The House of Commons meeting was not about bigotry, yes it was unusual in that three presenters in the panel were lesbians, and lesbians are particularly affected by the alleged new sexuality lesbianism including female penis which is apparently something we must be legally forced to agree with. As with gay men being legally forced to agree vaginas are male. But as they were women talking this is hate.
Shelia Jeffreys did talk legally about the history of cross dressing which Stonewall include in the transgender umbrella of legally female gender definitions if identified that way by the participant. She legally showed us pictures of products legally on sale as legal transgender/crossdressing underwear which can be found legally on Amazon on sale legally for everyone to view legally. Perhaps we should advise Amazon this is hate speech. Or just condemn any woman that looks at this product as a bigoted hater.
I get confused about where hate begins and ends. Is it just the way you look at a product, either smile and say how lovely, that's ok the penis just wants to look like a camel toe slit?
Or say well a biological woman wouldn't wear those as they have a space to tuck in a penis, that's not ok?
Amazon offer to mail them discretely so perhaps Amazon thinks there might be something to be discreet about? Must women not mention this as the wearers want to be discreet about it, whilst at the same time insisting women have no discretion over who sees their bodies?
Confused? You will be. Its called gender identity.