A magistrate in Oregon issued an injunction in April that would have sent more than 100 men who claim to be women into Oregon's only women's prison, including a man who sexually assaulted a woman with a footlong plastic object. The man who sexually assaulted a woman with a footlong plastic object was one of the plaintiffs in that case. The judge ruled that affirming the male rapist's false claim to be a woman overrode any concern that female inmates in Oregon's only women's prisons might have about being locked in a cage with a man who sexually assaulted a woman with a footlong plastic object. You see, the Democratic party declared forbidding any woman to draw a boundary between herself and any man who says he is a woman to be "the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st century." What this means in practice is that when balancing the rights of women to safety and privacy in places that were once sex segregated and the rights of male rapists to be affirmed in their claims to be women, the former right is annulled by the latter right, and any woman who seeks to defend the former right must be stigmatized as a hateful bigot and punished. The Ninth Circuit appellate court overturned the injunction while the case moves forward. The Courthouse News Service suavely, sagely notes that "The opinion included some curiously worded — one might say Trump-coded — language. For example, most uses of transgender used quotation marks, and Tung referred to transgender women as “male inmates who claim to be female,” rather than the more common phrase “identify as female.” This is to say that judges used plain language to explain that a "transgender woman" is just a man who claims to be a woman. The male plaintiff who inserted a footlong plastic object into a woman's vagina against her will is not a woman. He is a man. He is not a man because he is a convicted rapist. He is a man because he is an adult human male and pretending to be a woman doesn't change his sex. But the Courthouse News Service writer sees a reference to this fact in a court proceeding as grounds to snicker and engage in contemptuous partisan finger-pointing because the Trump-appointed judges aren't using the cult language that is pervasive in court proceedings to euphemize away the locking up of women with male rapists.