Stephen Fry's savage attack on JK Rowling proves the limit of his intellect

Supposed national treasure Sir Stephen Fry has taken a swipe at actual women's rights champion JK Rowling in the latest bout of trans warfare. The closest thing Britain has to a celebrity intellectual turned on his one time friend over her audacity to stick up for half the population. Apparently the Harry Potter author has been "radicalised" by terfs -trans exclusionary radical feminists - or, more simply put to you and I, women. Rowling's decision to speak out on behalf of women who had rent or mortgages to pay at a time when saying male fetishists cannot be female could lose you your job, has won her widespread admiration.

But not old pal Fry, who landed a big fat cheque when he narrated the audio versions of her books. The now rarely-spotted-on-screen luvvie is keeping himself in the public spotlight on the back of Rowling again, but this time by launching a savage attack on her activism. Fry told The Show People podcast that Rowling, who he used to regularly dine with, "had started to make these peculiar statements and had very strong, difficult views".

"She seemed to wake up, or kick, a hornets' nest of transphobia, which has been entirely destructive. I disagree profoundly with her on this subject.

"I am angry she does not disavow some of the more revolting and truly horrible, destructive - violently destructive - things that people say. She does not attack those at all. She says things that are inflammatory and contemptuous, mocking and add to a terribly distressing time for trans people."

Fry went on to claim: "She has been radicalised, I fear, and it may be she has been radicalised by terfs but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her. It is unhelpful and only hardens her and will only continue to harden her, I am afraid. I am not saying that she not be called out when she says things that are really cruel, wrong and mocking. She seems to be a lost cause for us."

A lost cause for sticking up for women! This is the same knight who last year threatened to quit his private members club, the Garrick, unless it finally admitted women.

What a hero. A stuffy old place that, even as a member of the media classes I can't think of one woman I know who gives a stuff about ever joining, but overwhelmingly they do care about keeping men out of their loos, sport and hospital wards.

Fry's attack came as those pesky Liberal Democrats - in no way liberal, or indeed fans of democracy when it comes up with the "wrong answer" - were revealed to have devised some sneaky ways of ignoring the Supreme Court ruling that men cannot be women.

Liberal Voice for Women, a group set up by members to promote the importance of biological sex, posted on X an email that had been sent out by the party's LGBT+ group advising how to respond if asked about it. It suggested that instead of agreeing to accept what the Supreme Court said, Lib Dems should say they will try to "fix it".

Instead of talking about sex-based rights, they should talk about the rights of "all women", which means trans women, ie men, as well. The list of prompts urges members to dismiss concerns about protections for women's spaces and sports in favour of "protecting vulnerable communities".

And it calls for Lib Dems to question whether anyone who raises the biological differences between men and women is "creepy" for "obsessing over strangers' genitalia".

In Parliament, the heart of our democracy, once the admiration and inspiration for other nations, the Supreme Court ruling is being ignored. Both the Commons and the Lords said they would continue to be "inclusive" while waiting for further guidance.

The "trans women are women" mantra is so deeply ingrained that celebs, politicians and institutions that jumped on the bandwagon are still desperately clinging on despite it heading full pelt over a cliff.

It's astonishing that Fry's intellectual curiosity does not extend to understanding why women's protections are more important than men's hurt feelings.

As he once perfectly summed up the nonsense around being offended himself: "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that', as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that.' Well, so f***ing what?". Well, quite.