OldFrill
That many are abused by many, and few are abused by few does not lessen the abuse.
Might need a formal logician. But get my gist. All these arguments that are being put forward by Glasweegran are the shaped responses fed to SNP supporters by extreme minority groups, that's what got Scotgov to the Supreme Court for yet another court defeat funded by the taxpayer.
The Supreme Court gave clarity and told Scotgov it cannot define woman to suit itself. The SNP is now a minority government that has completely forgotten its purpose - Independence.
You are right, it does not lessen the abuse, as I said, it's a horrible case, but it does raise the question, which was my point, as to why isolated cases should require a sledgehammer solution, where as far more prevalent cases don't seem to.
You have a group that is described in the text of the judgement as a feminist group working for the rights and safety of women and girls, and then you look at that group more closely and find that it's a limited company who has never done anything apart for argue against trans rights, then you have to wonder, if women's safety is their primary goal, then where is their campaign against domestic violence because that is several hundred thousand times more likely to affect a woman than any danger from a trans woman. (That is not hyperbole either, that is likely an underestimation of the risk)
Then you have to wonder who is being fed "shaped responses" by shady extremist groups, groups that seem to have bottomless pits of money with no apparent source that keep their court cases going.
Just because the SNP refused to throw trans people under the bus for political expediency does not mean their main policy is forgotten, (that sounds like you've been listening to Alba, set up by a man who admitted terrible behavior to women and can't win a raffle far less an elected seat at any level, so not exactly speaking for the people) ... but this was also policy. And it was the Westminster GRA 2004 that said transwomen are women, not the Scottish Government, and it still does say that... which is why this judement is just going to cause more problems with a mismatch in interpretation of two different bits of law. You could read the full judgement and see what it says, it's 88 pages of boring, but it's all in there.