Last week, a British tribunal ruled on the case of doctor who told his boss, in the midst of a conversation about how to interact with transsexual patients, that he would refuse to address “any six-foot-tall bearded man” as “madam.” The doctor was then told that, if so, he would have to leave his position, which he did. But, writes, Dan Hitchens, the most disturbing part of the story is the text of the legal decision against the doctor:

Much of the tribunal’s judgment is barely readable, . . . but it puts its central point clearly enough: a “lack of belief in transgenderism” is “incompatible with human dignity and”—yes—”conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.”

Dr. Mackereth’s bosses might easily have sought a compromise: for instance, people who identify as trans could be passed on to a different doctor. Unfortunately—the tribunal judgment tells us—such a policy might have caused “offense or the potential for offense.” Just imagine! . . . The doctor . . . argued at the employment tribunal that he had suffered discrimination, prompting [the tribunal] to rule that, if you don’t think a man can become a woman—as rather a lot of us don’t—then your view is “incompatible with human dignity.”

First, if this judgment is correct, then presumably anyone can be forced out of a public-sector job on the off chance that he might, at some unspecified point, “offend” some unspecified trans person. Second, the judgment’s expansive wording tells everyone who doesn’t buy [into current orthodoxies] that their views—not even their actions—are against “human dignity.”

Israel will likely respond directly against Iran after yesterday’s attack, and has made known that it will calibrate its retaliation based not on the extent of the damage, but on the scale of the attack. The specifics are anyone’s guess, but Edward Luttwak has a suggestion, put forth in an article published just hours before the missile barrage: cut off Tehran’s ability to send money and arms to Shiite Arab militias.

In practice, most of this cash comes from a single source: oil. . . . In other words, the flow of dollars that sustains Israel’s enemies, and which has caused so much trouble to Western interests from the Syrian desert to the Red Sea, emanates almost entirely from the oil loaded onto tankers at the export terminal on Khark Island, a speck of land about 25 kilometers off Iran’s southern coast. Benjamin Netanyahu warned in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly that Israel’s “long arm” can reach them too. Indeed, Khark’s location in the Persian Gulf is relatively close. At 1,516 kilometers from Israel’s main airbase, it’s far closer than the Houthis’ main oil import terminal at Hodeida in Yemen—a place that was destroyed by Israeli jets in July, and attacked again [on Sunday].