This opinion piece for the (no surprise) Times puts "Katie" Dolatowski front and center in a discussion of the foolish yet inevitable change in Scotland to the Gender Recognition Certificate law.

Subhead is

The proposed bill will allow abusive men to take advantage of trans rights

At first I thought he would confine himself to pointing out that anyone, "trans" or not, will be able to make use of the law:

But it is shockingly, irresponsibly delusional to think that predatory males will not take advantage of any openings offered them. That is their entire modus operandi. Remarkably, a majority of the members of the Scottish parliament are precisely this naive. They appear to inhabit some prelapsarian idyll where all men are kindly and there is apple pie for tea every day.

But actually, he "goes there":

So, a question for MSPs and those who support the government’s gender reforms: is Dolatowski a “predatory male” or a “trans woman”? Or is she actually both of these things? And if she is both, what are the implications of that status?

After all, as Shona Robison, the minister responsible for steering the government’s gender recognition reforms through parliament, put it last week: “There is no evidence” that men “would obtain a GRC [gender recognition certificate] in order to abuse women”.

How can a woman stand in front of people with a straight face and lie through her teeth like that? Is this a TIM? There are mountains of evidence that predators and abusers go to great lengths to access their victims. How many more pregnant inmates do we need? How many more dead women? You can’t tell me that she hasn’t personally been victimized by a man or know another woman who has, it’s a statistical impossibility. This is asinine.

Question for someone more in the know about this piece of legislation: when talking about gender self-ID here, he mentions:

Making a false declaration of this sort will be an offence but there is no indication how such an offence might be proved

If 'falsely' claiming to be the opposite gender is treated as an offence, would that put the crosshairs on detransitioners, many of whom claim that they were convinced that they were trans but actually weren't? Could this be used to further silence detransitioners by making it possible to charge them with an offense for previously stating they were trans and later declaring they aren't?

Detransitioners are the only ones who would be punished.

Which very conveniently would threaten them into silence. They would quietly stop their damaging testosterone injections and perhaps opt out of getting more mutilation surgery, but they wouldn't be able to detrans socially, for fear of being imprisoned for it.

That's what I was thinking, just haven't seen anything about that part of this piece of legislation yet.

Because the trans army doesn’t gaf about detransitioners.

I don’t know any stats, but most detrans accounts tend to be women. They seem even more worthless to patriarchy once they become traitors to the cause. Zero chance anyone will put anything to protect them in this pro trans (and anti Westminster) bill. In fact NS probably likes that detransioners would be criminalised, because that will stop them suing down the line I’d imagine.

Oh my god. I didn't think of that, but it's certainly logical. No I don't know anything about the law, sorry.

Maybe someone could contact their MSP and get the question raised?

Love seeing this in print, where I can save it for future reference.