It seems so.
"Watkin's lawyers said she saw and presented herself as female but was "visibly and audibly" male, so it would have been "blindingly obvious" to the man that Watkin was not biologically female."
From the BBC article.
The dissonance is very clear.
We have been told as a society, and our children taught, that acceptance with no exception. To believe that someone is who they say they are.
And yet, recently there has been this contradiction where we are seeing the very same people telling us that any male person who states that he has 'an understanding' (to use what we are told is the correct language) that they are experiencing life where they understand they are female has to be treated as if they were female. Even though it is true that logically that 'understanding' is not a female one.
But then we get these court cases. Including the nazi convicted in Germany.
Those same people who tell us all about these male people's understanding, then will arbitrate who is and isn't 'really' transgender according to political expediency, in my opinion. Watkin's has maintained that they are female since they were 13 years old. So, for 7 years!
How is it that it becomes expedient in court to declare that Watkin's is a woman yet that the victim should have known that this woman was biologically male because of appearance and voice?
It is like foundations of shifting sands. This is one fuckton of harm coming to light about the destruction of boundaries. This victim potentially has been taught to believe these lies and therefore had non-existent boundaries. And yet, there are people crowing that this generation is the 'most inclusive' and 'most tolerant' without an inkling of understanding as to what this means for this generation's boundaries.
I use that term 'crowing' very deliberately because it is quite something to see those claims and the belittling that comes from those people towards the people who are pointing out the issues.