"Supreme Court Gender Decision Achieved Nothing and Was a Waste of Money"

[Greyskybluesky]

So, in my quest to read widely on the sex and gender topic for an all-round view (even the execrable Pink News at times), I took a look at the TRAs' latest pet publication, the Byline Times. Specifically this article:

https://bylinetimes.com/2025/07/07/supreme-court-transgender-decision/

Ignoring the fact that it says "transgender decision" (😂) in the address bar, the article has a less than tenuous grasp on the truth (and grammar).

---

Some of the real corkers (my bold):

And so our first exercise on this week’s Media Storm was trying to define an “adult female”. But we couldn’t pin down a biological criteria that comprehensively captures all cis women.

The Independent’s solution has been to equate “biologically-female” with “assigned-female-at-birth”, but that doesn’t hold up because transitioning people’s biology changes, and so people born male may become biologically female.

it seems counterintuitive to put the definition of womanhood to paper – we never felt the need to contemplate it before the media decided to lynch any MP who didn’t have a “simple answer”.

So, clarity? No. We have not been given that.

Despite a lack of evidence of attacks by trans people in public toilets (we set our intern the task of finding them and she identified only one case involving a trans teenager from six years ago)

---

...and on and on. You get the picture. Shit journalism at its shittest. The authors' conclusion: the SC decision achieved nothing and was a waste of money. And the cherry on the very shit cake is the final comment from renowned TRA Katy Montgomerie:

“Look how much money was just spent on this Supreme Court case and how much money is going to be spent in the fallout of it with follow-up court cases. All of that money could have been spent on the government funding women’s services better, which the government is cutting back on doing.”

Yes, Katy. On that, I agree. Whatever money went into this case and will be going into it could be far, far better spent on women's services.

Imagine if a certain subset of men hadn't insisted on grabbing women's stuff for themselves? Over and over again? For years? This judgment might never have been necessary.

Sorry, I tried to read it, I really did, but simply couldn't finish it. What a load of tendentious waffle. 🙄Incidentally, I checked out both the authors on X, only to find that Helena Wadia has blocked me without my ever having interacted with her or even heard of her. So much for an open-minded search for journalistic truth.,

Tendentious is my word of the week 😃

Bylinetimes is a propaganda vehicle, not a source of journalism. As are all the Byline stable, even more so than the media they criticise.

'Byline Times - what the papers don't say' 😂

Is it related to the Yorkshire Bylines beloved of some of our visiting scolders?
I could follow the 'About Us' links back to find out, but meh.

The whole thing is a 'waste of money' to the extent that it should never have been necessary to go to a Supreme flipping Court to assert that 'woman' means 'biological woman'.

The wasting of money started a long time ago...

I think it's sweet that Byline Times is giving work experience to infants, but perhaps they should stick to finger painting.

So to sum up that article

If you only read this absolute lie:

but that doesn’t hold up because transitioning people’s biology changes, and so people born male may become biologically female.

... you'd know that the whole article is complete and utter tosh. There's a reason why the papers don't "report" that, it's garbage!

And so our first exercise on this week’s Media Storm was trying to define an “adult female”.

Oh, oh oh! I know this one....

The thing is, did they even look for one? Not past the end of their growing nose.

I believe that a number of commentaries from the feminist legal minds even mentioned the very case that the law would use for this... they obviously are not very well read.

So they didn’t actually touch on the one genuine reason it was a complete waste of money, which was that transactivists knew back in 2015 that men were not allowed in women’s spaces and must equally have known they were lying about it afterwards.

Sorry, OP. I couldn’t even read your summary post as I couldn’t bring myself to read past “we are all pretending we don’t know what a woman is,” AGAIN! My eyes were rolling too hard.

I know, right? Their tagline is "what the papers don't say". Um, there's a reason why the papers don't say certain things!

but that doesn’t hold up because transitioning people’s biology changes, and so people born male may become biologically female.

you know I try to give ppl the benefit of the doubt but the fact that someone could write something so utterly fundamentally stupid and physically impossible makes me think they must be so dense light bends round them

I tried to note some of the looniest sentences, but there were too many, it was overwhelming. Once you’ve read *transitioning people’s biology changes, and so people born male may become biologically female *you realise that the writer is too special to be constrained by reality.

Sorry to derail - but..but.. does light normally go through people??

So as long as not many women are being raped in toilets by trans women we should suck it up?

Stuff the women being raped by men who use the idea that some men are allowed into the women's to access them.

Stuff the women being sexually assaulted, flashed, wanked at etc by trans women or men who use the idea that some men are allowed into the women's to access them.

Stuff the women who are traumatised by seeing a male bodied person in what should be a female only spaces.

Stuff the women who are self excluding because their trauma, their religion or their culture means they can't share spaces with strange men.

Stuff women's rights to privacy, to dignity.

Stuff teen or preteen girls learning to deal with periods away from the male gaze.

They can't find many cases of trans women raping in toilets so women should let shut up and 'beeee kind'?

👆I agree with all of this, obviously.

But just to point out the "one dataset" they refer to does not record the gender identity of the offender. So their claim "women are being violated in toilets, but not by trans women" is not exactly robust.

Here is an archive link so that we don't have to add traffic to what must surely be click bait.

https://archive.ph/rWFdr

"Meanwhile, some cis women are born without ovaries, or with a rogue Y chromosome. Imane Khalif was born a woman, given a female birth certificate, and then deemed to have failed one of these modern “biology” readings. Does she now lose protection under UK equality law? If so, do not tell us that was done in our name."

Well look here. The expected leveraging of the medical conditions of male people with differences of sex differences. How very novel and never done before.

"Gwent Police covers 600 square miles of rural Wales, and counted 134 recorded incidents of rape and assault in public toilets over five years. Women are being violated in toilets, but not by trans women. Are we seriously supposed to feel pacified by this bullshit Supreme Court ruling?! This is crass transphobia, being peddled in our name."

And there is the 'it is men not transwomen' fallacy.

Looks like it covers most of the fallacious arguments.

"The media coverage of ‘what a woman is’ does not accurately represent cis women. A majority of cis women supported trans women’s right to self-identify, yet cis allies have been as poorly represented in the media as trans women were in the Supreme Court hearing."

And that misrepresented statistic.

Thats exactly why I can’t be arsed to read it

such a lot of complete and utter bollocks

"Let’s make one thing clear. When we are in bathrooms, or changing rooms, or any rooms with trans women, we do not experience their presence in any remarkable way. We experience it as we experience each other’s – as women. This is not some social justice argument. It is just how we feel. We do not feel fear. We do not feel difference. To be honest we do not feel a fucking thing, we are simply taking a piss."

Yep, the usual trope just keeps on coming.

Taking the piss they meant to say

im sure thats a typo

*To be honest we do not feel a fucking thing, we are simply taking a piss.

my response was to this…obvs

I don't think Milly and Molly are extracting the urine though. They're repeating every trope we've heard thousands of times, and they're thick enough to believe that this is original thinking.

Calling on Monty as the expert witness though... Ambassador, you are really spoiling us.

"The effect of this dichotomy is to divide and distract us from our shared struggle against male violence. This is a struggle faced not just by gender minorities, but also cis men. If we are to address it, Katie concluded, “the first thing the government should be doing is ending this pointless culture war against trans people”."

Oh look. Culture war. My.... haven't seen that in like an hour.

But the main point for this paragraph is forced teaming. Apparently, it is possible to share a struggle against male violence with male people who have the philosophical belief that they female. Many of which who seem rather keen to violate female people's boundaries and some even call for violence against the women who disagree with them.

.... I mean. I am convinced, everyone else?