Thank you Karen! Nothing that goes on in Westminster should be overlooked and I hope this helps people understand the slightly arcane processes a little better. The Parliamentary websites are great now and it's easy to find out what's timetabled to happen (and where).
Wow. And again there would be no LGB rights without the T. A gay man says this? And this mention of 'historical' events which are in our lifetimes. It's rewritten history yet again.
It staggers me that they cannot see that the behaviour from Ts is different in every way from LGBs, and it’s that behaviour that is causing problems for Ts, not the fact they are T.
Please can you amend or edit posts in the light of new information, clarification, or what are since found to be errors or confusion, rather than deleting? The earlier one had some interesting comments that have now been deleted too :-(
Thank you Karen! Nothing that goes on in Westminster should be overlooked and I hope this helps people understand the slightly arcane processes a little better. The Parliamentary websites are great now and it's easy to find out what's timetabled to happen (and where).
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/734dd338-e431-46a2-abd1-7e33be586f63
Thanks for the link, interesting times😏
Wow. And again there would be no LGB rights without the T. A gay man says this? And this mention of 'historical' events which are in our lifetimes. It's rewritten history yet again.
Oh yes, of course, because the Stonewall riot was started by Trans people . . . . .NOT!
'Ts already face more discrimination that the LGBs'.
Again, spurious opinion based on what?
It staggers me that they cannot see that the behaviour from Ts is different in every way from LGBs, and it’s that behaviour that is causing problems for Ts, not the fact they are T.
Labour not covered themselves in glory here. Jackie is coming across reasonable in comparison.
It is on YouTube too - starts about 12m 50s - this link should take you there:
https://youtu.be/HJp31qE36rQ?t=770
'No evidence found after 1970'. Aha! Someone referring to actual evidence. Is that Jackie Doyle-Price in the powder blue suit?
Again. This isn't about women in sport. And another one intervening to say the same.
Again, 'the most vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community'. According to? What are they basing this on?
That Scots solicitor is disturbing. 'Keep our citizens safe from harm'.
Where are the piles of alleged bodies? WHERE? He has the ability to structure a compelling argument but the content is missing.
It's the forced teaming of 'gender identity' and sexual identity that has created all this.
Yes, Denton's tactics again, and very successful!
Quacks and charlatans. Wow. Haven't we already agreed they aren't legal? is she accusing gender critical professionals of being that?
She herself is throwing the dead cat of sports onto the table. And 'lobby groups'.
Please can you amend or edit posts in the light of new information, clarification, or what are since found to be errors or confusion, rather than deleting? The earlier one had some interesting comments that have now been deleted too :-(
'Non gender identity people'...at least she had the grace to stumble over that. Did she mean 'non-binary'?
Good Law Project again. Who have a strike rate of what? Hmm. I have a line in bulls*it bingo, whadda I win?
Pseudo-scientific gets a name check :-), so is NHS care that or not?