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

Its actually extremely complex

There will always be the extremists, just like in most topics. The extremists are the ones that generally don't get listened to but are easily used by people to spread hate, Most trans people are normal people, just living their lives wanting to be happy and feel accepted. Youve probably met many trans people and didn't even know it.

TWAW and TMAM ive not seen as an official slogan of the labour party themselves, but if they are using it then they are following current scientific consensus and moving the world to a better place.

Biological sex is not fully understood in every detail, and gender identity is also a developing area of study. Based on current medical and scientific consensus, trans women are women and trans men are men. Women and Men being gender terms, not sex terms. Sex based protection should then still exist.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

”You are also correct in that not everyone has a gender identity, these are non-binary people.”

This has to be a wind up now.

😂😂
Oh dear.
"Based on current medical and scientific consensus, trans women are women and trans men are men. Women and Men being gender terms, not sex terms".
😄😃

My bingo card is full.

Biological illiteracy isn't big or clever, mate 🙄

Where is that interrupton picture when you need it?

This is what I'd describe as the classic Guardian reader approach to gender ideology.

They don't know much about it because they only get shown one skewed side of the picture, but they assert their views very confidently, and they mistakenly believe they hold a sensible middle ground.

Trans people do not deny their biological sex.

Research suggests they are born with a predisposition to traits, behaviors, and experiences typically associated with the opposite sex, which can cause significant distress if forced to conform to their assigned sex. This is similar to the evidence showing sexual orientation has a biological component. Historical examples of changing norms — like glam rock or royal court fashions — actually support the idea that gender is socially constructed and evolves over time, which aligns with my point. Trans and gender-diverse people have likely existed wherever gender roles have existed throughout all of time, even if earlier societies didn’t have the modern terminology. These examples do not require invoking “trans ideology” — they simply show that gender is complex, socially influenced, and that trans identities are a real, deeply felt aspect of human variation.

I'm guessing you've done no research on this outside of tik tok and youtube/facebook shorts, some of us read books past a GCSE level, learning didn't need to stop after school (for some of us anyway)

@Collat
Lots of trans people deny their sex.
Did you miss Dr Upton calling himself biologically female in the Sandie Peggie tribunal?

Research doesn't show any such thing.

There is one very poorly designed study that didnt even control for sexuality, the outcomes of which have been wildly misrepresented.

Its all bullshit

So tell us all about your great scientific understanding that demonstrates men can become women.

I'll wait ...

So you are all for enforcing regressive socially construct norms that oppress women?

The occurrence of someone being born trans is actually similar reasoning behind someone being born gay. That this occurs during fetal development that shapes aspects of a persons personality and puts them as a pre-disposition, one way that is shaped is their sexuality. if a persons sexuality which is feeling based , can be developed pre-natal, so can other aspects.

its really weird to me when people are so accepting of one but not the other when they are both born from the same research and theory, and both backed by the consensus of the scientific community.

being gay or straight is also based on feeling that we self identify, something we all self identify on. But most are ok with that self identification based on feelings, because most can understand it. But can't understand trans, so they choose to deny its reality.

So you are saying we are born with an innate liking for hair length? And somehow that varies depending on the fashions at the time of our birth?

Not at all. I support sex-based protections where needed, like single-sex spaces, which are about safety and fairness, not oppression. Recognizing trans people and their rights shouldn't erase women’s protections — the law and evidence show both can coexist. Gender diversity doesn’t undermine sex-based protections; it simply acknowledges human complexity.

That is not what I asked though is it?

I would love to have a reference for the “current scientific concensus” which states that men who self identify as women then become women, that they firstly change the genetic composition of every cell in their body, that they re adjust their pelvic bones to comply with the child delivering needs of their brand new uterus, Fallopian tubes , ovaries and self cleaning vagina. That their Adam’s apple disappears, that the increased and specific muscular development and strength produced by male puberty automatically adjusts to the muscularity and strength of women. That their penis and testicles are re absorbed, that their propensity to develop prostate cancer reduces to nil. That their feet shrink to fit womens shoes sizes, that their beards stop growing. That they have periods, go through the menopause ……….

It is rare on MN these days to see such ignorance of basic biology displayed so openly and I have to say it is almost refreshing to realise how far we have come in realising that the views expressed by @collat which were once so prevalent are actually now properly recognised as being based on fallacy, misconception and basic misinformation.

Men and women are terms describing gender, which is about identity and social expression, not strictly biological sex. People can identify as one or the other — or neither, which is non-binary — based on their deeply felt experience. Even if you don’t personally believe it, trying the hypothetical of separating sex and gender can help make sense of many debates and policies around these topics.

Thats a recent linguistic usage invented by gender ideologists.

For centuries man/woman have meant adult male/female human. And while yes, language can evolve, new niche definitions add to previous established ones, they dont replace them.

It looks like this reply is confusing sex with gender identity. Trans women do not literally become cis women in terms of chromosomes or all physical characteristics — that’s not what being a woman means in terms of gender identity. Gender is about identity, social role, and lived experience, not rewriting every biological trait. Medical and social recognition of trans people doesn’t claim they magically acquire all cis female anatomy, it acknowledges that their gender identity is real and valid, while sex-based protections can still exist where appropriate.

i assure you the ignorance is not mine.

About a year and a half ago, i was on your side of the debate... until someone pointed out that sex and gender is different... i went and did some research as i didn't believe them, and felt somewhat ashamed that i did not know this and had sat on the side of the fence believing anti-trans rhetoric this whole time...

now people in this position above do one of two things, they accept the shame and then further their knowledge to ensure they are learning and developing as an individual or, they don't want to as it makes them uncomfortable and they like living in ignorance. Which isn't peoples fault btw, that's the brains natural mechanism to hang onto safety and what makes you feel safe. But don't accuse me of ignorance when i know where the ignorance is, as i was once there....

So you ARE all about reinforcing regressive gendered expectations that are oppressive to women?

It’s true that historically “man” and “woman” referred to adult males and females, but that rigid binary is largely a feature of modern Western civilization and was heavily influenced by Christian and other religious frameworks. In many societies throughout history — for example in Native American, South Asian, and ancient Mesopotamian cultures — gender roles were more fluid, and people existed in social categories that went beyond a strict male/female binary. Its just western worlds dominated by religion that denied this.

Language evolves to reflect social understanding, and recognizing trans and non-binary identities adds nuance rather than replacing existing definitions. People can still use traditional sex-based terms while respecting gender identity.

And destroying female-specific language whilst you are at it, so women are unable to describe the oppression you are so keen to impose?

No. The words man/ men, woman/ women are used in English to describe and identify the biological sex of adult humans. Just like the words male/female are used to describe the biological sex of other living creatures. They are far too useful to allow them to be hijacked and diminished by people who don’t understand the difference between biological sex and the meaningless social construct that is gender.

( I think this discussion was laid to rest some years ago.)