is out to “spread hate about” “trans people” and who has now taken to persecuting the “trans woman” Nadia Jacobsen in all the disgusting ways I can think of.
Internally, the lawsuit has also been a bizarre affair. It was filed on September 4 – with the summons against me – and since then, my lawyer and I have asked Nadia Jacobsen and his lawyer to specify exactly what in my blog article constituted the alleged criminal “defamations.” But for over six months, we received no response to that. You’d think it could be handled with a bit of copy-paste…
One might almost get the idea that the purpose of the lawsuit was actually to put pressure on me and thereby set an example for other critics of the threat that trans activism poses to children’s and women’s rights and everybody’s freedom of expression.
This also aligns well with the fact that Nadia Jacobsen, the day after I published my blog article, announced on social media that:
“They’re not getting away with this. And all other anti-trans activists should be deterred from ever doing the same to others. I’m taking this to the end, they’re damn well going to regret the day they came after me. And it should be remembered in the future what happens when you do this.”
It was only a little over a month ago, on March 13 this year – i.e., over a year after I published my blog article, which the lawsuit against me is about – that Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer submitted to the court a list of no fewer than 67 quotes from my article. The list was titled “Defamatory Statements [pursuant to] Section 267 of the Penal Code.” (The list of the 67 statements can be seen here >>)
But we still received no explanation of what exactly was supposed to be “defamatory” about the 67 different statements.
In addition to the list of the 67 alleged “defamatory statements,” Jacobsen’s lawyer also included 7 quotes from my article, which were claimed to be “Unjustified Dissemination of Communications [pursuant to] Section 264d of the Penal Code” and 9 images, which were claimed to be “Unjustified Dissemination of Images [pursuant to] Section 264d of the Penal Code.” (I’ll return to those.)
Let’s take a look at some of the alleged “defamatory statements.” (You can, as mentioned, find them all here >>.) Here are 5 of them:
- “The other person is the man with the female name Nadia Jacobsen.”
- “Jacobsen himself writes here how he defines the terms ‘transphobes’ and ‘TERFs’”
- “Only three months later, he writes this”
- “Thereafter, Jacobsen joins the conversation. He writes (addressed to the woman)”
- “And how much longer must girls and women put up with being gaslighted by people who deny that it can be fetishistically motivated when men want to present as women?”
As mentioned, Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer still provided no explanation of what about the quotes is defamatory. But when you read through the list of the 67 quotes, it becomes, in my opinion, very hard to avoid the conclusion that in many cases, it must be the absurd and totalitarian phenomenon of “misgendering” – which Nadia Jacobsen and his lawyer, as mentioned, claimed was a form of “defamatory statement” pursuant to Section 267 of the Penal Code as late as March 13 this year.
In our next legal submission, my lawyer argued that the list of the 67 alleged “defamatory statements” was new and submitted more than a year after Nadia Jacobsen became aware of the content of my blog article.
This must be seen in light of the fact that the deadline for suing someone for defamation is generally 6 months from the time one becomes aware of the alleged defamatory statements.
This led to a particularly… “interesting” development in the case.
On April 9, the court – and thus I – received the next legal submission from Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer. And it included, among other things, the following:
[Please note: The emphasis is mine.]
“1.1 With the amended wording of claim 2, the plaintiff withdraws the demand for punishment under Section 267 of the Penal Code.
1.2 It is maintained that the statements listed with numbers 1-75 in Appendix 6 are offensive to Nadia Jacobsen’s honor and person, but it is no longer claimed that these statements are punishable.”
In my own words:
Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer has now suddenly given up on having me convicted under Section 267 of the Penal Code – the one about defamation. And with that, half of the case is gone. (I’ll get to what’s left of it in a bit.)
Some might see it as a relief that I now at least have no risk of being punished for “misgendering.” But the punishment has largely been the lawsuit itself. And the lawsuit against me has most likely worked as intended – namely, to “deter” other critics of the transgender agenda from pointing out that men are still men – even when they say they are women.
One might wonder what has changed since I received the summons. And why Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer only now has realized that these statements were not punishable under the defamation section. I can only note that for over a year, I have lived with the threat of having to appear in court because I dared to say and document some truths about an influential Danish man imitating a woman’s gender.
As I’ve promised, I’ll soon address what’s left of the lawsuit. And why the images were absolutely essential for what I needed to document in my article.
But first, let’s take a quick look at whether Nadia Jacobsen is just a random “trans woman” who just wants to live “her” life in peace.
Nadia Jacobsen’s influence on the transgender area, children’s rights, and women’s sex-based rights in Denmark
Nadia Jacobsen is not a random “trans woman” whom I’ve targeted. He is one of Denmark’s most influential “trans women” – perhaps the most influential of them all.
Nadia Jacobsen is by no means just anyone.
When I published my blog article on March 6, 2024, Nadia Jacobsen had 2,295 followers on Facebook (and likely a number of Facebook friends as well) – as well as a whopping 1,985 followers on Twitter. At the time, I didn’t note how many followers he had on Instagram, but on September 15 of the same year, I saw that he had a full 8,506 followers there.
Nadia Jacobsen sits on the board of two associations that work politically on transgender issues and has access to influence politicians and cabinet ministers.
Jacobsen is a board member of the association “TiD – Trans People in Denmark.” And he is the vice-chair of the “National Association for Trans Men and Trans Women.” (He mentions being vice-chair of the latter association in the podcast “Regnbueland.”) He himself talks about how they, in the National Association for Trans Men and Trans Women, have been to meetings with the Danish Health Authority.
Nadia Jacobsen has been part of both expert groups that directly formulated or advised on recommendations for the inclusion of “trans people” in sports – on the fields and in locker rooms. It is the association “TiD – Trans People in Denmark” that he has represented in his work as a member of the Danish Football Association (DBU) and the Danish Sports Federation (DIF) working groups for the inclusion of “transgender people” in sports.
It was his participation in DBU’s working group that led me to take a closer look at him, in connection with DBU publishing their new girl-discriminatory “inclusion” recommendations, which were the starting point for my blog article.
On May 25, 2022, Jacobsen tweeted that he had been to a meeting with the Minister of Health. He attached a photo to the tweet, showing him standing next to Magnus Heunicke.
Nadia Jacobsen is a member of the Social Democrats’ Rainbow Network. On January 6, 2023, he wrote on Facebook that he “in the Rainbow Network has met both our Minister for Equality and Minister for Health and discussed transgender challenges in Danish society.”
And on August 2, 2022, he wrote on X in a reply to another X user: “I’m sitting here working on legislative texts and negotiating with politicians.”
The established media have repeatedly interviewed Nadia Jacobsen as an expert on being “transgender” in Denmark.
The areas Nadia Jacobsen is interviewed about include, among others, the inclusion of “trans people” in sports, “transgender people’s” experiences in the job market, and experienced hatred and opposition to “trans people” in Denmark.
He has been interviewed in an article on TV2’s website. He appears in two articles in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten – here and here – the latter about “deliberate” “misgendering.” In the newspaper Information, he is interviewed in one article – about “the difficult discussion about equality and inclusion” based on the “transgender” Olympic weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, who competed as a “woman” despite being a man. In Information’s article, Nadia Jacobsen appears as the expert on how it affects athletes. No female athlete is asked for her opinion. Nadia Jacobsen is allowed to express himself on the entire issue – unchallenged by women, whom the inclusion of “trans women” in women’s sports naturally affects. He also appears in one article in the magazine Zetland.
Nadia Jacobsen also participates in one radio broadcast on Radio IIII. Additionally, he has been a guest on four podcasts: Radio 24syv’s podcast “Noget på spil: Transkøn,” LGBT magazine Out & About’s podcast “Regnbueland: Nadia Jacobsen – It’s okay to be a trans woman,” Cybernauterne’s podcast “Kønskrigerne: It’s not about sports,” and the English-language podcast “The Trans Sporter Room – The View from Denmark,” produced by “LGBTQ Sports Podcast.”
In the latter podcast, Nadia Jacobsen mentions that it was the Chief Operating Officer of “LGBT+ Denmark,” Susanne Branner Jespersen, who got him involved in DIF’s expert working group. So he seems to be someone whom “LGBT+ Denmark” recommends when they need a “trans woman.”
What’s left of the lawsuit?
As I mentioned earlier, Nadia Jacobsen’s lawyer has given up on having me convicted under Section 267 of the Penal Code – the one about defamation.
He now apparently intends to use my repeated “misgendering” of Jacobsen as one of the examples of how I have “violated” Jacobsen’s “honor and person” [though no longer to a punishable degree].
As far as I can figure out, he will use it in connection with his demand that I be punished for “unjustifiably disseminating communications or images concerning another person’s private affairs or otherwise images of the person in question under circumstances that clearly can be demanded to be withheld from a wider public” (as formulated in Section 264d of the Penal Code).
Additionally, Jacobsen’s lawyer also claims that I have violated the Data Regulation. There is, of course, no legal basis for that either.
If you don’t remember, let me repeat: In my blog article, I emphasized twice that all the image, video, and text material I referred to and linked to in the article was freely available on the internet as recently as the day before I published the article. Anyone could see/read it. It didn’t require signing up or logging into any of the websites in question.
Thus, there was no question of me “unjustifiably disseminating images concerning another person’s private affairs or otherwise images of the person in question under circumstances that clearly can be demanded to be withheld from a wider public.”
I pointed out something that everyone had the opportunity to see but which was attempted to be made unsayable, and which led to people who even hinted at it being ostracized and attempted to be canceled – namely, that the highly influential “trans woman” Nadia Jacobsen is a man, and that he is not – as he has repeatedly and stubbornly claimed – “pretty asexual and has no desire for sex,” and that his other behavior online fits extremely poorly with his claim that he does not have a fetish.
Something that is crucial to point out – to enforce girls’ and women’s sex-based rights and boundaries, but which is also important to be able to point out for the sake of everybody’s freedom of expression. That men are men. Even when they say they are women.
If documenting that should be called “revenge porn,” then the boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes” might as well be accused of “revenge porn” for pointing at the emperor and saying, “He’s not wearing any clothes!”
What did I document in my article about Nadia Jacobsen’s ostracizing behavior and other writings on Twitter?
Not only does Nadia Jacobsen have political power and influence and a lot of airtime in the media. He also has ostracizing power. He has largely used his power and influence to ostracize those who have dared to point out that trans activism threatens children’s and women’s rights and poses a serious threat to everybody’s freedom of expression. His ostracism and exclusion have particularly been targeted at women.
There was good reason to prove that, in itself. But there was a very specific reason to document how Nadia Jacobsen has ostracized particularly critical women on Twitter/X, because it was outrageous that a person with that bullying behavior toward women was chosen to help formulate DBU’s girl-discriminatory “inclusion” recommendations, which precisely posed a huge problem for women – both on the field and in the locker rooms, where it was suggested, among other things, that problems could be solved “with a curtain.”
Below, I have summarized what I documented in my blog article about Nadia Jacobsen’s Twitter behavior and other writings there:
His ostracizing and bullying behavior:
- He has made many, many attempts to ostracize women on Twitter who express criticism of the transgender agenda. (He himself explains that a “transphobe” is a person who insists on calling him a man. And there are 74 instances where he labels someone a “transphobe.” He labels people “TERF” 51 times.)
- He keeps an eye on whether his followers “like” something a TERF has written. When they do, he writes that it “disappoints” him.
- He spreads undocumented rumors about a female, lesbian feminist, calls her a “huge TERF,” and threatens that he could “tell many things from her past” from people who “knew her very well.”
- He defends digital branding of “gender criticals.”
- He writes that he “could have cheered when an über TERF from [the political party] Enhedslisten died last summer.” And that he “can’t help but be just a little happy when, for example, a transphobe kicks the bucket.”
- He writes that anyone who ever wants to support their transgender friends should stay far away from the martial arts club Female Fight Club because they held an event where women could learn martial arts for self-defense. Why? Because they emphasized that trans women [i.e., men who say they are women] were not welcome.
What he claims about himself:
- He says he uses women’s locker rooms. And that no one has a problem with it – except reactionary men.
- He says he has used women’s restrooms.
- He is a woman. It’s not something he identifies as.
- He does not have a fetish. He gets no sexual pleasure from wearing feminine clothing.
- He hates his penis. And he wishes he didn’t have one. His penis ruins his quality of life and makes it impossible for him to handle sex. He cannot use his penis due to dysphoria.
- A full 23 times, he has claimed on X that he is asexual. For example, he writes that he is “pretty asexual and has no desire for sex.”
- A Twitter user who says that Jacobsen reduces women to a fetish costume is told that he has “strange fantasies on behalf of others.”
More general claims from his side:
- That he has an “F” in his papers is the state’s recognition that he is a woman. Therefore, no one has the right to call him a man.
- Trans women do not have AGP. [AGP is an abbreviation for autogynephilia. The term means “(a man’s) attraction to himself as a woman.” Some men cultivate this fetish within a particular porn genre that goes by names like “sissy porn,” “sissification,” and “forced feminization.” And there are many people who believe that this desire may underlie men’s wish to “change gender.”]
- The men who have a fetish for women’s clothing are not trans women. And it’s not men with a fetish for women’s clothing who go out in public. Those who go out in public are trans women.
What do the images show? And why was it crucial that they were included in my blog article?
The images had to be included in the blog article to document that the highly influential “trans woman,” whom DBU had selected for a position in the working group that formulated DBU’s girl-discriminatory “inclusion” recommendations, was a man who not only has reposted transvestite-sissy-fetish-focused content but has also produced it himself – and made it freely available on the internet.
And that this man becomes verbally aggressive and ostracizing when someone so much as hints that there might be a fetish involved in men’s desire to “change gender” to women.
The images document that there is an extreme contrast between what Nadia Jacobsen claims about himself on, for example, Twitter/X, and how he behaves elsewhere – not privately, but simply directed at a different audience.
(Descriptions of what could be seen in the images and videos can still be found in my blog article.)
The reason I later chose to remove the images was not that it was illegal for me to show them, but that I assessed that my blog could be reported and blocked again by my new hosting provider, after my first hosting provider, One.com, and the next two had removed them – following complaints from trans activists linked to Nadia Jacobsen.
In January, Nadia Jacobsen bragged about it on Bluesky. He wrote:
“We collectively got her blog shut down on three different hosts.”
By the way, I had removed the explicitly pornographic parts of the images before publishing the article.
It has been claimed that I only found the images because I went on a long, arduous internet hunt. But that’s not the case. The reason it might seem that way was that, firstly, I wanted to make it very clear that the images were freely available on the internet and by no means hard to find if you knew just a little about the categories within fetish porn.
Secondly, it was crucial for me to show that it was actually Nadia Jacobsen himself who had posted the images and videos online, which neither he nor his lawyer has ever disputed in connection with the lawsuit.
And that Nadia Jacobsen, himself, on one of his two Flickr profiles (which he had in his own name), had listed some of his other profile names that he used where he published transvestite-fetish-focused pornographic images/videos.
Moreover, you only had to search for “Nadia Jacobsen tgirl.” Then Google would show that there was a page on the trans-porn site “aShemaleTube.com” with the profile name “Nadia jacobsen.” There, he had uploaded 13 videos, which – as I’ve pointed out again and again – were freely available to everyone, completely without any requirement for registration or login. One of the videos had at the time been viewed a full 27,618 times.
In fact, it was very easy to find the images, even without knowing anything about fetish porn. It could happen by chance. If you forgot the little number “3” at the end of his Twitter profile name and instead searched for “nadiajacobsen” on Twitter instead of “nadiajacobsen3” – which I also explained in the blog article – a series of pornographic images of Jacobsen would appear.
As I also emphasized three times in the article, men with a transvestite fetish are, of course, allowed to engage in it with consenting people. But their fetish doesn’t make them women.
We must be able to talk openly about the fact that a man’s desire to present as a woman may be related to a fetish.
It cannot be right that the people who say this out loud should be ostracized online, accused of being “transphobes,” and silenced. It should be possible to discuss that the reason men wear women’s clothing may be fetish-related.
Otherwise, we cannot make the right decisions as a society.
Concluding remarks
Let me conclude with the question I ended my original blog article with, which Nadia Jacobsen finds “defamatory,” but which I consider absolutely, absolutely crucial to be able to ask:
How much longer must girls and women put up with being gaslighted by people who deny that it can be fetishistically motivated when men want to present as women?
*****
P.S. The “main hearing” in the lawsuit – i.e., the part of the lawsuit that takes place in a courtroom – is scheduled to take place at the Lyngby Court [“Retten i Lyngby”] on August 12 this year from 9:15 AM to 3:00 PM. And it is public.
——————————————————————–
UPDATE, MAY 18, 2025:
CHANGE OF LAWYER LEADS TO NEW COSTS FOR ME – I NEED TO RAISE MORE FUNDS
I’m quite downhearted right now. I’ve had to change lawyers. I can’t say anything about why. The only thing I can say is that there has been no conflict whatsoever between my now former lawyer and me. Unfortunately, the change of lawyer has resulted in additional costs that I hadn’t expected, as she naturally needs to be paid for thoroughly familiarizing herself with the case and representing me in the best possible way.
This wasn’t exactly what I was expecting. But that’s where things stand. I feel that my new lawyer is the right one for me, and that’s very important to me.
Therefore, I have to restart the crowdfunding campaign. I don’t like begging for money, but I’m in a very difficult situation.
Therefore, I need to raise an additional DKK 110,000 [approx. USD 16,000]. And that’s why I’ve increased the fundraising goal on my GoFundMe to DKK 330,000.
The new amount (DKK 110,000) may seem steep, but – as most people probably know – the Danish tax authorities take half of what I raise, so I only get 50% of it – and then I also have to pay for an accountant to review the accounts, as required by the Fundraising Board.
Even if I win the case, I can’t count on having all my legal costs covered, as the rates for such things are quite limited.
Please note: The change of lawyer will not affect the court date. It is still August 12.
As I’ve written before: If I don’t need the entire amount to cover legal costs, I will donate any surplus to other people fighting for freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and women’s and children’s rights, where these are threatened by gender ideology.
I am very, very grateful for all contributions, be they big or small. 🙂
