[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a sexual assault can be carried out by a man even after he’s had his Johnson removed.

The basic argument is for dignity, privacy and safety. It ought to be a given in society that women ought to be able to use the toilet or get changed for work without men in close proximity. Whether or not the man in question is actually likely to assault them is a distant secondary consideration and in fact is a regular strawman put up by trans activists. Why should they have men listening to them, or looking at them? Why should women who have suffered sexual assault in the past have to suffer being told, while at a rape crisis centre, that it is their responsibility to ‘re frame their trauma’ when they learn that the person in charge of the centre is a man larping as a woman (this actually happened in Edinburgh)?

Trans activists have been getting away with it because of the ludicrous claim that a ‘trans woman is a woman’, which far too many organisations, especially in the public sector, have been too willing to take as given. Even though the Supreme Court ruling this week dealt only specifically with how this relates to the Equality Act 2010, the fact that the highest court in the land has this week spoken in terms of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ being immutable biological categories has shifted the dial on this whole debate. And a good thing it is too.

Oh yes, nobody necessarily needs a penis in order to sexually assault somebody.