Mick Hartley

Joan Smith at UnHerd on that man who expected his estranged wife to pay half the cost of his transition – and the judge agreed. 

Divorce is often difficult and acrimonious. But this case surely enters new territory, appearing to accept the claims of an ideology that’s had its central argument rejected by the country’s highest court. It also extends the definition of what is medically necessary, raising questions about other elective procedures. Should an ex-husband have to pay towards his wife’s breast enhancement, on the grounds that she’s depressed by their divorce and it will help her find a new partner?

Wives whose husbands claim to be transgender have not received sufficient sympathy or attention, even though they — and their children — are a living rebuttal of the “what harm does it do?” argument made by trans activists. The ruling raises new questions about impartiality, suggesting that the judiciary is still too inclined to accept the tenets of an ideology which promotes the interests of self-centred men over the rights of women.

No doubt because the judge in this case was a man.