I Find It A Perfectly Acceptable Risk...

 ...and so, I suspect, would most people: 

Requiring transgender prisoners to be held in jails matching their sex at birth would breach their human rights and create an unacceptable risk of suicide, a court has been told.

Oh, well...the suicide risk for those not in prison is pretty high too, due to their mental condition,  so *shrug* 

The case follows a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman in equalities law in April last year. The Scottish government insists it respects that judgement - but said it did not override the need to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The sooner we elect Reform and junk this bloody thing, the better!  

The Scottish government's KC, Gerry Moynihan, said the ECHR meant transgender people had the right to live their lives in their acquired gender. He added there had long been recognition in the UK that this included the right to be held in prisons aligning with that.

He said trans women also had vulnerabilities and needs, and the government's judgement was they were best dealt with in the female estate "assuming they don't pose risks to others". He said this offered them "protection against mental health difficulties and the route to rehabilitation," noting that a "trans woman will return to the community as a trans woman".

They will return to the community a man, because that's what they are and what they always will be... 

O'Neill told the court on Tuesday that there was "incredible sensitivity" to the rights, dignity and privacy of trans people, while the rights of "incredibly vulnerable" female prisoners were not factored in. He said the government wanted to retain the flexibility to put "a totally non-violent trans-identifying man" in the women's estate but questioned why female prisoners had to "bear the risk" of this and act as "human shields". O'Neill continued: "What is required is the preservation of women's only spaces. 

"All I am interested in, because of the situation of women, is the preservation of women's dignity, security and sense of safety vis a vis men - that's all."

Spot on. How have we come to this as a nation? Still, we are at least marginally ahead of the open air asylum that is Canada: 

Van Rootselaar was understood to have used his mother's name, Strang, socially and at school. He was named by Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Wednesday and described as a woman.

But he wasn't.  

Amid questions over how Van Rootselaar was described in alerts, McDonald said police “identified the suspect as they chose to be identified” in public and in social media.

The Trans 'community'  is reacting with all the decorum you would expect from a crowd of narcissitic men in frocks, of course:

                            

 

A Warning, If You're Considering Donating Your Body To Medical Science...

 ...which my father did, and his father befote him. It's well handled, the service they throw every year for the relatives to attend is very thankful, and you have the warm feeling that you are in some way helping medical science make advances.

Well, think again:

Yes, this is the US, but who'd want to bet some Dr Frankenstein isn't trying the same thing over here. So uncle Frank's cadaver may not be training the next intake of lifesaving A&E surgeons after all, but rather assisting an NHS plastic surgeon to make uncle Arthur a more superficially authentic 'woman'.

Whren You Have Your Enemy On The Ground At Your Feet, Press Your Attack...

For Women Scotland, the group responsible for April’s landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex, is considering further legal action against the Scottish government as they warned the key motivation for bringing the case was being lost amid debates about policy on toilets.

Because if you don't crush him utterly, you're in for a long exhausting fight, and the possibility that victory will slip through your fingers.

At a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, the gender critical campaign group’s co-director Susan Smith said there had been “extraordinary pushback” since five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates. Speaking to reporters afterwards, Smith said: “We don’t want to go back to court, we really, really don’t, but if we don’t see some action that may be something we will have to consider.”

She said she was concerned about lack of action by the Scottish government on prisons and schools guidance. “We have spoken to the Scottish government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it’s under review – they don’t have to re-issue anything at this point – because it’s clearly unlawful, we really do need some action. They’re telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don’t believe this is true.”

It isn't true - the judgement was crystal clear, the only people claiming it wasn't are the ones who wish it had been different, the radical trans activists and their middle aged white women backers in HR teams in every single large company or organisation, who hope to confuse the matter enough to give the weak room to obfuscate and drag their heels. 

“We really need people to start challenging where they feel that organisations, local councils are not implementing the law. We’re very fortunate to have the fighting fund that JK Rowling set up and that will make a massive difference because when people start to realise that there’s a cost maybe they will start to apply the law.”

Thst cost needs to start biting hard and biting personally above all. It's easy to shrug off fines when the company is paying, and not so easy when you have to put your money where your mouth is.

They Don’t Exactly Start Out From A Good Place, Do They?

The lives of transgender people in the UK are at risk of being made “unliveable”, Nicola Sturgeon has said in her first public comments about the supreme court ruling on the legal definition of a woman, which was prompted by legislation she oversaw in the Scottish parliament.

If you wonder why she hadn’t commented until now, maybe it’s because she knew she couldn’t say anything without being exposed even further as an idiot… 

Sturgeon said the supreme court’s ruling – “by very definition … the law of the land” – could not be questioned...

But then, the thick bitch went on to question it, of course! 

...but expressed profound concerns about interim advice published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as.

They should never have been allowed to in the first place. The SC verdict just restored normality.  

“I would be very concerned if that interim guidance became the final guidance and I hope that is not the case because I think that potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable.

They don’t appear to find them liveable even when they are getting every single whim pandered to…. 

“It certainly doesn’t make a single woman any safer to do that because the threat to women comes from predatory and abusive men.”

Like those predatory and abusive men who want to dress up as women to get their rocks off by trespassing on female spaces with the approval of the State, Nicola? 

After this unprecedented veto, Sturgeon accused some opponents of the bill of using women’s rights as a “cloak of acceptability to cover up what is transphobia”, telling the NewsAgents podcast that some critics of the legislation were also “deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well”.

Some of them probably put sugar instead of salt on their porridge too! 🤣 

Tweet Of The Month - Special Supreme Court Edition

The Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case brought a similarly bumper crop of tweets, so I've decided to put them in a seperate category from the normal Tweet of the Month:

Why I'll Never Give Up Twitter...

Because it provides swift retribution for liars in office. 

If It Took You A Decade To Realise What Was Going On…

...then your general intelligence level should be of more concern than your sexuality.

Ben says his ordeal started in his early 20s, after he was invited to attend Bible studies with an elder from his church. These started off as innocuous religious seminars, but Ben says things quickly changed and the elder started exerting control over what clothes he wore and how he styled his hair - encouraging him to wear what was seen as traditional masculine styles. He says he stopped the sessions after the elder started forcing him to make himself sick by tasting a bitter liquid whenever he had sexual thoughts or urges about other men. Ben told BBC News it took more than a decade to realise he'd been subjected to conversion practices, despite living with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as he struggled to confront what had happened to him.

This is a result of a Stonewall survey aiming to throw light on conversion tactics. Because, of course,  you-know-who are kicking up a fuss about them:

Both surveys suggested that trans and non-binary respondents were more likely to say they had experienced some form of conversion therapy. Results from Stonewall's research suggest that 38% of trans and non-binary respondents had experienced physical assault in an attempt to alter their gender identity.

Makes a nice change from them receiving fawning acceptance and encouragement from the medical and psychological professions... 

In February, the then-women and equalities minister, Anneliese Dodds, told the Women and Equalities Committee that draft legislation outlawing conversion practices would be brought forward before the end of the parliamentary session this summer. Some campaigners and politicians have shared concerns that a ban could criminalise parents, therapists or teachers for questioning a young person's gender identity.

Does anyone ever do that these days? Certainly doesn't appear they are allowed to already!  

Protect The Public? Nah, Costs Too Much..

It seems Police Scotland are plumbing new depths of incompetence:

The message on January 7 from a senior officer also confirmed a seized XL bully called Blue was returned to its owner – despite still not having an exemption certificate – after spending four months in kennels.

Isn't transferring one of these mutts without a certificate a crime then? Should they not investigate themselves? They seem quite happy to do so in other - equally ridiculous - circumstances, after all....

H/T: ProtectOurPets via Twitter