Another legal case. (I should, perhaps, dedicate this to the man on my twitter who told me to actually READ up on the law. Bless. 😂).
This one is one of multiple legal cases, brought by the same person, to demand the NHS fund what is referred to as “breast augmentation”. Full case here: Breast Dysphoria
Naturally, or unnaturally, if you wish, we start with the pronoun police. Even though the person has not applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate and is therefore NOT considered legally female.
This is not the first case that this individual has brought. 👇. Note, also, that the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are involved. (If anyone can find me a case of the EHRC fighting for, post mastectomy, breast reconstruction, as a Human Rights Issue, do let me know. If they have advocated for this I would like to include).
Before we get into the complainants distress about lack of breast growth the NHS does offer genital reassignment surgery (GRS/SRS) for the condition of Gender Identity Disorder. This is because it has been accepted that Gender Dysphoria, in fe/males, presents as an extreme discomfort with reminders of your biological sex. The PCT make the treatment they will fund abundantly clear. The Complainant has not sought any genital surgery.
So let’s just take a moment here. This person has been diagnosed as “Transexual” since 1996. It’s now over a decade later and, despite Gender Dysphoria, the offer of genital reassignment surgery, has not been taken up. One would have thought the most male thing about a man was his penis and yet, instead of pursuing this, we have multiple court cases to get “breasts”! 
Here is a reminder that , only an estimated, 20% of people, who declare themselves “trans”, seek any medical intervention. Hence a significant proportion of the men retain their penis. Here is a Clip from this piece by Fairplay For women: Penis Retention in MTF
Here is a piece by Gendered Intelligence that also estimates only 20% will, in future, seek any medical intervention: Gendered Intelligence
The general public have no idea of the phenomenon of #Shemales: Men who retain their penis but wish to be treated as “women”. There are porn genres dedicated to this and prostituted males who make a living with their “six inch surprise”. Something the Guardian forgot to mention when campaigning for one such “sex worker” to be moved to the female prison estate. Tara Hudson
Back to the case. Once again Dr James Barrett is our expert witness he crops up so often in these cases. {As an aside One of the central problems with the development of policy and law making, in this field, is that the “experts” are all ideologues treated as neutral experts.} .
Here we are told, at length about the distress caused by small breast growth.
The statements below talk of the limited evidence for “clinical effectiveness” of reassignment surgery. Why are we even doing sexual reassignment surgery if this is what the literature is telling us? Why are we advocating for earlier, and more extreme, interventions for Gender Dysphoric adolescents/young adults?
Limited evidence that SRS is effective or cost-effective yet the NHS is mandated to provide it. Here is a list of all the procedures the NHS no longer cover that impact the female sex 👇
Back to the breasts. The legal arguments then compare the case of a “natal” woman who was funded for breast augmentation surgery. A case is made that her distress was at the extreme end of the spectrum, though the case alludes to dissenting voices about the decision. We then move on to the arguments in respect of legal comparators, essentially whether a transsexual can be compared to a “natal” woman. This is where it gets interesting. Turns out the mantra ” Transwomen are women” has its limits.
The case, advanced by the EHRC, hinges on whether a refusal of implants to a transsexual fails to take into account the suffering of Gender Dysphoria. A born woman would not suffer from this but a “transsexual” would. The logic of this argument is that the NHS would be required to provide surgery to a transsexual but legitimately able to deny it to biological females. One would be clinical and the other “cosmetic”. A male, complete with a penis, would be entitled to surgery to provide them with breast implants but a woman could be denied. This is an argument advanced by Human Rights barristers!
Details of the argument are below. Note that women are no longer “natal women” we are now “non-transsexuals”. Note also that Trans women are just like women unless differentiating leads to priority treatment.
Whilst I am reading this I am constantly waiting for someone to mention the elephant in the room. If the Gender Dysphoria is so bad why is the penis retained? Wouldn’t a penis be the most dysphoria triggering aspect of your male body? Nope. Nobody is mentioning it. Maybe it will be in the follow up case. Yep. There was another one. This case was dismissed but, undeterred, our plucky heroine returns once again into the fray. Here is the Appeal
First we hear from the appellant in their own words:
Access to medicalisation which destroys sexual function is now a human rights issue?
The really interesting part of this case is the legal acrobatics required to redefine men as women and simultaneously argue that they should not be treated as women in the case of “cosmetic surgery“. Essentially prioritising men’s rights to larger breasts over women’s rights to enhance their female anatomy. (Remember that post-mastectomy breast construction is not routinely funded).
The latest case was dismissed by all three judges. Despite this the EHRC still use this as an example here 👉 Accessed 28th September Still arguing that a male is at a greater disadvantage in feeling “less feminine” than a woman. Health authorities have to justify failure to provide breast augmentation to a male which only may be justified. Human rights organisations are now Men’s Rights Advocates.
I am principally concerned with the impact on women’s rights. I do, however, think the medical profession, working in this field, are ethically compromised. I have no way of discerning if this claimant is being treated appropriately for any other competing mental health conditions. There must be a duty of care for all of humanity, including males who wish they were not so. We will look back at this medicalisation of Gender Dysphoric males, on this scale, as an atrocity. The impact on women’s rights to be recognised as a material reality, and retain sex based rights, is calamitous. Single sex spaces are necessary for privacy, dignity and safety. The general public have no idea that our naïve politicians have accepted #LadyPenis as a normal part of womanhood.
The re-definition of “woman” proceeds apace. The silence from pretty much all of our Feminist MPs is deafening.
This is the not the only case involving this appellant an earlier case was also brought because the driver felt the suspension was motivated by discrimination 
The complainant raised a few other issues related to how the other taxi drivers treated them. Also mis-gendering was an offence that even occurred a bit closer to home: 
The court took a dim view of the appellant, who abandoned the passengers late at night, and made it clear the case succeeded on procedural grounds and not because their behaviour was acceptable. It also makes clear this was followed by abusive emails and phone calls to the regulatory body.
The important legal issue here is that someone who has a Gender Recognition Certificate, is deemed to be “legally” of the opposite sex. Thus a Male to Female Transexual (MTF) or a Female to Male (FTM) is deemed to be legally a woman/man, respectively. (Note: This does NOT mean that only post-operative transsexuals are able to be legally declared as the opposite sex. Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) have already been issued to male-bodied people).
Unbeknown to, I would guess, 99% of women, the UK legal system has endorsed the idea of #LadyPenis. Not one single women I have told about this, in real life, had any idea the state has declared that a male, complete with penis, can be legally defined as a woman. Once I had overcome their disbelief, they were, to a woman, horrified. This is not a grass roots movement, its top down, elite led, and mandated by a political class who have been lobbied into submission. Crucially those who enact the law, and draft the guidance, will not be on the front line. They will not be tasked with enforcing the policy, in real life, or on the receiving end when, inevitably, it places women and children at risk.
The first and last categories are documents available to anyone on a “self-declared” basis. Again how can one evidence “living as a woman”? Would we accept “living as a black man” or would we immediately see how offensive this is? The middle one “appearance and mannerisms” postulates women as nothing more than mannequins. This is grossly offensive to actual women but capitulates to wannabe women who think make-up maketh the woman.
Are crimes committed by men, who identify as women, recorded as male or female? If so how many self-identified women incarcerated are sex offenders? Do we have any way of tracking the risk these males present to the women inside, and outside, the prison? I have more questions than answers. When we start to have a “puzzlng” increase in “female” sex offenders this will surely distort “evidence” based policy. Risk assessments on the impact of male violence against women need accurate data. Individual women risk assess when in proximity to males. This is a survival strategy. Policy makers should ensure they have the data to do this on a macro scale. Since we know there are significant sex based differentials in offence patterns eradicating records based on sex is a risky strategy.
It is well demonstrated that Lesbian and Gay youth are more likely to be bullied and have suicidal tendencies. Research needs to disaggregate the data to include sexual orientation however a research subject identifies. This is the only way to understand what is going on. Hence point three, above, is important.
Many explain their “hyper-masculine” past as evidence they were in flight from their femininity. This is doubtful. As Bailey argues it speaks to the fact that AGP males are not stereotypically feminine but study and work hard to fulfil a very male fantasy of what a woman is. Dr Ann Lawrence’s description, as an AGP transsexual, rings true:
