Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey at Maybe science.

because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth.

I object on behalf of the English language.

There is no general rule that says that the statement “Person A is Category X” implies that Person A chose to be X. I didn’t choose to be white, or blue-eyed, or even human, but if I went around declaring that I was “assigned human at birth,” people would back away slowly and look for an escape route.

There are, of course, some types of X where there arguably is (or should be) an implication of choice. I’m thinking of Richard Dawkins’s complaint about referring to “Christian children” or “Muslim children” as being as ridiculous as a “monetarist child.”

But then, that’s just it, isn’t it? The underlying belief is that there is no biological sex at all, only gender, which is a choice. Except when it isn’t, of course. It’s a choice when protesting that “you can’t say I’m female, because I didn’t choose to be female.” but it’s not a choice when complaining that “I can’t just choose to be female, that’s not who I am.”

Wo, this is a big step.

This at a blog called “Science-based Medicine.”

So let’s take a look.

Irreversible Damage to the Trans Community: A Critical Review of Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage (Part One)

Very science-based title.

Editor’s note: This is the second guest post discussing Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters solicited from experts in transgender medical care. In this post, Dr. A.J. Eckert describes the many errors, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings of science in Shrier’s book, doing so in more detail than was done in our recent guest post by Dr. Rose Lovell, who provided an excellent overview of the problems with the book. Dr. Eckert plans a second part to this discussion, which they are currently working on. We look forward to its completion.

Dr. Eckert is “non-binary.”

Does that make Dr. Eckert part of “the trans community”? Or no?

Clearly the mandated answer is yes, but the reality is that that’s absurd, because the very idea of being “trans” relies on the binary, so claiming to be some of each and to be “part of the trans community” is having it both ways, i.e. ignoring a contradiction.

Dr. Eckert starts with some poison.

Over the last couple of weeks, Abigail Shrier’s controversial 2020 book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters has enjoyed a renewed surge of interest and controversy on the Internet. On June 15, Dr. Harriet Hall, retired family physician and longtime contributor to the Science-Based Medicine blog, posted a favorable review of Shrier’s book on SBM.

The physicians behind SBM characterize their blog as one “dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care”. SBM is widely regarded in its dedication to evidence-based medicine. Hall’s review was pulled from the SBM blog less than two days later for review, having been found not to meet the standards of SBM. Shrier sees this move as bullying.

So do I, and you know what else I see as bullying? This intro. This spiteful nasty intro.

Ms. Shrier, Lisa Littman, whose 2018 study proposed the diagnosis of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), and now apparently Dr. Hall see themselves as victims of a “woke” activist movement trying to censor science. 

Gee, why would they think that.

In contrast to claims of Shrier having been “silenced,” her book has garnered praise and support, with several sites taking up her cause in the past week alone. Before Dr. Hall’s review, Shrier had previously appeared at a high-profile Senate hearing. She still has a platform as a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and has expressed her views on several podcasts, including Joe Rogan’s massively popular one. Meanwhile, in part due to Shrier’s enthusiastic promotion, Littman’s made-up diagnosis of ROGD has enjoyed a renewed interest, spread widely, and is accepted by many as a real medical diagnosis.

Bad science, however, remains bad science, and personal opinions based in confirmation bias and politicized beliefs are bad science.

Says non-binary Dr. Eckert who is clearly not at all influenced by personal opinions or politicized beliefs.

Throughout her book, Shrier refers to her subjects as “biological girls,” a term that conflates sex with gender and mischaracterizes Shrier’s subjects. The reason is that a person’s sex refers to the identity assigned by doctors, parents, and medical professionals at birth, most often based on external anatomy (genitals).

That’s not right.

More accurately, Shrier’s subjects are “AFAB”, or “assigned female at birth“, because no one gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth.

That’s not more accurate. At all.

It’s breathtaking that they’re doing this.

More later, maybe, or maybe I’ll just leave it to fester.

National Weather Service Seattle is on Lake Washington, so they take nice snaps.

You can just barely see Mount Rainier. On a sharply clear day it stands out like a giant upside-down scoop of ice cream.

When she became they:

The non-binary comedian’s hit TV show draws heavily on an often troubled life. They talk about addiction at 14, the loving parents who kicked them out, the older men who abused their trust – and the happiness they eventually found.

How do they know those older “men” were actually “men”? Is they the only person who gets to be special in this story?

Feel Good is a disarmingly autobiographical love story. It tells the story of a character called Mae struggling with relationships, addiction, identity and life on the comedy circuit. Mae is attracted to men and women, but to women more, particularly women who identify as straight. The first series focuses on Mae’s relationship with Georgina, a teacher who had previously only slept with men and is reluctant to admit to her super-straight, super-posh friends that she and Mae are living together. Mae is a mix of streetwise and naive – reckless, precocious, promiscuous, self-absorbed and a bag of nerves.

I’m not clear on what “disarmingly autobiographical” is supposed to mean. What’s disarming about autobiography? Self-obsession is all too common and I can’t say I ever find it disarming. Tiresome and irritating is more like it.

By the end of series two both characters have evolved. George is happy with her bisexuality, while Mae changes from she to they, announcing: “I think I’m transgender or non-binary or whatever the term is these days.”

The term is “more interesting than everyone else.” You think you’re special and more interesting, and these days that translates to something under the “trans umbrella.”

It’s not surprising people react like this when you write and star in a TV series using your real name and telling a version of your life story. But this is where things start to get complicated. As Martin reminds me, it is a fictionalised version. So whereas in Feel Good, Mae talks about being trans or non-binary, Martin is non-binary but not trans.

Ohhhhhhhh. Thank god we cleared that up. How creative of they to make their character so different from theirself.

The Canadian standup thinks of Feel Good as a dramatised version of life 10 to 15 years ago. But while the addiction at the heart of the story goes back that far, the decision to identify as they rather than she is recent.

Better advertising, innit.

Laurie Penny again pretending we all know that sex is a spectrum and that we’ve always known that and that there’s just no question about it:

The suggestion that two transgender women were close to being selected for the British Olympic team was met with outrage earlier this month. LGBT advocates were upset that trans athletes would have to face any queries at all over their right to compete as women, while others insisted that only “biological females” should do so.

Well, yes, biological females, as always. Why the scare quotes?

We are assured that the inclusion of trans women in Olympic sports, which is now possible after a rule change, is unfair because they will have a “natural advantage” over other women.

And “we” are assured that because it’s true. Of course men have an advantage over women. Humans are sexually dimorphic; that’s just reality.

Penny goes on to play the “all competitive athletes have an advantage” card, which is just infantile.

The debates about sport show just how difficult it is to draw a sharp distinction between men and women, between male and female bodies. What should a “woman” be, for the purposes of professional sport?

No, it isn’t difficult at all, and what a woman should be for the purposes of professional sport is a woman.

… there are times when you have to wonder what story people think they’re living in. Even the most culturally oblivious commentator can recognise when they have become the villain in a feel-good sports movie about plucky underdogs overcoming prejudice.

Ah yes and Laurel Hubbard is the plucky underdog, is he? White, rich, middle-aged, male Laurel Hubbard? Not the young Tongan and Samoan women who have to compete against him?

Yet the question remains: what are exceptional athletes to do when they don’t fit into arbitrarily chosen biological categories on whose terms excellence is measured?

The categories are not arbitrarily chosen.

In sport, bodies are quite literally contested. Women’s participation was always an afterthought: the 2012 games in London were the first Olympics in which women took part in every sport. 

Exactly, and that’s why we don’t want to see women’s participation trashed by other means now! Every man allowed to compete as a woman means a woman loses a place, in addition to the fact that all the women are now at a disadvantage.

I hope one day Laurie Penny feels scorching shame over this betrayal.

Oh look, what was that I just said about the Essex Vice-Chancellor apologizing to “the trans and non-binary community” but probably not so much to the two female academics who were actually mistreated by the University of Essex? No sooner had I clicked Publish than I saw a brief Twitter thread by Rosa Freedman, one of those academics, which confirms that no, Essex did not apologize to them.

I’m so sick of these people – the ones like the sniveling Vice-Chancellor.

These ones:

The Guardian reports, or gloats:

A university has apologised to transgender and non-binary staff and students over a review that suggested it had unlawfully no-platformed two female academics whom some had accused of transphobia.

You’d think it was the two female academics who were owed apologies, wouldn’t you.

The vice-chancellor of Essex University has written to staff and students to say sorry for the timing of the highly critical report, which was released shortly before exams and Pride month, and for the stress under which it had placed staff and students.

Blah blah blah blah, and meanwhile the stress on the two invited academics, and anyone who wanted to hear them, who respected them, who had a hand in inviting them – that stress doesn’t matter and needs no apology.

The university accepted the report and Forster reasserted its commitment to protecting freedom of speech on the campus and apologised to the two academics.

“I was deeply concerned to read the input into the review from some staff and students who said that they felt constrained to self-censor their speech and activity because of concerns about how we manage the balance between freedom of speech and our commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion,” he wrote at the time.

On Friday he issued the further apology, which he said followed a meeting with trans and non-binary students and staff where they discussed the review’s impact on the community. “In the meeting we discussed how hurt people feel about the outcome and the very negative impact that this has had and continues to have on trans and non-binary staff and students.”

In the meeting there was a whole lot of emotional blackmail and for some reason this adult man took it seriously, so seriously that he insulted the two female academics all over again. People need to start recognizing emotional blackmail and telling it to stop mewling.

Forster added: “My personal view is that the current law in the UK does not fully respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people. I understand that in meeting our obligations to respect academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law, we have given the impression that we might not care about the lived reality of trans and non-binary people.

“As we revise our equality, diversity and inclusion policies and procedures we will continue to go beyond the minimum standards required by law, wherever we can, to ensure that we recognise, respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people.”

But not women. Nobody respects women. The very idea is absurd.

A fine rant by an anonymous someone on Facebook which is apparently open for sharing:

When Antifa and other anti fascist groups started, they were about defending communities from racist & fascist violence and attacks. It is sometimes necessary & reasonable to use violence to defend yourself or others from physical attack. In the 70’s-90’s fascists were graffitiing & firebombing the homes of black people, firebombing left-wing & anarchist bookshops, physically attacking black people in the street, attacking trade unionists & anti racists, gay bashing & so on. The police did nothing to stop those attacks and in fact regularly colluded with the racists / fascists. In those circumstances there was little alternative but for people to join together to fight back in order to stop fascists attacking people, so groups like antifa were created. At the end of the 90’s a fascist detonated bombs in Brixton, Brick Lane and a gay pub in Soho, maiming and killing people. By what measure are some on the left falsely comparing women fighting against sexism with racists and fascists? There are no feminist dictators, there is no campaign of violence and intimidation by women.

Why the hell are antifa now using violence to defend the rights of males to sexually harass women – where the fuck is your analysis of who holds power in our society? Haven’t you heard of sexism and patriarchy? Do you not realise that males deliberately flashing their dicks at females is something that most women & girls have endured from a young age, and that it creates fear in very many women & girls – especially those who have already been subjected to sexual violence (99% of sexual offences are carried out by males). The women complaining in the Wi Spa video that went viral didn’t even say that the male was trans, so why have antifa even assumed that the women’s actions were founded in ‘transphobia’ rather than opposing sexual harassment?

There is no campaign of violence by women against males or people who identify as trans. There are just arguments about the impact on women of gender self-ID politics and how best to fight sexism. There is no justification whatsoever for violence or threats against women holding placards or wearing T-shirts just because you don’t like the message. When you use violence against people just because you don’t like their opinions, YOU become the fascist. You are trying to dictate and control what other people are allowed to say and think.

But but but my freedom to refuse to get vaccinated! My precious freedom I tell you!! Mine mine mine mine!!!

Unvaccinated people do more than merely risk their own health. They’re also a risk to everyone if they become infected with coronavirus, infectious disease specialists say.

That’s because the only source of new coronavirus variants is the body of an infected person.

“Unvaccinated people are potential variant factories,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told CNN Friday. “The more unvaccinated people there are, the more opportunities for the virus to multiply,” Schaffner said.

Yes but freedom. Freedom freedom.

The current vaccines protect well against all the variants so far, but that could change at any moment. That’s why doctors and public health officials want more people to get vaccinated.

“The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change,” the World Health Organization advised last month.

Vaccines are not widely available in many countries. But in the US, there is plenty of supply, with slowing demand. Just 18 states have fully vaccinated more than half their residents, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But freedom.

I used to be on the same blog network as this guy. I had no idea he was like this.

No, tell people not to display their “junk” around 9-year-old strangers, no maybe about it.

This guy…

That is, 60% of men who call themselves trans women are, according to another man who calls himself a trans woman, raped or sexually assaulted by other men in men’s prisons. Men assault other men in prison. Yes that’s a bad thing, and it shouldn’t happen. The solution, however, is not to put the men who call themselves trans women into the women’s prisons, because that just shifts the risk onto women, who are physically far more vulnerable. But Montgomerie thinks that is the solution. (Notice his breezy “most of which are non-violent.”)

I’m not replying with that, I’m replying with “don’t shift the violence onto women.” Montgomerie of course is expressing his indifference to women here.

What about Montgomerie’s indifference to the women being locked in a room with a load of men knowing the chance of sexual assault is sky high? What about them? What about them?

Also, LBC calls women “cis women.” News outlets need to stop doing that.

So progressive.

CBS Los Angeles reports:

Unlawful Assembly Declared As Violence Erupts Over Trans Rights Outside Koreatown Spa

Ah yes, violence simply erupted, like a volcano. It wasn’t one set of protesters physically attacking another set, it was an eruption.

And the issue was trans rights. Not women’s rights and trans rights, or trans rights versus women’s rights, but just trans rights. Women’s rights don’t matter enough to mention. We’re bored with women and their pesky rights.

Violence broke out at dueling demonstrations over trans rights in front of a Koreatown spa Saturday, fueled by a viral video posted by a woman upset that a person with male genitalia who identified as female was allowed to disrobe in the spa’s women’s section.

The demonstrations weren’t dueling though. One side was violent and the other wasn’t.

“I think we should let people live their lives, and let trans people live their lives how they want to,” Marie Dumouch, a demonstrator for trans rights told CBSLA’s Rick Montanez.

Of course we should, except when how they want to live their lives impinges on the lives of others. That’s the issue here. Obviously.

Video from the scene showed the trans rights supports clad in black assaulting protesters from the other side, spraying them with an unidentified substance, pushing them, punching them and demanding that they leave the area.

The protesters from “the other side” had done none of that.

Several of the black-clad demonstrators could be heard cursing at the protesters to “get the [fuck] out.”

One man in a blue T-shirt that said “Obey Jesus” was sprayed with something from a can. A few seconds later, a handful of trans rights supporters grabbed a large sign that said “God Does Not Make Mistakes” out of the hands of two protesters. Someone lightly shoved the man in the blue shirt in the back. He then lightly shoved a woman clad in black and was set upon by a group of men, who punched him and hit him twice in the head with a skateboard.

They followed the wounded man down a sidewalk taunting him to fight back until he reached the safety of a police officer.

I guess the police officer was just standing there watching.

More on some “Antifa” people (weird that they don’t realize they ARE fa) perpetrating violence against women.

Word is it was Antifa counter-protesters who did that. I suppose there will be news coverage later.

Much as I dislike sharing anything from Andy Ngo…

A male ego so bloated it blocks out the sun women.

A woman says she doesn’t want a male gynecologist; a man (who is an actor) says “You know I played a male midwife, right?”

Oh sir, I’m so sorry sir, I said a thing without taking into account your expertise on the subject of women not wanting a man poking around between their legs. How could I have been so rude? Of course performing a scripted role as a midwife is exactly equivalent to training and work as a midwife, and how dare I say anything about it to you with your vastly greater experience and education.

But seriously – David Paisley isn’t 3. He’s more than old enough to know that there are such things as predatory men, and that some of them are doctors, and some of those are gynecologists. He should be able to see the difficulty, and acknowledge it, and back off, but instead he pulls non-existent rank and then waves away the existence of male gynecologists who assault their patients.

It’s not comparing, it’s saying that some of them are, and as with trans women in prisons and shelters and rape crisis centers, we can’t know who is which, so we take the reasonable precautions. A decent human being would understand that. Paisley is indecent.

A tweet of Maya’s alerted me to some more abject groveling.

Do you think the words “trans and non-binary” appear often enough in that short extract?

It’s Professor [and Vice-Chancellor] Anthony Forster on the University of Essex staff blog:

Our commitment to our trans and non-binary staff and students

That’s nice, but is there any commitment to your female students? Any at all?

I met with trans and non-binary students and staff last Friday and we discussed the Reindorf Review, the publication of the Report (.pdf) and the actions (.pdf) agreed by Senate and Council in response to the recommendations in the Review, and the impact they have had on both the trans and non-binary community and the wider Essex community. In the meeting we discussed how hurt people feel about the outcome and the very negative impact that this has had and continues to have on trans and non-binary staff and students.

What about women? What about the impact on women?

I am committed to ensuring that everyone is made to feel welcome at the University and we discussed a range of actions that we can take to ensure that this is the case.

I don’t think he’s committed to that at all. He seems much more committed to making women feel unwelcome…unless they slavishly submit to the trans dogma, and put “trans and non-binary students” first at all times and in all disputes.

My personal view is that the current law in the UK does not fully respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people. I understand that, in meeting our obligations to respect academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law, we have given the impression that we might not care about the lived reality of trans and non-binary people. As we revise our equality, diversity and inclusion policies and procedures we will continue to go beyond the minimum standards required by law, wherever we can, to ensure that we recognise, respect and protect the identities of trans and non-binary people. Listening to our trans and non-binary staff and students will be central to us understanding the changes that will have the most impact in creating a welcoming, supportive and inclusive environment – and ensuring the lived experience of our trans and non-binary staff and students is positive.

And ensuring that the lived experience of our female staff and students will be complete crap.

We have received other suggestions as to how the University can demonstrate its commitment to our trans and non-binary staff and students. These include: allocating greater funding and resources for mental health services; putting in place a trans and non-binary support group for students facilitated by a trans/non-binary member of staff; identifying a common room/space for trans and non-binary students; encouraging positive action to support and promote greater diversity within leadership and across the University; respecting personal pro-nouns; further developing support and training for staff in leadership positions and across the University; and creating a Working Group to combat transphobia on our campuses.

Women, meanwhile, can get in the sea.

I have been asked to provide a number of apologies including: to anyone who felt excluded from or affected by the process of contributing to the Review; for the manner in which the Reindorf Report was released, and in particular for the timing of the release at the start of the examination period and for how this has felt during Pride Month; that the Report and the actions agreed by Senate and Council have required considerable time from our students to address the impact on them and on other students and especially students in leadership roles, in a context in which some have not received appropriate training; the public scrutiny this has focused on some of our students; and for any harassment or bullying that has taken place and for anyone having been made to feel unsafe as a result of the Review. I am sincerely sorry for this. We have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment and bullying and I am committed to taking action when needed to ensure that we treat everyone in our community with dignity and respect. I have been asked to make apologies to three students and will do this today, and I will also send an apology to our trans and non-binary staff through the LGBTQ+ staff forum Chair.

But not women. Never women. Shut up about women. We do not care.

Kurt Eichenwald says there are sharks underneath.

…this means it cannot readily convert its assets into cash as needed.

Worse, because of the incredible incompetence and business idiocy of Trump, cash on hand (and access rapid loans through what is known as the commercial paper market) is small. So, the company survives on loans against assets.

Trump originally depended on bank loans, then jumped into high-yield (junk) bond market, which is why so many of his businesses went bankrupt: Junk bonds gave him lots of cash to spend, but he was too stupid to apply an analysis beyond “I’m great” to figure out how he was going to generate enough cash to pay interest on bonds.

He couldn’t. With his dad, he tried laundering money through Trump Castle to get past a requirement with his bank loans brought on by his junk debt, but got caught.

Everything crashed down so, the bottom line: Trump knows how to borrow money, he doesn’t know how to manage it.

Then came The Apprentice, which gave him lots of cash. Of course, he spent it all, then used assets he purchased as security to borrow from banks on apparent assumption that “I’m great” would fix any cash flow problems. He now has huge amounts of debt against assets that are plummeting in value because of January 6 and his toxic brand name. He *needed* the presidency to survive financially.

I have always believed, that is why he is so desperate to keep it, because if he was president, he could hit up the Russians, Saudis, etc to bail him out. Now, with him toxic and a threat to the country, those nations know that any secret payments they make to him run a huge risk of being discovered. Which brings us to today’s charges.

All bank loans with a business come with “lending covenants.” These are basically a series of requirements, some of which include “you’ll behave” in minor character. But *the most important part* of any loan covenant is the “books and records” portion. It is included in every covenant for a bank loan to a business. The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no “You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records” – it’s all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren’t.

Which brings us to count 12, which I think you can now understand the significance of:

Ah. I see. He relies on loans; the loans require him to keep honest books; he doesn’t keep honest books; he’s charged with falsifying the books.

Eichenwald continues:

Forget Weisselberg. That is every every corporate defendant, every entity that could have a loan covenant in its name. Every Trump Org bank lender in the world, right now, is looking at this indictment, looking at their covenants, and calling the Trump Org demanding they turn over every relevant book and record pertaining to these issues. If they refuse…BOOM. Loans pulled. If they do and the banks don’t like what they see…BOOM. Loans pulled. If the loans come due (which 100s of millions do next year) no way they get refinanced.

There may be something I am missing here, but I do not see how the Trump Org survives this without some sort of corrupt deal overseas. But even that seems far-fetched. Instead, it may be the biggest real estate corp bankruptcy in history and given that those of us who covered his business for decades – back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him – and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?

Now, I and countless others still want to see him shackled and humiliated, prosecuted and convicted, imprisoned and silenced. But financial ruin is better than nothing.

SexMatters on that ruling:

The judgment, and the Ministry of Justice policy, use phrases like “transgender women” and “non-transgender women”; the “gender with which they identify”; and the “biological sex assigned to them at birth”.

This language obscures what is really happening. Male prisoners, including rapists, are being housed in women’s prisons, and female prisoners and prison officers are forced to pretend that these male people are women.

The language always obscures what is really happening. That’s what it’s for.

When the judges talk about “transgender women”, these are some of the people they are talking about:

https://transcrimeuk.com (from 2021/2020 convictions) 

That’s one of the three rows. Look at them all.

Currently, under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, being a convicted sex offender with a penis and testicles – and no intention of ever having them removed – is no impediment to a man qualifying for a certificate declaring him to be a woman. And the prison service’s policy is that, with or without a gender recognition certificate, a male prisoner can be housed in a women’s prison, subject to risk assessment.

It’s utterly disgusting.

Now on to James Kirkup in the Spectator:

For context, the court heard that a significant number of transwomen in jail are there for sexual offences. In March/April 2019, there were 163 transgender prisoners, of whom 81 had been convicted of one or more sexual offences. 129 of those prisoners were allocated to the male estate, 34 to the female estate.

Many of them are there for sexual offences but hey let’s put them in with the women anyway, and then watch and laugh.

The judge acknowledged the risk, as we’ve seen. He acknowledged lots of things, all of which should have point to Nope Nope Nope.

The judge also found that female prison[er]s, who are disproportionately likely to have been victims of sexual assault, may be frankly terrified of being confined with a male-bodied sex offender:

Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant’s case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. 

I also readily accept the proposition … that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.

It’s nice of him to accept all this so readily. Very nice. Heartwarming.

However, the court found that prison service policy remains lawful, because that policy must reflect not just the interests of female prisoners but also the interests of transwomen prisoners:

Well, one, this ruling stomps on the interests of female prisoners while cuddling and snuggling those of the male prisoners, and two, the female prisoners’ interests are in not being raped while the male prisoners’ interests are in preying on and terrorizing the women, and three, the policy does not reflect the interests of the female prisoners, and four, what do you mean not just the interests of the female prisoners when you’re ignoring those interests?

Excuse me while I pant rapidly like a dog for a few minutes.

the subjective concerns of women prisoners are not the only concerns which the Defendant [the Justice Secretary] had to consider in developing the policies: he also had to take into account the rights of transgender women in the prison system.

What do they mean the subjective concerns??? Is wanting not to be raped classed as a subjective concern? It seems pretty fucking objective to me! And why is women’s desire not to be raped a “concern” while men’s desire to pretend to be women “the rights”?

This is so fucked up.

The debate about sex and gender is complicated and often fraught, not least when it reaches the courts. But there are two, fairly simple, points that I think everyone should draw from that court ruling.

The first is that the High Court has confirmed that accommodating the interests of transwomen and women leads, in some circumstances, to ‘competing rights’. Sometimes, giving something to transwomen means taking something away from women. There is nothing transphobic or otherwise hateful about saying so. It is, as the court ruling shows, a simple statement of fact.

That leads to the second point. In this case, the state has given to some transwomen offenders the right to be imprisoned in the female prison estate. That decision, made to accommodate the interests of those transwomen, comes at the expense of women in the female estate. The court found that those women are exposed to an increased risk of sexual assault and to anxiety and fear of such sexual assault.

The court found that, and shrugged its judicious shoulders and said tough shit. Women are exposed to an increased risk of sexual assault and to anxiety and fear of such sexual assault, and we think that just doesn’t matter as much as men’s desire to pretend to be women. On the one hand, terror of rape, and rape, and on the other hand, let’s pretend. Which would you choose?

The court further found that, under the law as it stands, it is legal for ministers to implement a policy that exposes women prisoners to that increased risk and to ‘understandable’ fear, because – assuming proper mitigation is in place – that risk and that fear are an acceptable price to pay to accommodate the interests of transwomen prisoners.

I’m not going to bother saying what I think of this situation, because I suspect I don’t need to.

I on the other hand am going to shout and swear and kick things.

Instead, I will conclude by saying that the High Court ruling has confirmed beyond doubt something that a great many women have been trying to say for several years, often meeting with aggressive rejection and accusations of bigotry. The court confirmed that in some circumstances, accommodating the interests of male-born transwomen means imposing costs and burdens on women.

And that raises a question that society as a whole still needs to answer: why should women pay and suffer to serve the interests of people who were born male?

Just what I’ve been asking all day, with ungenteel language.