[slab_happy]

The new interim specification for GIDS even cautions against *social transition*, letalone medical interventions.  https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-and-Young-People.pdf

It literally doesn't; it just says that it's not a "neutral act" but then:

Social transition is something that should be led by the young person with family input

And:

The Service will support a shared decision-making process - it is important that the risks and benefits of social transition are discussed with the child or young person and family, referencing best available evidence. Decisions will be individual, and the agency to make the decision rests with the young person, along with their family.

And to be honest, even that's the result of the government pushing heavily to try to be seen as "clamping down" on children getting care, with the result that changing your pronouns and getting a haircut is being presented in some quarters as if it was a risky medical intervention that requires professional supervision.

But it still ends up with a policy that says "yeah it's the kid's decision".

[slab_happy]

The link to the court ruling I posted would seem to imply that at the very least in the eye of the courts that believing biological sex is real would, quite explicitly, be considered gender critical.

No, it says that this is one of the tenets of "gender critical" beliefs:

Gender-critical beliefs include the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.

Also that's a HoC Library briefing, not the ruling proper. This is the court ruling, if you want it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

On a quick read, I don't think it attempts to define what "gender critical beliefs" per se are, just what Forstater's particular beliefs are -- and it does include her testimony about how she believes trans women should be excluded from all single-sex spaces, and that she's entitled to misgender people whenever she wants.

Incidentally, she won the appeal that her views were "protected beliefs" under a law which is intended to cover religious beliefs and things which are equivalent to religious belief.

The case law here is clear that if the belief is an opinion formed on the basis of current information (Grainger), or if the belief in question is open to being changed by further evidence (McClintock vs Department of Constitutional Affairs), it doesn't qualify as a "protected belief" for these purposes.

Essentially, it has to be a kind of faith.

So it's kind of weird to see people holding the ruling up as if it's proof that "gender critical beliefs" are particularly court-approved or have special status above other beliefs, when it was won on the basis of a) "this is equivalent to a religious faith" and b) the point on which the appeal was won, that it's not considered "akin to Nazism or totalitarianism" (the threshold at which a belief is considered "not worthy of respect in a democratic society".)

The cynical side of me feels like some are trying to define it in a way that advantages their side of the debate by making it sound extreme (I appreciate many people who are gender critical are extreme) and making the label toxic.

Like I said: look at Forstater, Bailey, Stock, Bindel et al (who are indisputably among the key gender critical figures in the UK), read what they're saying and writing, and see what they're actually demanding.

I'm not somehow making them say that stuff!

[joel182]

[Potash]

Imagine that you wake up tomorrow to find out that aliens have kidnapped you in the night and transformed your body through weird alien science methods to that of the "opposite sex", whatever that is for you, before returning you to your bed.

Do you go, "eh, okay, guess I'm a woman (or man, delete as appropriate) now"? Or do you go "No, I'm still a man, I'm just currently in the body of a woman" (or vice versa)? Or some other answer?

I think I personally would feel that I, slab_happy, am still female, even if I had the body of a man. Other people feel differently.

I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology. You retain your sense of womanhood due to your historical lived experience as a woman.

I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.

Allowing people to define themselves as either gender is all well and good but as I raised once before still fundermentaly a poor intermediate step on the road to eliminating restrictive stereotypes.

[mrjonathanr]

I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology. You retain your sense of womanhood due to your historical lived experience as a woman.

I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.

Gender is a social construct; that is what the word means. It reflects a dominant view of what constitutes maleness and femaleness. You want to move that debate along; good for you.

Not all aspects of gender may be inherently stereotyped and outdated though. But sure, you could reconfigure expectations of social roles- men could be the de facto stay at home carers and nurturers in the household, for an example. How easily changes of role would be adopted is another matter.

[slab_happy]

I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology.

Gender is a social construct, in my opinion --  nothing inadvertent there! Which doesn't make it "not real", of course. Money is also a social construct, and extremely real in how it shapes people's lives ...

I wouldn't say gender is completely divorced from biology -- most people's gender identity seems to "match" their reproductive anatomy at birth, or at least not conflict with it, and the people whose anatomy is mismatched to their gender often feel a strong need to make it fit better -- but the relationship is certainly far more complicated than people sometimes think.

I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.

Except nope to that bit.

My sense of gender is not based on whether I conform to any gender stereotypes, because I don't. I was the little kid who demanded an Action Man instead of a Barbie, wanted to cut my hair short as soon as my parents would let me, never wanted to wear skirts or dresses, never wore make-up, etc. etc.. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not rare for me to get misgendered in public -- it's shockingly easy to fail to "pass" as a woman if you're not performing femaleness in the way society expects, even if you're actually cis.

And my sense of gender is certainly not based on being aware that I have a uterus, because I've always been clear that I have no desire to ever ever get pregnant, and the idea that my gender is reducible to "can be a baby-carrier" gives me the fucking creeps.

And yet, being female is a meaningful concept to me and part of my identity. Why? No idea, but it is.

I've had fascinating discussions with some of my non-binary friends, because our experience of gender is very similar in some ways and yet radically different in others.

[Alex B]

Oh wow, so you seriously maintain that the UK has not abandoned the "gender-affirming" approach?
You know that puberty blockers have been banned outright in under 16s outside of clinical trials, right?

You're welcome to reread my reply:

There's currently some fighting about whether under-16s will still be able to get puberty blockers without consenting to be used in research (which the government are pushing for, but forcing people to consent to be used in research in order to get medical treatment is normally considered to violate a number of principles on human research).

By the way, this is explicitly the "draft interim clinical commissioning policy", which is going to be opened for public consultation following "stakeholder testing and consideration by NHS England’s Patient and Public Voice Assurance Group."

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Consultation-report-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-.pdf

Most reporting on the subject implies that the policy is going ahead, the objections of trans activists notwithstanding.

The BBC is unambiguous: "Puberty blockers will only be prescribed to children attending gender identity services as part of clinical research, NHS England has announced."

As is the interim spec: "We have previously made clear, including the draft interim service specification we consulted on, the intention that the NHS will only commission puberty supressing hormones as part of clinical research."
Do you have a source suggesting otherwise?

There's also a note in the report, that if they do follow through on restricting prescription of puberty blockers, they'll also be modifying the policy in prescribing cross-sex hormones by "removing the requirement for a young person to have been receiving puberty supressing hormones for a defined period."

In other words, if kids can't get puberty blockers outside research, they'll have to lower the requirements for prescribing cross-sex hormones, because you can no longer say that you can only get cross-sex hormones after you've been on puberty blockers for a certain amount of time.

The min. age for starting cross-sex hormones (CSH) is 16. If you both increase the age required for PBs to 16 and require CSH to be preceded by a period on PBs, obviously that pushes back the age you can start CSH to some time (whatever the period on PBs was) after your 16^th birthday. I’m not sure this would actually be lawful.

In any case, dropping the former requirement (which afaict was informal anyway, the duration of PB treatment being agreed with the patient) is the only logically possible way to keep the age for CSH at 16.

Pretty ironic you would present this as a liberalization of policy when it’s literally the only way the new policy on PBs can be implemented without changing the age required for CSH.

Why are you being disingenuous?

The statement that the UK and several other European countries have shifted away from the US model which emphasizes affirming a trans identification with medical interventions, towards one focused on psychotherapy, is not really controversial at this point. Ahem...

The Economist:

Until recently, many gender specialists in the National Health Service (NHS) treated trans-identifying children by broadly following an “affirmative” approach which accepts patients’ self-diagnosis as the starting-point for treatment. That can mean the prescription of puberty blockers from early adolescence, followed by cross-sex hormones.
 
Dr Cass’s report seems to have prompted the NHS to rethink its wider approach to gender ideology— which holds that gender identity is as important as biological sex. The affirmation model is predicated on the idea that being trans, like being gay, is innate. Yet in draft guidelines published in October the NHS cautioned that in children “gender incongruence...may be a transient phase”. This suggests that prescribing blockers to some children may have harmed them.

The Atlantic:

As Republicans across the U.S. intensify their efforts to legislate against transgender rights, they are finding aid and comfort in an unlikely place: Western Europe, where governments and medical authorities in at least five countries that once led the way on gender-affirming treatments for children and adolescents are now reversing course, arguing that the science undergirding these treatments is unproven, and their benefits unclear.

The BMJ:

US medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) to suppress puberty; oestrogen or testosterone to promote secondary sex characteristics; and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, or other physical features. At the same time, however, several European countries have issued guidance to limit medical intervention in minors, prioritising psychological care.

Sweden
Socialstyrelsen – Care of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Summary
Contrary to your claims of a “moral panic”, actual clinicians are concerned by the rapid increase in referrals among girls:

For adolescents with gender incongruence, the NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases. This judgement is based mainly on three factors: the continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments [2], the new knowledge that detransition occurs among young adults [3], and the uncertainty that follows from the yet unexplained increase in the number of care seekers, an increase particularly large among adolescents registered as females at birth [4].

France

The French National Academy of Medicine concurs, suggests that social contagion is to blame for at least some of the increase:

Gender transidentity is the strong sense, for more than 6 months, of identification with a gender different from that assigned at birth. This feeling can cause a significant and prolonged suffering, which can lead to a risk of suicide (a). No genetic predisposition has been found....
The recognition of this disharmony is not new, but a very strong increase in the demand for physicians for this reason has been observed (1, 2) in North America, then in the countries of northern Europe and, more recently, in France, particularly in children and adolescents...
Whatever the mechanisms involved in adolescents - excessive engagement with social media,  greater social acceptability, or influence by those in one’s social circle - this epidemic-like phenomenon manifests itself in the emergence of cases or even clusters of cases in the adolescents’ immediate surroundings (4). This primarily social problem is due, in part, to the questioning of an overly dichotomous view of gender identity by some young people....
“[T]here is no test to distinguish between persisting gender dysphoria and transient adolescent dysphoria. Moreover, the risk of over-diagnosis is real, as evidenced by the growing number of young adults wishing to detransition [c]. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the phase of psychological care as much as possible.

[Gritter]

What you're up against here Alex is known as 'peak insanity' in which there is literally nothing you can say to sway the mind of someone that believes it's reasonable to 'pause' the puberty of a child with the intention of beginning a process that will render that child sterile and irreversibly physically altered with increased vulnerability to all sorts of health issues and reduced lifespan.

[Gritter]

I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology.

Gender is a social construct, in my opinion --  nothing inadvertent there! Which doesn't make it "not real", of course. Money is also a social construct, and extremely real in how it shapes people's lives ...

I wouldn't say gender is completely divorced from biology -- most people's gender identity seems to "match" their reproductive anatomy at birth, or at least not conflict with it, and the people whose anatomy is mismatched to their gender often feel a strong need to make it fit better -- but the relationship is certainly far more complicated than people sometimes think.

I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.

Except nope to that bit.

My sense of gender is not based on whether I conform to any gender stereotypes, because I don't. I was the little kid who demanded an Action Man instead of a Barbie, wanted to cut my hair short as soon as my parents would let me, never wanted to wear skirts or dresses, never wore make-up, etc. etc.. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not rare for me to get misgendered in public -- it's shockingly easy to fail to "pass" as a woman if you're not performing femaleness in the way society expects, even if you're actually cis.

And my sense of gender is certainly not based on being aware that I have a uterus, because I've always been clear that I have no desire to ever ever get pregnant, and the idea that my gender is reducible to "can be a baby-carrier" gives me the fucking creeps.

And yet, being female is a meaningful concept to me and part of my identity. Why? No idea, but it is.

I've had fascinating discussions with some of my non-binary friends, because our experience of gender is very similar in some ways and yet radically different in others.

There is literally no end to your bullshit. The Emperor truly has no clothes.

[Oldmanmatt]

And, we’re into the unhinged rant and personal insult phase that this conversation dissolves into every time it happens…
My opinions on the matter, um, don’t (because that’s all I’m qualified to have, an opinion, worth exactly what it should be in such a matter: zero).

So, I’ll leave the ranting to the zealots and remain of the opinion I started reading all of this with:
It’s a complex, unique and truly individual issue for each and every person involved (the human being in crisis and the professionals trying to help and guide them).
Best left to those two groups to make the best choices they can, with the knowledge available to them all, at the time. Normal standards of malpractice, not withstanding.

I couldn’t support any government policy that didn’t translate to that.

Public opinion, moral judgments (particularly those based on religion) and political stances (especially ones that involve the term “family values”) can fuck right off.

The argument that “nobody should do anything, because it might be (or later turn out to be) the wrong thing or a decision regretted”  ( because that what some of the above boils down to) is, frankly, laughable.

And finally (‘cos I’m feeling like a ‘avin a bit of a flounce and appreciate Slabs’ dedication, even if I don’t “agree” with everything she says): Gritter, get a grip.

[gollum]

I go away for two years and there it is, Matt is still making sense in relation to complex issues with a nuanced response.

Good to see that some things don’t change.

[Gritter]

I go away for two years and there it is, Matt is still making sense in relation to complex issues with a nuanced response.

Good to see that some things don’t change.

Agreed, OMM's 'little snowflake in expert hands' fantasy regarding trans kids healthcare is certainly worthy of an award

[Oldmanmatt]

I go away for two years and there it is, Matt is still making sense in relation to complex issues with a nuanced response.

Good to see that some things don’t change.

Agreed, OMM's 'little snowflake in expert hands' fantasy regarding trans kids healthcare is certainly worthy of an award

Well, I wasn’t going to respond any more, but…

Ah ha ha ha ha ha.

Ah hah hah haaaa…

Snort.

(Slaps knees, catches breath, wipes tear from eye).

Somebody pass this tit a mirror.

[Wellsy]

I think you are inadvertently arguing that gender is a social construct divorced from biology.

Gender is a social construct, in my opinion --  nothing inadvertent there! Which doesn't make it "not real", of course. Money is also a social construct, and extremely real in how it shapes people's lives ...

I wouldn't say gender is completely divorced from biology -- most people's gender identity seems to "match" their reproductive anatomy at birth, or at least not conflict with it, and the people whose anatomy is mismatched to their gender often feel a strong need to make it fit better -- but the relationship is certainly far more complicated than people sometimes think.

I'd agree and think you are reaching towards the conclusion that gender is nothing but a social construct based on outdated gender stereotypes.

Except nope to that bit.

My sense of gender is not based on whether I conform to any gender stereotypes, because I don't. I was the little kid who demanded an Action Man instead of a Barbie, wanted to cut my hair short as soon as my parents would let me, never wanted to wear skirts or dresses, never wore make-up, etc. etc.. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not rare for me to get misgendered in public -- it's shockingly easy to fail to "pass" as a woman if you're not performing femaleness in the way society expects, even if you're actually cis.

And my sense of gender is certainly not based on being aware that I have a uterus, because I've always been clear that I have no desire to ever ever get pregnant, and the idea that my gender is reducible to "can be a baby-carrier" gives me the fucking creeps.

And yet, being female is a meaningful concept to me and part of my identity. Why? No idea, but it is.

I've had fascinating discussions with some of my non-binary friends, because our experience of gender is very similar in some ways and yet radically different in others.

There is literally no end to your bullshit. The Emperor truly has no clothes.

Slab ain't the one coming across as a nutter here, mate

[andy popp]

No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.

[slab_happy]

Most reporting on the subject implies that the policy is going ahead, the objections of trans activists notwithstanding.

I'm just quoting what the document actually says, which is that it's going to be opened to further public consultation following "stakeholder testing and consideration by NHS England’s Patient and Public Voice Assurance Group."

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Consultation-report-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Incongruence-Services-for-Children-.pdf

As they state, this is the intention for what what they want the revised policy to be; it remains to be seen what will actually happen.

In any case, dropping the former requirement (which afaict was informal anyway, the duration of PB treatment being agreed with the patient) is the only logically possible way to keep the age for CSH at 16.

Pretty ironic you would present this as a liberalization of policy when it’s literally the only way the new policy on PBs can be implemented without changing the age required for CSH.

I didn't say it lowered the age, just that it lowered the requirements. Which it does.

There’s no longer going to be the requirement that you've spent time on puberty blockers, in order to have that pause for reflection.

If people are concerned about kids being "rushed", you'd think they might feel that losing the option of that extra pause is a bad thing.

If you both increase the age required for PBs to 16 and require CSH to be preceded by a period on PBs, obviously that pushes back the age you can start CSH to some time (whatever the period on PBs was) after your 16th birthday. I’m not sure this would actually be lawful.

I'm glad you agree that prescribing of cross-sex hormones to teens 16 and older (when this is considered medically appropriate and necessary) is legal and that there's no intent (or ability) to change that.

Prescribing of cross-sex hormones to a 16-year-old would, of course, very much count as "gender affirming care."

As does social transition, which the documents make it clear will still be a child-led decision.

The one thing that's potentially changing is whether kids can get puberty blockers without consenting to be part of research, and the document states that they have commissioned said research and anticipate it opening for recruitment in 2024. So kids will potentially still be able to be prescribed puberty blockers as long as they agree to be part of the study.

For context, it’s also worth being aware that UK's current services are so overloaded and underfunded and waiting lists are so incredibly long that very few kids actually get puberty blockers before they're well into puberty anyway.

Only a very small minority of kids seen by the Tavistock (16%, in 2019-20) ever get referred to an endocrinologist for consideration for puberty blockers (versus aging into adult services at 17 before they get considered for a referral, like the person in the Telegraph article), and the majority of those who do get a referral from the Tavistock are 15 or older (which means they're on average 16 before they actually get approved for any treatments).

https://gids.nhs.uk/research/pathways-through-our-service/

The number of kids under 16 getting puberty blockers in the UK has always been very small.

Which is why the Bell case had to rely on someone (Keira Bell) who didn't get them until she was 16, even though it was attempting to rule on whether under-16s could consent to them.

So to be clear, I still think the proposal is bad and shitty, but (if it goes ahead) its impact is in practice likely to be fairly limited because of how limited existing services are anyway.

The statement that the UK and several other European countries have shifted away from the US model which emphasizes affirming a trans identification with medical interventions, towards one focused on psychotherapy, is not really controversial at this point. Ahem...

If you're under the impression that there has been a shift in the UK to using psychotherapy with the goal of "treating" or "curing" trans-ness, you should be aware that this would be consider conversion therapy and has been rejected comprehensively by every relevant medical, psychiatric and psychological organization, all of whom support a flat-out ban:

https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/mou/

The service specifications you’ve linked to are clear that any therapeutic work envisaged “is not directed at gender incongruence itself” but aimed at addressing a child’s other emotional needs and providing them with support.

"Gender affirming care" simply refers to approaches which start by accepting where a kid currently is with their identity, rather than attempting to talk them out of it.

It can include social transition (which the documents accept as something that should be child-led) and prescription of cross-sex hormones, if appropriate -- both of which will be continuing as options.

The one major thing that's potentially changing is whether or not kids will be able to get puberty blockers specifically without consenting to be in a research trial.

[Gritter]

No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.

Agreed. It's important not to conflate the world of adults going about their lives with that of children struggling with complex mental health issues.

[mrjonathanr]

No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.

Agreed. It's important not to conflate the world of adults going about their lives with that of children struggling with complex mental health issues.

Your observation would hold if trans identity were something that developed in adults but not children. As I understand it, most (all?) trans adults had these feelings from childhood. The trans adults were trans children.

In which case it’s not conflating separate issues, it’s the same thing at different ages, so the comment is nonsense.

If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that trans children are being led, by adults, down a path which is harmful. Is that your view?

[Gritter]

Yes, I believe this to be the case.

[andy popp]

No doubt there are complexities at the margins, but for me this is at its core an extremely simple issue, and one that (for me) begins in the personal: I have trans friends and colleagues. I believe they deserve to lead their lives with the same dignity, safety, and rights that I enjoy. That's it.

Agreed. It's important not to conflate the world of adults going about their lives with that of children struggling with complex mental health issues.

Not what I said, and not implied by what I said, at all. Stop co-opting other's words and posts.

[mrjonathanr]

Navigating these feelings in young people who have not matured is really problematical and difficult to legislate for. I took Andy’s comment to mean we need to be guided by tolerance. and forebearance. As someone who has no direct influence on any of this (but I’ve encountered young people questioning their identity) they seem like the best guides as to how to respond.

I don’t see any evidence of trans lobby trying to convert confused kids to their cause. That’s just culture war distraction nonsense as far as I can tell.

I do see bigotry masquerading as ‘but won’t someone think of the kids’ posturing though. The idea that women, who as a group face all sorts of inequalities and hazards that men don’t, should be focused on the dangers of transitioning people using a toilet seems ridiculous. There are bigger concerns, surely? Stock and Rowling would do more good using their platforms to raise the profile of domestic abuse and femicide in my view.

With children, it’s clearly hazardous to make irreversible decisions easy to take at an age when identity is still developing. It doesn’t seem to be the current state of affairs though, as far as I can tell there are quite a lot of barriers and delays. Mental health problems complicate things, but are bound to accompany the anguish of those who feel trapped in the wrong body. Gender affirming drugs are drastic, but so is suicide. We should tread as carefully denying medication as in providing it.

I’m glad I don’t have responsibility for these sorts of decisions. It must be horrendous for parents and doctors.

Edit - @ gritter, post crossed with Andy’s

[Oldmanmatt]

Yes, I believe this to be the case.

Actually, my feelings about commenting on the subject we were meant to be discussing, not withstanding (oh god, I’ve used that word twice already. I do apologise). This is starting to intrigue me.
I apologise for the digression but I think it’s worth it.

I note you have not submitted much in the way of evidence to support your position, excessive positive assertions not withstanding (shit, fuck, where’s my Thesaurus? ).

I was going to write something that would have amounted to a statement that would have translated to something beginning “I bet you think…”

Then, I thought perhaps there are enough Straw men hanging around already.

So, you have a definite, and (at least to you) patently obvious position on this. Would you mind explaining your, perhaps, qualification(s) and/or experience, study or observations which have lead you there?

Please don’t be offended if I* judge the validity, to me, of that position; based on the position of those it seems reasonable to call “expert”.

*Supposedly, I’m an “expert” in my (totally unrelated) field.**

**I’ve been called as an expert ***witness twice, once for the prosecution and once in defence (different cases, though might have been amusing if it had been the same one).

*** I try to remind myself that “X” is an unknown quantity and “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

Is that enough levity to choke off your (likely) waspish response?

[Offwidth]

The latest developments in a story of politically motivated transphobic influencers, and politicians who should know better, jumping on something to be angry about.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/22/dead-cats-and-transphobic-lies/

[andy moles]

The latest developments in a story of politically motivated transphobic influencers, and politicians who should know better, jumping on something to be angry about.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/22/dead-cats-and-transphobic-lies/

They can all relax, human-cat surgery is not available and no one's going to be threatened by which litter tray is used.

I know a few cats, they're all cool.

[SA Chris]

did well to Squeeze that joke in.