Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[The New California Republic]

It's another severe health complication in top of a lot of other severe health complications that has the possibility to ruin a young kid's body even more.

You have yet to prove that the "severe health complication" exists, as at the moment it just sounds like you are blowing up what the evidence thus far indicates to be a minor problem into something that constitutes "severe", provide evidence that it is a severe health complication that exists, otherwise you are just talking total nonsense in that regard. The evidence that Kowani posted a little earlier, if anything, goes a long way towards proving you wrong.

We know that people who undergoes "sex change" suffer from a lot of health issues due to the drugs they're taking whose effect is not to be downplayed.

Such as?

[Necroghastia]

There aren't other possible roads, though. If someone is trans, there is nothing anyone can do to make them not be trans. The only remotely compassionate course of action is to help them transition and help them deal with the transphobia in society. There is no counselling or course of drugs that can make a boy okay with his body turning into a woman's body. Obviously.

There are plenty of other roads. After all, we don't let peoples who suffer from apotemnophilia amputate themselves like that just because they feel like one of their limbs "doesn't belong". We don't "abandon them and tell them to kill themselves" or "just let them cut their own arm or leg". We give them counselling, we give them drug, we give them psychotherapy. That's what mental healthcare is about.

so what's your issue again

Uh, yeah we are. We can synthetically produce hormones and give them to people in the form of pills or injections.

lmao, "puberty pills" don't exist and just pumping peoples with male or female hormones doesn't nearly reproduce the natural changes that occur during puberty, not to mention the very heavy side-effects they have.

like what lol

People go on about bone density like it's some catastrophic, life destroying ailment, but really it's just like the side effects of any medicine. Something to be aware of and to manage while you take the medicine that you and your doctor discussed and agreed was the best choice to solve your problem.

My dude, trans people already exist, we know that they don't go around in full body casts because their bones have turned to powder.

It's another severe health complication in top of a lot of other severe health complications that has the possibility to ruin a young kid's body even more. We know that people who undergoes "sex change" suffer from a lot of health issues due to the drugs they're taking whose effect is not to be downplayed.

the effects are also not to be upplayed -or, rather, fearmongered about- but i'm sure you're aware of that already

[The New California Republic]

the effects are also not to be upplayed -or, rather, fearmongered about- but i'm sure you're aware of that already

Yup, but Michel Meilleur is doing exactly that, by calling it a "severe health complication."

[Vassenor]

the effects are also not to be upplayed -or, rather, fearmongered about- but i'm sure you're aware of that already

Yup, but Michel Meilleur is doing exactly that, by calling it a "severe health complication."

And pointedly refusing to back up his claims with evidence. I presume we're going to get chapter and verse about "common sense" even as the science disagrees.

[Neutraligon]

From what I understand, hormone blockers are given not long after puberty start, meaning that a child goes through part of puberty, but does not get the full effect of masculinization/feminization.

[Kowani]

Meanwhile, in Texas

Texas legislators are heading into their third special session Monday with several controversial topics on the agenda, including transgender student participation in sports and gender-affirming health care for trans youth.

Lawmakers will consider banning transgender students from playing on interscholastic teams that align with their gender identity. Children in grades K through 12 would only be allowed to play sports that correspond with their sex assigned at birth or sex designated on their original birth certificate. [...] Other anti-trans bills on the special session docket include bans on gender-affirming therapy, counseling, surgery or health care. In some cases, allowing a child or teen under the age of 18 gender-affirming health care may be considered child abuse, if HB22 is signed into law.

[Caleonia]

Meanwhile, in Texas

Texas legislators are heading into their third special session Monday with several controversial topics on the agenda, including transgender student participation in sports and gender-affirming health care for trans youth.

Lawmakers will consider banning transgender students from playing on interscholastic teams that align with their gender identity. Children in grades K through 12 would only be allowed to play sports that correspond with their sex assigned at birth or sex designated on their original birth certificate. [...] Other anti-trans bills on the special session docket include bans on gender-affirming therapy, counseling, surgery or health care. In some cases, allowing a child or teen under the age of 18 gender-affirming health care may be considered child abuse, if HB22 is signed into law.

Let Texas be independent; it’s too stupid to be apart of the US.

[Ifreann]

There aren't other possible roads, though. If someone is trans, there is nothing anyone can do to make them not be trans. The only remotely compassionate course of action is to help them transition and help them deal with the transphobia in society. There is no counselling or course of drugs that can make a boy okay with his body turning into a woman's body. Obviously.

There are plenty of other roads. After all, we don't let peoples who suffer from apotemnophilia amputate themselves like that just because they feel like one of their limbs "doesn't belong". We don't "abandon them and tell them to kill themselves" or "just let them cut their own arm or leg". We give them counselling, we give them drug, we give them psychotherapy. That's what mental healthcare is about.

Again, there is nothing anyone can do to trans people to make them not be trans. You can't counsel them or drug them or psychotherapy them into being cisgender.

Uh, yeah we are. We can synthetically produce hormones and give them to people in the form of pills or injections.

lmao, "puberty pills" don't exist and just pumping peoples with male or female hormones doesn't nearly reproduce the natural changes that occur during puberty, not to mention the very heavy side-effects they have.

Hormone pills do exist, and taking hormones does replicate the effect of changed hormone levels in your body.

This is literally how trans people change how their bodies look.

People go on about bone density like it's some catastrophic, life destroying ailment, but really it's just like the side effects of any medicine. Something to be aware of and to manage while you take the medicine that you and your doctor discussed and agreed was the best choice to solve your problem.

My dude, trans people already exist, we know that they don't go around in full body casts because their bones have turned to powder.

It's another severe health complication in top of a lot of other severe health complications that has the possibility to ruin a young kid's body even more. We know that people who undergoes "sex change" suffer from a lot of health issues due to the drugs they're taking whose effect is not to be downplayed.

Again, trans people already exist. We know that they aren't crippled by myriad health issues because of the hormones they take.

[Auzkhia]

If a cis boy had too much estrogen and not enough testosterone, and if a cis girl had too much testosterone and not enough estrogens, I think most people would see those as problems to be solved with HRT or puberty blockers.

How is it any different when trans people do that for themselves?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If a cis boy had too much estrogen and not enough testosterone, and if a cis girl had too much testosterone and not enough estrogens, I think most people would see those as problems to be solved with HRT or puberty blockers.

How is it any different when trans people do that for themselves?

Some are worried about irreversible damage. I mean, every medication is foreign to the body, and will, in instances, cause issues to a sample size of those taking it. To give a personal example: Zoloft. For many people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, this medication helps immensely. No doubt about it. However, it has the potential of causing serotonin syndrome to some. That happened to me. My doctor thought the possibility of it helping me outweighed the risks of harmful side effects.

What I want to say is that if a pre-pubescent person requires blockers or not, is going to be with careful consideration of both parents and a doctor, and weighing in benefits versus potential harm. With this, many things are considered, I hope, like mental well-being and bodily harm. I also hope input from the patient is taken into account.

[Ifreann]

If a cis boy had too much estrogen and not enough testosterone, and if a cis girl had too much testosterone and not enough estrogens, I think most people would see those as problems to be solved with HRT or puberty blockers.

How is it any different when trans people do that for themselves?

Cis people on HRT for some reason: taking medication.

Trans people on literally the exact same HRT: pumping themselves full of body-ruining drugs with heavy side-effects.

[Auzkhia]

If a cis boy had too much estrogen and not enough testosterone, and if a cis girl had too much testosterone and not enough estrogens, I think most people would see those as problems to be solved with HRT or puberty blockers.

How is it any different when trans people do that for themselves?

Some are worried about irreversible damage. I mean, every medication is foreign to the body, and will, in instances, cause issues to a sample size of those taking it. To give a personal example: Zoloft. For many people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, this medication helps immensely. No doubt about it. However, it has the potential of causing serotonin syndrome to some. That happened to me. My doctor thought the possibility of it helping me outweighed the risks of harmful side effects.

What I want to say is that if a pre-pubescent person requires blockers or not, is going to be with careful consideration of both parents and a doctor, and weighing in benefits versus potential harm. With this, many things are considered, I hope, like mental well-being and bodily harm. I also hope input from the patient is taken into account.

Zoloft was something I took but I have switched to prozac after seeing a psychiatrist since my regular therapist doesn't do medications (she's not qualified she's a licensed therapist with a phd in psychology)

I mean, frankly speaking as someone who would have taken that if I had known younger, I'd say puberty blockers would save me a lot of stuff and I probably wouldn't need to have any surgeries. Like, wrong puberty gave me some irreversible damage.

My voice, my face, my bones, are all something that have been impacted by that.

[Page]

Some are worried about irreversible damage. I mean, every medication is foreign to the body, and will, in instances, cause issues to a sample size of those taking it. To give a personal example: Zoloft. For many people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, this medication helps immensely. No doubt about it. However, it has the potential of causing serotonin syndrome to some. That happened to me. My doctor thought the possibility of it helping me outweighed the risks of harmful side effects.

What I want to say is that if a pre-pubescent person requires blockers or not, is going to be with careful consideration of both parents and a doctor, and weighing in benefits versus potential harm. With this, many things are considered, I hope, like mental well-being and bodily harm. I also hope input from the patient is taken into account.

Zoloft was something I took but I have switched to prozac after seeing a psychiatrist since my regular therapist doesn't do medications (she's not qualified she's a licensed therapist with a phd in psychology)

I mean, frankly speaking as someone who would have taken that if I had known younger, I'd say puberty blockers would save me a lot of stuff and I probably wouldn't need to have any surgeries.

Zoloft made me psychotic and suicidal. I was 22 at the time.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

This topic is about trans people, please don't try to change the subject. What is done to headscarved girls never legitimizes transphobia.Stop speaking from the mouths of political Islamists, my side is the Great Leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Social Democracy and the freedom of trans people to make love.

If you want sects and religious organizations so much, you can go back to the Tired Man Ottoman Empire. There is no place for transphobic political Islamists in the new Rome!

Christians, a well-known group of political islamists in Turkey.

The laws instituted by Mustafa Kemal were anti-religious freedom. Even the UN says Turkey's religious freedom is bad. I'm not gonna act like Turkey was some secular paradise before Erdogan just because you're telling me not to, women were literally kicked out of hospitals seeking medical treatment because they wore the Hijab.

Do not blame the Kemalist administration to justify transphobia. It is much freer than the Ottoman administration and the political Islamist administration. There was no Kemalist dictatorship in Turkey, but there was always a terrorist dictatorship fed by political Islam. We will defend love and affection against the restrictive oppressive rule of political Islam. It doesn't matter what the holy books of people with transphobia say, what really matters is people's feelings.We will defend LGBT rights because freedom is more sacred than mythology !

[The New California Republic]

I mean, frankly speaking as someone who would have taken that if I had known younger, I'd say puberty blockers would save me a lot of stuff and I probably wouldn't need to have any surgeries. Like, wrong puberty gave me some irreversible damage.

My voice, my face, my bones, are all something that have been impacted by that.

And that matches what I've heard from many trans people I have spoken to: even if there were side effects, they'd be willing to deal with them, as the alternative of doing nothing is worse.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Some are worried about irreversible damage. I mean, every medication is foreign to the body, and will, in instances, cause issues to a sample size of those taking it. To give a personal example: Zoloft. For many people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, this medication helps immensely. No doubt about it. However, it has the potential of causing serotonin syndrome to some. That happened to me. My doctor thought the possibility of it helping me outweighed the risks of harmful side effects.

What I want to say is that if a pre-pubescent person requires blockers or not, is going to be with careful consideration of both parents and a doctor, and weighing in benefits versus potential harm. With this, many things are considered, I hope, like mental well-being and bodily harm. I also hope input from the patient is taken into account.

Zoloft was something I took but I have switched to prozac after seeing a psychiatrist since my regular therapist doesn't do medications (she's not qualified she's a licensed therapist with a phd in psychology)

I mean, frankly speaking as someone who would have taken that if I had known younger, I'd say puberty blockers would save me a lot of stuff and I probably wouldn't need to have any surgeries. Like, wrong puberty gave me some irreversible damage.

My voice, my face, my bones, are all something that have been impacted by that.

Let me state that I'm not against puberty blockers, just expanding on why some people are opposed to them.

[Auzkhia]

Zoloft was something I took but I have switched to prozac after seeing a psychiatrist since my regular therapist doesn't do medications (she's not qualified she's a licensed therapist with a phd in psychology)

I mean, frankly speaking as someone who would have taken that if I had known younger, I'd say puberty blockers would save me a lot of stuff and I probably wouldn't need to have any surgeries. Like, wrong puberty gave me some irreversible damage.

My voice, my face, my bones, are all something that have been impacted by that.

Let me state that I'm not against puberty blockers, just expanding on why some people are opposed to them.

I know why already

They don't want trans children to grow up and live to be trans adults, simply put.

[Kowani]

I'm getting real tired of the word texas

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the federal agency’s guidance on LGBTQ rights is “extreme federal overreach” that violates Texas’s “sovereign right” to determine workplace policies, specifically when it comes to LGBTQ job discrimination protections in the workplace.

The lawsuit goes so far as to claim that employers like the state of Texas have a First Amendment right to refer to transgender people by the wrong names and pronouns.

To promote the lawsuit, Paxton claimed that letting trans people use the correct restroom at work will lead to violence against women and child molestation, a claim not made in the suit itself.

“States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk,” he said in a statement.

“If the Biden administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change,” he continued. “These backdoor attempts to force businesses, including the state of Texas, to align with their beliefs is unacceptable.” The lawsuit is about EEOC guidance issued in June to implement the landmark LGBTQ Supreme Court victory from 2020, Bostock v. Clayton Co. The Court ruled that Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of sex” in the workplace includes anti-LGBTQ discrimination because it’s impossible to discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ without taking their sex into account.

The EEOC explained how workplaces can avoid discriminating illegally against LGBTQ people in the guidance. Among the guidelines are: workplace dress codes can differentiate based on gender but not sex assigned at birth, it’s a form of workplace harassment to not use a trans employee’s name and pronouns, and restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities can only be separated based on gender, not sex assigned at birth.

“If an employer has separate bathrooms, locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be allowed to use the men’s facilities and all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the women’s facilities,” the EEOC’s guidance states.

The Texas lawsuit says that the EEOC doesn’t have the authority to do this, arguing that the Bostock decision was too narrow to apply to the question of restrooms and other facilities.

The lawsuit also relies heavily on the Texas Department of Agriculture’s (TDA) policies, saying that TDA requires employees to dress, use the restroom, and accept being referred to with the pronouns associated with their sex assigned at birth. The lawsuit argues that the EEOC guidance makes the TDA “susceptible to ‘charges’ of discrimination based on EEOC’s unlawful interpretation of Title VII.”

The lawsuit, like most conservative lawsuits to overturn transgender rights, refers to trans women as “biological men” and trans men as “biological women” to diminish the importance of transgender people’s – but not cisgender people’s – gender identities.

Paxton accuses the EEOC of violating Texas’s free speech rights by forcing the state to use trans people’s names and pronouns, as well as several counts related to Title VII and administrative rules.

Last month, the state of Tennessee was joined by 19 other red states in a lawsuit challenging the same EEOC guidance, as well as the Department of Education’s measures to protect transgender rights in education.

And in July, 21 Republican state attorneys general signed a letter complaining that the EEOC guidance will “serve only to sow confusion among regulated entities — including the employers and schools that operate in our communities.”

Neither of the lawsuits nor the letter offered an alternative plan to protect transgender workers’ right to a harassment-free workplace, instead of focusing on employers’ ability to set policies in accordance with their personal beliefs.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm getting real tired of the word texas

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the federal agency’s guidance on LGBTQ rights is “extreme federal overreach” that violates Texas’s “sovereign right” to determine workplace policies, specifically when it comes to LGBTQ job discrimination protections in the workplace.

The lawsuit goes so far as to claim that employers like the state of Texas have a First Amendment right to refer to transgender people by the wrong names and pronouns.

To promote the lawsuit, Paxton claimed that letting trans people use the correct restroom at work will lead to violence against women and child molestation, a claim not made in the suit itself.

“States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk,” he said in a statement.

“If the Biden administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change,” he continued. “These backdoor attempts to force businesses, including the state of Texas, to align with their beliefs is unacceptable.” The lawsuit is about EEOC guidance issued in June to implement the landmark LGBTQ Supreme Court victory from 2020, Bostock v. Clayton Co. The Court ruled that Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of sex” in the workplace includes anti-LGBTQ discrimination because it’s impossible to discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ without taking their sex into account.

The EEOC explained how workplaces can avoid discriminating illegally against LGBTQ people in the guidance. Among the guidelines are: workplace dress codes can differentiate based on gender but not sex assigned at birth, it’s a form of workplace harassment to not use a trans employee’s name and pronouns, and restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities can only be separated based on gender, not sex assigned at birth.

“If an employer has separate bathrooms, locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be allowed to use the men’s facilities and all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the women’s facilities,” the EEOC’s guidance states.

The Texas lawsuit says that the EEOC doesn’t have the authority to do this, arguing that the Bostock decision was too narrow to apply to the question of restrooms and other facilities.

The lawsuit also relies heavily on the Texas Department of Agriculture’s (TDA) policies, saying that TDA requires employees to dress, use the restroom, and accept being referred to with the pronouns associated with their sex assigned at birth. The lawsuit argues that the EEOC guidance makes the TDA “susceptible to ‘charges’ of discrimination based on EEOC’s unlawful interpretation of Title VII.”

The lawsuit, like most conservative lawsuits to overturn transgender rights, refers to trans women as “biological men” and trans men as “biological women” to diminish the importance of transgender people’s – but not cisgender people’s – gender identities.

Paxton accuses the EEOC of violating Texas’s free speech rights by forcing the state to use trans people’s names and pronouns, as well as several counts related to Title VII and administrative rules.

Last month, the state of Tennessee was joined by 19 other red states in a lawsuit challenging the same EEOC guidance, as well as the Department of Education’s measures to protect transgender rights in education.

And in July, 21 Republican state attorneys general signed a letter complaining that the EEOC guidance will “serve only to sow confusion among regulated entities — including the employers and schools that operate in our communities.”

Neither of the lawsuits nor the letter offered an alternative plan to protect transgender workers’ right to a harassment-free workplace, instead of focusing on employers’ ability to set policies in accordance with their personal beliefs.

Texas has reached ridiculous heights, that's why. Can we shoot the state into deep space? We don't really need it anymore.

[Auzkhia]

I'm getting real tired of the word texas

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the federal agency’s guidance on LGBTQ rights is “extreme federal overreach” that violates Texas’s “sovereign right” to determine workplace policies, specifically when it comes to LGBTQ job discrimination protections in the workplace.

The lawsuit goes so far as to claim that employers like the state of Texas have a First Amendment right to refer to transgender people by the wrong names and pronouns.

To promote the lawsuit, Paxton claimed that letting trans people use the correct restroom at work will lead to violence against women and child molestation, a claim not made in the suit itself.

“States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk,” he said in a statement.

“If the Biden administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change,” he continued. “These backdoor attempts to force businesses, including the state of Texas, to align with their beliefs is unacceptable.” The lawsuit is about EEOC guidance issued in June to implement the landmark LGBTQ Supreme Court victory from 2020, Bostock v. Clayton Co. The Court ruled that Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of sex” in the workplace includes anti-LGBTQ discrimination because it’s impossible to discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ without taking their sex into account.

The EEOC explained how workplaces can avoid discriminating illegally against LGBTQ people in the guidance. Among the guidelines are: workplace dress codes can differentiate based on gender but not sex assigned at birth, it’s a form of workplace harassment to not use a trans employee’s name and pronouns, and restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities can only be separated based on gender, not sex assigned at birth.

“If an employer has separate bathrooms, locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be allowed to use the men’s facilities and all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the women’s facilities,” the EEOC’s guidance states.

The Texas lawsuit says that the EEOC doesn’t have the authority to do this, arguing that the Bostock decision was too narrow to apply to the question of restrooms and other facilities.

The lawsuit also relies heavily on the Texas Department of Agriculture’s (TDA) policies, saying that TDA requires employees to dress, use the restroom, and accept being referred to with the pronouns associated with their sex assigned at birth. The lawsuit argues that the EEOC guidance makes the TDA “susceptible to ‘charges’ of discrimination based on EEOC’s unlawful interpretation of Title VII.”

The lawsuit, like most conservative lawsuits to overturn transgender rights, refers to trans women as “biological men” and trans men as “biological women” to diminish the importance of transgender people’s – but not cisgender people’s – gender identities.

Paxton accuses the EEOC of violating Texas’s free speech rights by forcing the state to use trans people’s names and pronouns, as well as several counts related to Title VII and administrative rules.

Last month, the state of Tennessee was joined by 19 other red states in a lawsuit challenging the same EEOC guidance, as well as the Department of Education’s measures to protect transgender rights in education.

And in July, 21 Republican state attorneys general signed a letter complaining that the EEOC guidance will “serve only to sow confusion among regulated entities — including the employers and schools that operate in our communities.”

Neither of the lawsuits nor the letter offered an alternative plan to protect transgender workers’ right to a harassment-free workplace, instead of focusing on employers’ ability to set policies in accordance with their personal beliefs.

Texas has reached ridiculous heights, that's why. Can we shoot the state into deep space? We don't really need it anymore.

Motion to sell Texas back to Mexico

No wait, I don't think they want them either.

Though at this point, I think we either need the people of Texas to ride the Blue wave and vote them out or Biden administration sues the hell out of them and may mobilize federal troops like Little Rock to enforce the law.

[Kowani]

Oh ffs, keir

Trans women should be excluded from some “women-only spaces”, Keir Starmer says, as the controversy threatens to open a bitter row in the party.

The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”.

This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”.

[The New California Republic]

Oh ffs, keir

Trans women should be excluded from some “women-only spaces”, Keir Starmer says, as the controversy threatens to open a bitter row in the party.

The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”.

This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”.

Keir Starmer is an utter tosser so it doesn't really shock me. Best thing Labour can do is boot him out of the leadership.

[Vassenor]

Oh ffs, keir

Trans women should be excluded from some “women-only spaces”, Keir Starmer says, as the controversy threatens to open a bitter row in the party.

The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”.

This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”.

Given his unwillingness to root out the transphobia in the party this does not shock me.

[Auzkhia]

Oh ffs, keir

Trans women should be excluded from some “women-only spaces”, Keir Starmer says, as the controversy threatens to open a bitter row in the party.

The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”.

This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”.

There can be no compromise with terfs on equality.

[Philjia]

Oh ffs, keir

Trans women should be excluded from some “women-only spaces”, Keir Starmer says, as the controversy threatens to open a bitter row in the party.

The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”.

This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”.

The Independent have rather taken the two faced quasi-liberal git out of context in this case for the sake of a headline, in this case.