New trans equality civil servant at the Cabinet Office to focus on the ‘implications’ of 2025’s Supreme Court judgment

[IwantToRetire]

Well, well, well.

Talk about sending a clear message about who is more important to Labour.

Trans will get their own cheer leader to make sure they are not discriminated against.

Women have no one to stop the discriminiation of blocking the implementation of singe sex provision.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/19/civil-service-hire-trans-equality-chief-supreme-court/

And at https://archive.is/S57Uv

I said that physical elements of sex can be changed through surgery — because they can. That’s just a factual statement about anatomy. It doesn’t mean I claimed that someone’s entire sex is “changed,” and it definitely doesn’t mean I suggested anyone becomes “less” of their sex.

My point was simply that anatomy isn’t the sole determinant of whether someone is a man or a woman. If it were, then women who’ve had hysterectomies or mastectomies would somehow be “less female,” which is obviously not true. That’s the logic of the people who define womanhood purely by body parts, not mine.

So no — I wasn’t arguing that sex can be fully changed. I was pointing out that surgery doesn’t make someone any less of the sex they are, which actually undermines the argument you’re trying to make.

Oh, thank you! I was wondering if I was imagining things...

You’re calling it a strawman but i dont think you know what a strawman is,

I was responding directly to the implication that my point somehow meant a woman without breasts is “less of a woman.” I never said that, and I never defined “female” in anatomical terms. The only people who tie womanhood strictly to body parts are the ones arguing that anatomy is the definition of sex. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction — not to misrepresent anyones view, but to show that the accusation doesn’t fit anything I said.

It is not our logic. You either don’t understand the arguments, or you’re simply being goady. Biological sex is not just about individual body parts.

Starmer has definitely got a reason to be so biased and misogynistic. But what is it? Either way his personal ‘beliefs’ and hatred of women, shouldn’t affect national policy especially when the SC has ruled that biological sex is real (who knew).

is this where we are at, i'm engaging with so many people i miss one person and you all think i cant debate a single person and some how discredits everything else im saying.

give me 5 to scroll back, and ill happily debunk anything you've said.

But you are misrepresenting our views. I fully understand what a straw man is, but thanks for your concern.

Really? I could've sworn they were actually asking for things like males being allowed to intrude on female spaces with impunity.

Just thought you might focus on the person who is telling you that she has actual lived experience

You’re saying I misrepresented your views, but someone on your side literally defined a woman as “an adult human female who produces large gametes.” That’s not a strawman — that’s the definition gender‑critical people themselves keep putting forward.

If you base womanhood entirely on reproductive anatomy, then the logical consequences of that definition belong to your side, not mine. I didn’t invent anything or distort anything — I pointed out where that logic leads. If you don’t agree with that definition, then your issue is with the people making it, not with me.

If you don’t agree with the definition your side keeps using — “adult human female who produces large gametes” — then feel free to offer a definition that isn’t based on anatomy. Because that’s the definition I was responding to, and it didn’t come from me.

At this point, I expect that you won't answer, but whatever.

I said that physical elements of sex can be changed through surgery — because they can.

What do you mean by that? Changed in what way? More importantly: does it matter at all? Does it make someone more of the opposite sex? If not, then why are we even bothering discussing it?

Sure you will. Do you think we’ve never had anyone like you on here before? The arrogance and bluster and devotion to the quasi-religious worldview that is gender identity ideology. It’s a regular occurrence and yet I’ve never seen any actual “debunking”. Just the self importance.

I think you're very confused. People with gender critical beliefs do not think that having surgery makes any difference to someone's sex.

@shortshriftandlethal said that you can't change sex. You responded saying that you cant change your chromosomes but can change physical characteristics of your sex. That certainly came across as an assertion that sex can at least be partially changed (and you even say above "sex cant be FULLY changed") suggesting that you think it can be partially changed. If this wasn't your intention you need to communicate your arguments more clearly.

Sex is immutable and cannot be changed, whether through surgery, wearing certain clothes, hairstyles or make-up or having an undefinable feeling in your brain.

that’s exactly why my original point wasn’t claiming that surgery changes someone’s sex. A flat chest on a woman is still a female chest, and a mastectomy doesn’t make someone “less of a woman.” That’s precisely why I said surgical changes don’t determine womanhood.

My point was never “sex changes through surgery.” My point was that if you define womanhood purely by anatomy, you end up with contradictions like claiming women who’ve had surgeries are somehow less female. I reject that logic — and your example actually reinforces what I was saying.

Being of the sex that produces large gametes is just what being female is. What else do you think it is, wearing a spinny skirt? It doesn’t mean that people aren’t born without individual body parts or don’t lose them through accident or surgery. It doesn’t mean they will always have the ability to produce ova.

Exactly. Its like saying that someone isn't human if they only have one leg because humans are bipedal.

You’re reading an intention into my comment that wasn’t there. Saying that some physical characteristics can be changed is not the same as saying sex itself changes. Those are two different claims.

When I said sex can’t be “fully changed,” I meant exactly what you’re saying here: chromosomes don’t change, and sex isn’t something you can swap out like a part. That doesn’t contradict the fact that some sex‑related characteristics are alterable — which is just a factual statement about anatomy, not a claim about changing sex.

You can dig up a body from 1000+ years ago and tell if it's a man or woman purely by their skeleton.

Anyway, this is a derail. Go and whinge at the Supreme Court or a biology textbook if you don’t agree with the legal or biological definition of a woman/female. It’s a specific thread about a specific political issue.

Crikey, those kids must be starving

Then what did you mean by:

You cant change sex chromosomes, but certain physical elements can be changed through surgery.

The way I read it, you said that certain physical elements of sex can be changed through surgery. Did I misunderstand?

No, that is not the only reason it becomes a public issue.

It becomes a public issue when the internal sense of self is acted upon to the detriment of others.

Obviously that is going to be challenged.

So what on earth was your point then? Some people have surgery but that isn't relevant to this discussion?

So you are agreeing then that you can't change sex? And that no surgery or wig or feeling in your brain changes a person's sex?

Quite.

All this fantastic new knowledge, science that we've never heard of yet despite all this, only women gestate and birth babies - or have the potential to.

So much denial of facts - just in order to wedge certain men into spaces where women and girls undress.
Sad times.