Tom Nichols on that guy:

Here is part of what he posted early Saturday evening over at his personal rantatorium, Truth Social:

CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again.

How do you watch the Sanctity of something? How do you watch the Sanctity of an election? Especially one that is in the future?

(I will just note that I refuse to believe that Trump really coughed up a word like skulduggery on his own. Spelling it incorrectly does point to him, but the likelihood that someone else is writing these posts is a reminder that Trump is surrounded by people who have no objections to his plans and will willingly carry them out.)

I think Trump writes them but maybe he asks one of the surrounding people what’s a good word for dirty tricks.

But the very first question at the debate should reflect a basic paradox in this election: How can any meeting between Trump and Harris be a “debate” if Trump has already made clear that he rejects the foundations of the American system of government?

Debates are based on good faith and shared assumptions about democracy. Trump bellows at us, over and over, that he couldn’t give a damn about any of that. He’s running because he wants to stay out of prison, get revenge on his enemies, exercise untrammeled power, and gain access to even more money. Are we really expecting a give-and-take about, say, child care (a subject on which Trump was spectacularly incoherent a few days ago) between a candidate who will govern as a traditional president and a would-be junta leader who intends to jail his opponents—including, possibly, the woman standing next to him and the reporters grilling him?

No, of course we’re not. The man is both evil and profoundly stupid.

How’s the reporting on all this? Not great.

I can’t give you a lot of headlines about all of these mad comments because, for the most part, they don’t exist. (Reuters summed up the raving on Saturday as “Trump Revs Up Small-Town Base in Wisconsin,” which is true, in the way that a 1967 headline saying Mao Encourages Chinese Intellectuals to Aid With Agricultural Efforts would be true but perhaps incomplete.) The New York Times had nothing about Trump’s weekend comments on its front page today. This morning’s Washington Post homepage simply said: “Harris Hunkers Down for ‘Debate Camp,’ Trump Opts for ‘Policy Sessions’ as Showdown Looms.” This headline is no doubt an accurate account of what’s happening in the campaigns, but “Trump says he will inevitably win and prosecute his opponents for fraud anyway” is probably more important than whether he is being briefed yet again on policies he doesn’t care about or understand.

This is the system being a system. If the Times and the Post did report on all his ravings they would be accused of libbrul bias, so they primly ignore most of them.

Several writers at The Atlantic, including our editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, have raised the issue of the “bias toward coherence” that prevents many journalists—and millions of Americans—from saying out loud that the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States is emotionally unstable and a menace to the Constitution.

Ah, right, that’s what I was getting at. It’s almost funny, in a horrible way. Trump is so off the charts stupid and evil that reporting on him truthfully looks abnormal. Head he wins tails we lose.

This is not going to change in the next two months. But if Trump’s comments this weekend are not the first questions at the debate—if his threat to democracy is not the only question—then there is no point in debates at all.

I don’t think there is much point in The Debates anyway, really. They’re just a Thing, the way football is a Thing.

What is a woman?

Anneliese Dodds, the Minister for Women and Equalities, has said in response to a written question asking whether the government plans to amend the legal definition of what a woman is:

“We are proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women. The Government does not plan to amend legal definitions in the act.” 

Hundreds of women are coming to Parliament on Wednesday on a mission to change her mind as part of the Stand up for single-sex services campaign.

If “women” no longer means “women” then how can women have rights specific to women?

They are going to tell her, and other MPs, how the Equality Act is failing to protect women, and how men who claim to be women are gaining access to women’s spaces, services and sports. 

…

This is being allowed to happen because of confusion about the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It could be fixed with a one-line amendment, introduced through secondary legislation, using a power provided for by the last Labour government for exactly this purpose. 

…

If Anneliese Dodds is proud of the political heritage of the feminists who came before her, she should listen to the women and men who are coming to Parliament on Wednesday. They will tell her that the law is not working. If she wants to live up to the legacy of the brave women who fought for women’s rights, she needs to listen and to act.

Will she?

Oh how sad, people in Canada have to pay for some of their Magic Gender Care.

A new gender-affirming care provision under the federal government’s employee health plan — a change touted as a major win for transgender plan members — has turned into an ongoing struggle for some trans workers who say they’re rethinking future surgeries because they’re already running into walls getting claims reimbursed. 

I have to wonder why the government pays for mutilations in the first place.

Gender-affirming care encompasses a number of treatments, including mental health counselling, hormone replacement therapy, genital surgery, breast augmentation, pectoral implants and even something as basic as a haircut.

Genital surgery, they say cheerfully, when what they mean is amputation/mutilation.

Plan members can have up to 80 per cent of each treatment covered, to a lifetime maximum of $75,000, for procedures performed in Canada but not covered by provincial or territorial health plans. It’s meant “to help people with their gender affirmation journey,” according to a government web page.

But the whole idea of a “gender affirmation journey” is a silly childish fad, not a medical issue.

What should have been a year focusing on the surgeries that would transform her body to reflect how she sees herself has been been anything but, Alexandra Lamaute says.  

“We constantly have to fight to receive something that should be much more simple,” said the 41-year-old who lives in Dieppe, N.B. and underwent breast augmentation and facial feminization surgery last year.

Why should it be more simple? When the whole idea is batshit-crazy in the first place?

Lamaute said she is considering delaying, or simply not having, vocal surgery to make her voice sound more feminine because she’s worried she won’t get reimbursed.

“My voice doesn’t really match my appearance anymore,” she said, leading to people she deals with on the phone often calling her “sir” or “young man.”

“I don’t blame anyone, but it takes a toll after a while.”

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan…

There’s paragraph after paragraph more of this infatuated bilge. Where are the adults???

Oliver Brown in the Telegraph:

After seeing the beauty of these Games defaced by the spectacle of Valentina Petrillo, a 51-year-old father-of-two, taking semi-final places in female sprinting from two women barely half the Italian’s age, you might have expected Andrew Parsons, president of the International Paralympic Committee, to commit – at the very least – to a review of the ridiculous policy that let this happen. Instead he seemed, at his closing press conference, almost to celebrate it as a watershed.

…

Parsons began these 11 days by spelling out his ambition for an “inclusion revolution”. Include everybody: that is the mantra. Even if it now means excluding women from their own category. This is not some abstract fear, but a concrete reality. We can name the two women whom Petrillo deprived here of a chance to compete under lights at the Stade de France in a Paralympic semi-final: Lorraine Gomes de Aguiar of Brazil and Spain’s Nagore Folgado Garcia. Gomes is 27, Folgado just 20.

The only explanation that fits is that including women doesn’t count as inclusion.

Is that because so many people despise women, or is it because “inclusion” refers only to literal minorities? If it’s the latter that’s fucked up, because exclusion of women has always been and still is absolutely rampant, and everyone knows it.

Those who acquiesced in this must be held to account, and the first is Parsons. All women deserve to have their sporting talents tested on a level playing field, not to have their dreams curtailed by a patently unfair rule, reduced to being unwitting pawns in the affirmation of any male-born opponent’s wishes. It is an outrage – and it cannot go on.

Keep yelling.

Women are such a damn nuisance, you know?

Surrogate mother wins access to her biological son in landmark case

She’s not actually a surrogate mother, she’s a mother.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, won the case after the gay couple for whom she carried the baby for nine months tried to stop her seeing her own biological child and erase her from his life. The two men claimed that the little boy would be confused if he saw his mother because he lived with them in a ‘motherless family’ and was being raised within the LGBT community.

The couple told her there was ‘no vacancy’ for her ‘just because [he] has same-sex parents’ – even though he was conceived using her egg and carried in her womb.

The child, named as ‘Z’ in court proceedings, was born in September 2020. His two fathers, a married couple aged 36 and 43, were friends with the surrogate’s sister and were desperate for a child to complete their family so she agreed to help.

In other words she agreed to do them a massive favor, and they repay her by going back on the agreement and trying to keep her away from her own baby.

[S]he signed a parental order handing responsibility for the child to the men along with a second order ensuring that she could have regular contact with the child, who lived permanently with his fathers.

But the gay couple reneged on that agreement – leading to the doorstep argument that sparked them threatening to dial 999 unless she left, the court heard. ‘G’ had secretly recorded the altercation and while the audio was not shared as part of the ruling, the judge in the case said it was ‘rightly described as “horrendous”,’ not least because it was in the presence of their son. The men then pursued a series of legal cases against her that would cut ‘G’ from the boy’s life.

Male entitlement is a thing to behold.

Continuing the theme, Jacky Davis in the Observer on Saturday:

he British Medical Association is both a trade union and a professional organisation. Professional activities such as its successful campaigns around seatbelt legislation and smoking have added weight to its standing as a union. It is not noted for drama and histrionics.

So there was significant surprise when its governing body, the BMA council, recently voted to reject the recommendations of the Cass review…

BMA members were genuinely outraged. Letters to the BMJ accused the council of bringing “the BMA and the medical profession into disrepute”. One correspondent said they were “more shocked than anything I can think of in 40 years of practising medicine”. Some members, aghast at the BMA adopting such an irrational policy, resigned after decades of union membership. A letter accusing the BMA of being secretive and opaque, and of going against the principles of evidence-based medicine and ethical practice, quickly attracted 1,500 signatures, 1,000 of whom are BMA members. The signatories include many high-profile names in the profession, people not normally inclined to sign protest letters.

So what’s the deal? How did this happen?

How did the BMA end up so completely out of touch with its members? In brief, the union is the victim of entryism, a political strategy whereby members of an organisation join a larger organisation in order to influence and change its policies. Resident (previously known as junior) doctors were angry about the sharp fall in their pay since 2008 and organised a group called DoctorsVote to campaign for full pay restoration. Part of the group’s strategy was to get its members on to the BMA council, which they did with great success, taking almost half the voting seats in 2022.

So far, so reasonable: the BMA is a trade union and its core role is to improve the working conditions of doctors.

But, of course, the BMA council didn’t stop there.

DoctorsVote is disciplined when it comes to pursuing its agenda (which turned out to go beyond full pay restoration to include entrenched opinions on the transgender debate), and in voting group members on to BMA committees.

And of course the entrenched opinions on the transgender debate aren’t medical, in fact they’re more the opposite of medical. The opinions are religious rather than medical.

So why did the BMA, which is not a scientific body such as Nice, feel it could criticise and undermine Cass’s work? The BMA has allowed itself to get into a position whereby a vocal minority of council members with an anti-Cass agenda have engineered policy that the membership have not been consulted on and do not agree with. While they are sincere in their beliefs, these council members have no hard evidence for their opposition, and good intentions aren’t enough to guide medical practice. It must be underpinned by evidence.

And this is especially important when the contested policy is very bad for people. It’s not a good idea to help patients ruin their bodies on the basis of a political belief that contradicts medical realities.

When doctors clash:

The British Medical Association has threatened the reputation of all UK doctors by rejecting the findings of the landmark Cass review of transgender healthcare, a leading member of the BMA has told the Observer.

Dr Jacky Davis claims that the doctors’ union’s stance on the Cass review is “irrational”, has created a “fracture” between its leadership and the grassroots doctors it represents, and left the medical profession “in an uproar”.

What is that stance? Fingers in the ears shouting NONONONONO

The BMA refused to endorse the findings of Dr Hilary Cass, whose review was published in April and was widely welcomed. It claimed the review contained “unsubstantiated recommendations” and its council called on members to “publicly critique” it.

Yeah and draw moustaches on it and call it names and say nobody wants to go out with it. Nyah.

The BMA is the only medical organisation in Britain to not accept and to find fault with Cass’s findings, which were accepted by the last government and its Labour successor. It has said that it wants to carry out its own evaluation.

By which it means it wants to continue to call it names and shout at it until everyone just gives up.

Doctors on the BMA’s ruling council who have dared to challenge its criticism of the Cass review have been subject to “abuse” and its decision-making body is now shrouded in “a climate of fear and intimidation”, Davis claims.

It’s all so…Pharyngula-like. So bizarrely childish and dogmatic and religionish. So political where it should be technical and abusive where it should be…not abusive.

The union has adopted its position on Cass because a campaign group called DoctorsVote, which has led the junior doctors’ pay strikes, has used political “entryism” to gain a significant influence over the BMA and dictate its policy, Davis alleges.

Ah, that’s their Pharyngula then. The hell with technical medical knowledge, let’s just make it all political all the time, with you being the evil right-wing demons and us being the always correct glorious left-wing angels.

H/t Acolyte of Sagan

Labour brushes off women yet again:

The Government will not carry forward plans to rewrite the Equality Act 2010 that were aimed at protecting single-sex spaces, the Minister for Women and Equalities has confirmed.

Anneliese Dodds said there were no plans to update the existing legislation, which the Conservatives had promised to reform ahead of the general election.

Because women don’t matter. Men matter, and men who pretend to be women really matter, but women are so much lint on the sweater of life.

The Tories planned to rewrite the Act in order to make it clear that “sex” in the legislation means “biological sex” instead of the gender with which a person identifies.

This would have allowed public bodies to stop transgender women entering women’s lavatories or changing rooms, as well as preventing them joining all-female sports teams.

And probably many of the other intrusions and grabbings and exploitings transgender “women” have been relishing for so long. Naturally Labour can’t let that happen.

Originally a comment by Alan Peakall on Vice n virtue.

Certainty of paternity may be the ultimate material basis of the imperative for sexual control, but it does not account for religious taboos on non-procreative sexual acts. Possibly they are Gouldian spandrels emerging from cross firing of the supposed exchange instinct asserted to be disclosed by evolutionary psychologists’ study of Wason test experiments. Once humans have acquired the intellectual sophistication to recognise sexual pleasure as an inducement to reproduction, non-reproductive sex becomes a potential trgger for guilt/shame at cheating nature or Nature personified as a god. Religion as an institution then seizes on that guilt as a means of social control and incorporates it into a meme matrix. This appears still more plausible if you recall the prevalence of the cliched campaign trail barb “If he cheats on his wife, he’ll cheat on the country”.

IIRC it was Stephen Budiansky who attributed many religious impulses to a human instinct to bargain even if there is no counterparty with whom to strike a deal (fasting, human sacrifice, …) just as a beaver will attempt to build a dam in response to the mere sound of running water.

Saeedullah Safi in the Irish Times on the demolition of women’s rights in Afghanistan:

“My voice is now a crime,” says Mariam, a teacher from Kabul province. Speaking over a shaky WhatsApp connection, Mariam (whose name has been changed for her safety) describes her life as a woman under new Taliban rules. “I am terrified to leave my house,” she says. “Not because I fear the violence in the streets, but because I fear my own voice might betray me.”

Last week, the Taliban’s supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada, approved new “vice and virtue” laws, which include a total ban on women’s voices in public and further restrictions on their presence outside the home.

Because, you see, if a man hears a woman’s voice it makes him think about fucking, while if he doesn’t hear a woman’s voice he will be able to keep his thoughts fixed on The Prophet. Or cricket. Or something that’s not fucking.

Women are no longer allowed to work in most sectors, attend secondary school, or visit public parks. Following the new decrees, they are now also forbidden from showing their faces or being heard in public. The Taliban’s justification: women’s voices and faces are potential instruments of vice, leading men into temptation.

Because women’s voices make men think about fucking. What’s so hard to understand?

This silence is not just a metaphorical one. The Taliban have made it literal, with new rules that ban women from singing, reading aloud or even speaking in their own homes if their voices can be heard by men outside. The consequences for disobedience are severe – women who violate these rules can be detained and punished at the discretion of Taliban officials.

It has to be this way, because women make men think about fucking.

Speaking up for the women of Afghanistan.

Wow, what a funny joke.

Trump issues threats:

Former President Donald Trump, who makes frequent false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen through rampant fraud, warned Saturday that he would attempt to imprison anyone who engages in “unscrupulous behavior” during the 2024 race results.

No he didn’t threaten to attempt to imprison, he said he would imprison. Trump never tempers what he says with an awareness of limitations on his power, he just issues the threatyest threats he can come up with.

The threat was issued in a post on Truth Social, his social media website, and repeated his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, accusing Democrats of “rampant Cheating and Skullduggery.”

“The 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again,” he wrote.

See? Nothing about attempting there, just will be prosecuted. Pure strongman.

He continued, “Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”

Will be will be will be, because he will be will be will be the dictator who will order it to happen.

Also note the idiotic “unfortunately” placed, as always, in the wrong place so that the meaning is rendered ambiguous. He always does that. Why is it unfortunate that such “levels” have never been seen before in “our Country”?

In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Trump began making baseless warnings of election interference that grew louder after he lost and culminated in a mob attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in an attempt to block certification of Biden’s election. He’s begun making similar statements ahead of the 2024 election.

Because he intends to steal it and he’s laying the groundwork. Subtle he’s not.

How sweet.

Notice anyone missing?

Urrgghh I did not know this – Trump has been campaigning in sundown towns.

Howell, Michigan. LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Mosinee, Wisconsin.

These relatively small cities — spread across midwestern swing states and far from dense metropolitan areas — all have one thing in common: They are former “sundown” towns, where threats of Jim Crow-era violence enforced racial segregation.

After a series of rallies in major cities to kick off his general election campaign, the Republican presidential candidate zeroed in on a handful of cities with familiar pasts.

That’s really really really disgusting.

Viral criticism across social media has argued that Trump’s latest campaign stretch isn’t a coincidence but a “dogwhistle” to racist supporters. Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign accused the former president of deliberately campaigning in the former “KKK capital of Michigan.”

His campaign denies it, but then why did they go to obscure backwater cities instead of the big obvious ones?

The town of Howell has long been associated with the Ku Klux Klan’s presence in Michigan, thanks to the state’s former “Grand Dragon” Robert Miles, who recruited auto workers into the KKK and staged hate rallies and cross burnings in the majority-white county.

“This is where Donald Trump is choosing to hold his rallies,” said a TikTok user whose video linking the former president’s “troubling pattern” of campaign rally sites to “sundown” histories has been shared widely across social media.

“You got a presidential candidate for the GOP doing a sundown town tour around the country, not looking for political gain,” he added. “He’s fucking rallying the troops.”

Oliver Brown being sly in the Telegraph:

Valentina Petrillo, the Italian father-of-two who qualified on Friday for a second semi-final of these Paris Paralympics in women’s sprinting, has hit back at being called an “out-and-proud cheat” by author JK Rowling, saying: “I’ve never even read Harry Potter.”

Nicely done. The father-of-two in women’s sprinting, who retorts to criticism with a fatuous irrelevance.

Despite the backlash, Petrillo claimed: “There is so much transphobia in all this. The most important word in Olympic and Paralympic sports is inclusion.”

No it isn’t. Of course it isn’t. How could it be? Sports are about competition, which means there are losers along with winners, and in fact there are far more losers than winners. At any rate what he means by “inclusion” is, of course, allowing men like him to compete against women…but only one or two at a time. He doesn’t want inclusion of all the men, of course, because then he would lose. He wants “inclusion” of a very small number of cheaters like him so that he can win. For now, he’s getting exactly what he wants, to the dismay and disgust of people who have any sense.

Trump zeroes in on the real cheating in elections.

He’s tall. That definitely means he should win.

Originally a comment by Acolyte of Sagan on The most important word.

Two incidents from last week at the Paralympics.

Partially-sighted Australian runner, Jaryd Clifford, accidentally let go of the tether linking him to his guide 4998 metres into the 5000 metres final. He was the only runner in that race to use guides, i.e. the ‘most’ blind runner in the field, finished in third place but was disqualified from recieving the bronze. Essentially, letting go of the tether at any point in the race, whether intentionally or not, suggests that the guide isn’t really needed and therefore the runner is gaining an unfair advantage. Clifford was disqualified because he broke the rules, and cheats don’t deserve medals, right?

Polish athlete, Roza Kozakowska, who competes in the class for the most severely disabled in her category, made a world record hammer throw, tearing her shoulder so severely in doing so that she had to withdraw from further attempts. Still, it was a gold-winning throw…until she was disqualified because the neck support pillow on her wheelchair was slightly above regulation size. Granted, it was a matter of just a few millimeters, but it gave her neck a tiny amount of extra support that her similarly-disabled rivals didn’t have. Apparently, when you lack the ability to properly coordinate your muscles over your entire body, a couple of millimeters extra support makes a difference. Kozakowska was disqualified for breaking the rules, and cheats don’t deserve medals, right?

And yet the very people who disqualified two genuine competitors from medal-winning positions for very minor and almost certainly inadvertent breaches of the regulations are cheering on a man who is openly, nay, proudly cheating his way through the competition. It’s utterly fucking insane.

The march of stupidity continues.

A Victorian breastfeeding expert is facing legal action over a series of social media posts denying that transgender women can breastfeed.

Jasmine Sussex is being taken to Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal by a trans mother after labelling attempts by transwomen to breastfeed their children “experimental’’ and calling it a “dangerous fetish”.

Ms Sussex raised concerns about Queensland trans mother Jennifer Buckley – who was born male but later transitioned into a woman – taking hormones to grow breasts and induce lactation to breastfeed her newborn baby.

No he didn’t “transition into a woman” – there is no such thing. He later started to pretend to be a woman.

The Victorian woman is preparing to be called before the Tribunal after Ms Buckley alleged that she had vilified her online, calling her statements “hurtful”.

Hurtful shmurtful. Try thinking about the wellbeing of the baby instead of your revolting fetish, dude.

Ms Buckley said she had begun transitioning but was able to conceive using IVF, meaning she is the biological father.

Imagine being a journalist and writing that ridiculous sentence.

She began taking hormones to stimulate milk production as her wife prepared to give birth because she wanted to breastfeed as well.

“For the past 6 weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding,” she wrote in a Facebook post. The drug domperidone is traditionally an anti-nausea medication.

And it’s just a brilliant idea to feed a baby superfluous medications so that its selfish piggy father can pretend to be a mommy.

Ms Buckley, who described herself as a “loving mother of a beautiful little boy”, told the Saturday Herald Sun her wife had encouraged her to try breastfeeding following advice from her endocrinologist. She said she was told it was “no different to inducing lactation in non-pregnant mothers or those mothers who are not producing enough milk”.

The people who told him that are insane. Of course it’s different from inducing lactation in women. Women can lactate; men cannot lactate. Inducing artificial “lactation” passes the artifice on to the baby, which is not a good idea. Primum non nocere, remember?

They’ve all lost their damn minds.

The Irish Times:

A transgender woman, who was referred for gender-affirmation surgery in Germany, says she was unable to receive “basic healthcare” on her return to a Dublin hospital.

It wasn’t “basic” healthcare though. It was very specialized.

Paige Behan (26) from Ballyfermot, Dublin, felt “humiliated” and “devastated” when neither the urology, gynaecology nor plastics teams would treat her at St James’s Hospital – the largest acute academic teaching hospital in the State – last month, despite her being referred by her GP for a worsening wound infection at the site of her surgery.

What was his surgery? A “neo-vagina” – which is not basic healthcare, and is arguably not healthcare at all.

Instead she was advised to travel late at night, while distressed and bleeding, to the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) at Holles Street, which St James’s Hospital said was “more equipped to deal with neo-vaginal complaints”.

Which seems surprising for a maternity hospital.

Ms Behan says she knew she was female since she was 12. From age 18 she was prescribed hormone therapy though she felt despair at being unable to access timely gender-affirmation surgery. She was hospitalised for several suicide attempts.

She was diagnosed with gender dysphoria following psychiatric evaluations that she found gruelling. Last year she was referred for “life-saving” surgery at the Rotkreuzklinikum München hospital in Munich, by the HSE at St Colmcille’s Hospital, Loughlinstown. This surgery is not available in Ireland.

Surgery to create a vagina was performed by plastic surgeons at the Munich hospital on July 14th. A hospital-contracted infection delayed her return home and she travelled back on August 9th.

There’s no such thing as “surgery to create a vagina.” The surgery creates an imitation vagina, which is not the same thing. At all.

Anyway, he got his name in the papers.