Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Came here to post about this. The leadership of the Labour Party - the UK's current party of government - has updated its rules to reflect the supreme court ruling: so no troons on all women's shortlists or being put up for jobs representing women's interests.

The real significance is that it's a bellweather for how far we have come in such a short time. It's only 2017 that the Tory party leader was announcing plans to legislate for Self ID and here we are, 8 years, one pandemic, a Cass review and a supreme court ruling ater with troons absolutely BTFO left with nothing but grifters asking for their troonbux to spaff it away on fact finding trips in Strasbourg.

I think it's the Cass review that really provided the legitimate veneer for politicians of all stripes to reveal their inner TERF and do what anyone with half a brain has been demanding for years.

A rare good news story and one that I hope the colonies can replicate soon.
 
You are lying your ass off Fat Dumb Gay Al. Maine tried to strip an elected representative of her right to vote on behalf of her constittuents because she did not support troons in women's sports.

Tony Reed's prison gay husband was still allowed to vote and participate. Just not on the floor. These are not even close to the same situation.

Capture.webp

"Libby, a critic of the state's policy to allow transgender athletes to compete in high school sports, posted a photo of the child athlete alongside a photo of the same student competing in the boys' event in a previous year.

The Maine House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, subsequently censured Libby. The issue before the Supreme Court was not the censure, but a separate punishment that barred Libby from speaking or voting in the House of Representatives until she apologized.

As a result, Libby was unable to properly represent her constituents, leaving them without a voice in the legislature, her lawyers argued. A group of voters joined Libby in filing suit."

Supreme Court backs Republican lawmaker in Maine who was punished for transgender athlete remarks
 
I think it's the Cass review that really provided the legitimate veneer for politicians of all stripes to reveal their inner TERF and do what anyone with half a brain has been demanding for years.
It's great news, but I think the political leaders are just a bunch of cowards who are rapidly running out of stones to crawl under.
 
Not a Britbong here (and thank God for that), how big of a deal is this?

Is it just PR/media events that will exclude troons going forward, or do these women's groups get input on picking candidates/party leaders?

For that matter, any word if the Conservatives will follow suit? Starmer's approval is so poor that it is hard to see Labor winning the next election.

ETA:

Trans people: Somehow powerful enough to serve in the military, yet fragile enough to compete in women's sports. Troonery thrives on contradiction.
 
This is called a strawman argument Fat Dumb Gay Al. Nobody is saying either of those two things.

View attachment 7389047
Its not because trans people are fragile in the sense that you're weaker physically to serve Big Dumb Al. You can literally be excluded from the military if you have autism. The real contradiction here is how the military will bar you for having serious mental health problems but some how a group that has a high suicide rate and mental health problems can be allowed to serve. Again, since TRAs claim they need HRT otherwise they'll die, what would happened if a TIM doesn't have access to HRT while he's on a month long mission? If the argument is that nothing will happen since trans people can live while off HRT then this contradicts the whole "Kids will die without HRT"
 
Last edited:
Trans people are too powerful to compete against women because they have a male body and it's a physical competition wherein they have innate advantages, but are too fragile for the military because they have a medicine cabinets worth of powders, pills, and potions that they need to take every day or else they'll die or whatever, and you shouldn't be in a combat zone while also reliant on Life Saving Medication.

If war was going out and physically beating the shit out of biological women for a day before retiring to your home to watch anime, it would be tough to argue against the trans military ban from a tactical point of view
 
While military personnel records aren't outright public, certain things like your DD-214 and evaluations can be made available to future employers and companies performing background checks for security clearance purposes. So if Jackanapes McGirlyTroon puts on his resumé that he's Jacqueline McRealGirl with a sex of F and acknowledges military service (either to try and take advantage of preferential hiring practices for vets or to correctly show that there's no 4+ year gap in employment history), it'll clash with said military service record.

Deal with it, troons. I mean, it sucks that you were allowed to join in the first place because the recruitment screening should've filtered your mentally deficient ass out of eligibility and you were allowed in only because of politics, social experimentation and whiny whiners who whine screeching for rights and shit, but now it's time to do what we say in the military: Embrace the suck.
 

Cross-sex hormones for under 18s could be restricted or banned​

Link | Archive


Health Secretary Wes Streeting, is "actively reviewing" banning or restricting the private prescription of cross-sex hormones to young people, according to evidence given to the High Court.

Government lawyers say an expert panel will report in July on the use of this type of medication by under 18s wishing to change their gender.

An application by campaigners for a full judicial review of the secretary of state's handling of the issue was rejected on Wednesday afternoon.

Dismissing the application, Lady Justice Whipple said "the case had moved on substantially" as a result of the government setting up a review in April.
The case calling for a full judicial review was brought after the NHS announced in December last year that under-18s would no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at gender identity clinics.

Campaigners argued that the prescription of cross-sex hormones should also be addressed and criticised the government's failure to intervene.

But Lady Justice Whipple said it was not "unreasonable or irrational" for the government to address the question of puberty blockers first and later come to cross-sex hormones.

The court in London was also told health officials are looking at "alternative legal mechanisms" to tackle issues around private and overseas providers who prescribe such drugs.

Cross-sex hormones are given to people who identify as a gender that is different to their biological sex. The medication helps someone who is transitioning to develop characteristics associated with their preferred gender.

For instance, it would help a trans man, a biological female who identifies as a man, develop a deeper voice and facial hair. Existing NHS guidance allows the hormones to be prescribed people aged 16 and over.

They differ from puberty blockers, which stop the onset of puberty by suppressing the release of hormones.

Existing NHS guidance allows the hormones to be prescribed to people aged 16 and over.

The case calling for a full judicial review was brought by Keira Bell and two others, who are remaining anonymous.

They wanted a ban on the prescription of cross-sex hormones by non-NHS organisations, such as private clinics and overseas providers.

As a teenager, Ms Bell was given cross-sex hormones after attending the now closed NHS Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) run by the Tavistock clinic.

At the time she identified as male, but says she deeply regrets the decision to take medication that altered her body permanently.

Responding to this afternoon's judgment she said: "I am relieved that the secretary of state is now actively considering a ban on cross-sex hormones outside of the NHS.

"These powerful drugs should not be given to children and young people."

Her barrister, Zoe Gannon, had argued that while the health secretary banned the private prescription of puberty suppressing drugs in gender cases involving under-18s, he had "failed or refused" to take the same action in relation to cross-sex hormones, and this was "irrational".

Iain Steele, barrister for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), told the court Mr Streeting "is currently seeking clinical and expert advice from NHS England".

He also said there were a wide range of medical uses for hormones, such as testosterone and oestrogen, which made decisions on whether to restrict or ban their use in different situations complex.

Delivering the judgment rejecting the application for a judicial review, Lady Justice Whipple, sitting with Mr Justice Johnson, said the secretary of state had acted rationally.

She said, "This is an immensely difficult and sensitive area of policy formation where there are strong and genuinely held views on each side of the debate and where there is no consensus."

She added Mr Streeting was taking practical steps and was therefore entitled to more time to consider the issues.

She continued that it was appropriate that there was an active review and that was to be welcomed.


A Department for Health and Social Care spokesperson said children's healthcare "must always be led by evidence".

"That is why this government is implementing the recommendations from the Cass Review and acted immediately to extend the puberty blockers ban and make it permanent."

The government continues to work with the NHS to reform gender services to young people, the spokesperson added.
 
Back