Link here: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/gj/1/1/article-p78.xml
This is a very long article which, of course, adopts everything Judith Butler says wholeheartedly. It compares the current discourse around transgenderism to section 28. Astonishingly, the author appears to be a lecturer in law.
"Trans" is defined as "any person who does not conform to the sex/gender which they were assigned at birth, including non binary and genderqueer persons." A "cis" person is someone who identities to a self defined extent with the gender they are assigned at birth (so a gender non conforming lesbian, for example, can still be 'cis'). So...trans is someone who doesn't conform to the sex/gender they were 'assigned' at birth, but a gender non conforming person can still be cis. Make it make sense.
"Gender critical" people are not actually critical of gender, but want femaleness and womanhood to be biologically defined. And gender critical people are "anti trans". It turns out that anyone who is against gender self identification is 'anti trans'.
Mumsnet gets a shoutout: "another unlikely home of anti trans sentiment is the parenting site Mumsnet, where the feminist discussion board has been overwhelmed by those wishing to discuss 'gender ideology.'
The overall thesis appears to be that silly women are stooges of the patriarchy who buy into ideas like women and children are vulnerable victims who need protection from the trans/queer 'other'.
This part got an eye roll from me:
"Spaces for women are seen as sacrosanct in the absence of anyone male, or assigned male at birth. With the potential for assigned-male ‘invasion’, ‘[t]oilets, changing rooms, girls’ youth organisations, hostels, and prisons emerge as the dystopic terrain of women’s vulnerability to enduring predatory male behaviour’ (Cooper, 2019: 19). Of course, trans women are not male; they are women. But in the world of the ‘adult human female’, the potential of having to share a presumed private space with anyone in possession of, or ever having been in possession of, a penis, is unthinkable."
So trans women are not male (nor, presumably are they assigned male at birth) - they are women. But they are women with penises. Make it make sense! So the moral of the story is, women are hysterical for thinking there is any problem or danger with males being in their spaces, and should get used to the idea of sharing spaces with male people. Trans women don't pose any threat to women whatsoever.
The article ends on the hopeful note that all moral panics burn out so one day self ID law will be passed in the UK. Presumably when the silly women get over their irrational phobia of males.