he 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.
Leave a Reply