When i read the reports of Barbie Kardashian I knew the details were familiar. Indeed there is a legal case where the appellant is one and the same and seeking to overturn a special care order

The mother is party to the appeal. The father is not.

I take issue with describing abuse of the mother as being “locked in a sadomasochistic relationship”. A victim of a sadist , not someone willingly engaged in masochistic behaviour. The appellant aids the father in abuse of his mum. Under 9yrs old.
Transgender ID is contextual

Here the father’s role in denying the child care from his mother is set out. The child is denied maternal care at the hands of an abusive father and deflects abuse perpetrated against him by joining in attacks in the mother. By 2017 he has been referred to the Tavistock.

The mother is described as the source of his only “benign interaction”. Yet he joins in with the sadistic father and abuses her. At this stage he is described as identifying with the father not the mother. A later “transgender” identification can’t be detached from his back story

Joining in the abuse of the mother was a means of survival. Zac the age of nine the mother escapes, with the child, to a refuse for victims of domestic violence. Not a woman with a kink. A victim of domestic and sexual abuse.

The father has no insight into his behaviour and seems to think his actions were entirely justified. By 2012 G, the child, has subjected his mother to a violent attack so severe he is take. into care.

Three foster placements break down. The first two, explicitly due to aggressive and escalating behaviour. The last one lasts around a fortnight, presumably for the same reason but not explicitly so.

By the age of 13 the behaviour has become sexual and violent. Directed towards female staff. Culminating in an attack on another female that left her hospitalised. Between May and November 2018 they had three convictions.

G only attacked female victims and was seen as more compliant with male staff. Multiple acts of sexual violence were noted in attacks which appeared premeditated. Here G shares a house with another “transgendered” housemate.

G is isolated, has a sense of grievance and makes multiple official complaints. G also exhibits fear and hostility to other housemates and staff. In a recurring theme G regards other people only in so much as they are instrumental to their own, perceived, needs.

Further details of a horrendous attack on a , female, social worker.For which there is no remorse but, instead, regret enough damage has not been caused. G also has a list of people they wish to harm. The police express concern for the care staff.

At 15 assessed by the Tavistock Clinic for “Gender Dysphoria”. In news that should surprise nobody the appellant has researched the condition and presented with a tick box list of the “symptoms”. The session is 30 minutes long. G wishes to escape a male identity. Understandably

Psychological assessment. Potential severe personality disorder. G present a high risk to others. They are callous, unemotional & controlling. They achieve mastery though physical and sexual violence against others. (Females as we have seen)

Hurting others gives a sense of control. Mental stalking and pinning victims down in a physical and sexual sense.

G creates a sense of them self as a victim to manipulate others. It is deemed impossible to correctly assess whether they suffer from “Gender Dysphoria”. Yet this person is assigned female pronouns through this judgement. Because G wishes it and because of SelfID

The threats of suicide are also seen as instrumental to achieving their own ends, There is little sign of the self harm G claims to be undertaking. G does not have a “conventional moral foundation”.

G presents a particular risk towards WOMEN. Also has a history of manufacturing “illness”.

Gender reassignment , it is determined, has no role to play in the management of professed suicidal intention. G is callous and unemotional, presents a continued risk of assaulting others and is deemed able to be held responsible for their actions.

Here they elaborate in the impact of others failure to recognise than as a woman. And also the happiness of others around them. I am guessing this would be women, who are women, exacerbating these feelings of helplessness. Would not that trigger more violence against women?

Interesting that whilst suicidal it’s is a prominent feature of this “debate” it is noted here that gender reassignment is off the table if a person manifests suicidal behaviours.

Here we hear that G had spent time in an all male unit but reported that they were “persecuted” by other males in there. Yet we already know they are highly manipulative and not averse to controlling others to achieve their own ends.

G’s own wishes expressed. Again. claims of being bullied because “i am Transgender”. G rejects any notion of a psychiatric disorder. Presenting this as an understandable rejection of his male body.

G does wish to cut off their own genitalia but doesn’t want to compromise the construction of a “vagina”. Also wishes to move to L.A and become a sex worker / porn star to fund their surgeries. Also is proud of their body, just not the male parts.

Part of the appeal is that an earlier special care order wrongly took into account the risk G poses to others. The judge has to reframe the risk to others as reflecting back on G as perpetrator as we shall see.

List of the grounds for appeal advanced by Gs legal team. This sets out one ground which is the judge “wrongly “ took into account risk to others from G’s behaviour

A reminder of some aspects of the evidence the judge considered in making the special care order. G was seen to have manipulated clinicians and we are reminded that G said his victims screams were “music to my ears”

The argument made here is to emphasise the harms to G if they perpetrate violence and sexual assault against others. (women). A jarring framing but, i assume necessary to justify the special care order is in Gs best interests.

Emphasis is on the particular risk G presents to females. G clearly needs psychological support but, as we have seen, G argues that they will not engage with any therapy so this is one of the grounds advanced to reject their special care order,

G commits unprovoked, random attacks in others but they are also premeditated acts of violence,

Here the judge makes the point that “merely” because their violence/ sexual violence harms others does not mean it is not also hurting G.

The judge also argues that even though G is rejecting therapeutic intervention there remains hope that this may change as adolescence progresses. (Yet more evidence that people in their late teens are acknowledged to be in a state of immaturity)

G is not yet at the age of legal age of majority when most of this took place. This was less than a year ago. G remains at significant risk of harm both from and towards others.

Judge agrees with the original findings and again reminds us that G is a risk to commit further sexual assaults in females. Notice he says “females”. Presumably to emphasise this is on the grounds of our sex not our “gender identity”.

There is no doubt that G will say whatever works to ensure their own objectives are met. (Like saying you are really a woman?)

G presents a risk to females which, doesn’t mean this doesn’t also hurt G. Again, I assume, this is a necessary legal argument. The risk to females is made abundantly clear regardless of this framing,

A vain hope (perhaps) that G may be persuaded to overcome their resistance to therapy, Who knows if all that damage can be undone. I feel pretty sure a female prison is not the best place to access therapy for your male pattern offending.

The special order was therefor upheld. Why on earth a future judgement was made to place him in a female prison is a judgement I would like to read. These are #NotOurCrimes He does not belong in a women’s prison.

Link to the full legal judgement

https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/CA109.html

For people expressing the hope he won’t be held in a woman’s prison. He already is. https://www.thejournal.ie/limerick-court-case-teenager-5217824-Sep2020/