Cait/Vi Arcane, maybe? Like, it's not a great show, but they are a couple, and Vi doesn't really fit with the stereotypical femme look, at the very least.

Damn, he's really far too pathetic, isn't he lol.

Just because you're incapable of reading doesn't mean you should make it everyone else's problem.

Put another way, a trans man who's been on hormones for a while is barred from using the men's bathroom, on account of it not matching his 'biological sex', and also from the women's bathroom due to the perception of being masculine. At which point, where does he pee?

I'll ignore enforcement here, as that was already noted, to point out that this is not actually what the UKSC decision or the interim EHRC guidance said. Those said that somebody perceived as too masculine could also be barred from female spaces and vice versa.

Hey, out of curiosity, where are your parents buried? I am a very legitimate anthropologist trying to run a study on the bones of Europeans who's descendants turned out to be utterly horrible dipshits.

One of the most reliable demographics to show up for the Democrats is queer people. Do you think that might change if they start throwing trans people under the bus? If so, what sort of an effect do you think that would have on elections?

Put another way: the court of law decides within the bounds of the justice system. Outside of that, people are able to come to their own conclusions, and those do not necessarily have to coincide with legal rulings. Or do you think that, say, OJ Simpson must be innocent?

I mean, by that standard, Trump also isn't a pedophile, nor is almost anyone else in the Epstein pedophile ring, and given the state of basically all justice systems on this subject, pretty much none of them ever *will* be considered pedophiles under that standard.

Well, there's a reason quite a few units had an unofficial (and, yes, admittedly illegal) policy of refusing surrender to any SS units they came across.

So, here's the thing. To the people who's only priority is 'we must stop the boats, immigration bad!', Labour is already not an option. Those people will vote Reform no matter what. All Labour does by 'sorting the issue' is alienate anyone who thinks that hostile environment etc are bad policy.

And also little cakes. Trans people love it when you bring them little cakes

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

I mean, hot take, but if the dems were serious about seeing Trump and his ilk as fascists, then yes, they *should* have done something, up to and including violence if need be, in opposition to his taking power. Like, that's just... what you need to *do* with fascists?

I mean, presumably they mean fast fashion or so, which very much does have some majorly unfortunate environmental implications if we're being entirely honest about it.

(Also, not for nothing, but Clinton was in fact *also* an associate of Epstein, so, y'know)

Oh yeah, night-time and all-weather operations only really became truly feasible for (most) aircraft at pretty much the tail-end of the war.

There's a reason why even something like the fuckin Belgrano, a Helena-class cruiser, was considered a real potential threat during the Falklands! Like, it wasn't just sunk because it was there or w/e.

In fairness, the person who sparked this discussion is causing confusion as well by citing the (non-existent) threat of airplanes in WW1. So, y'know.

Undoubtedly and unreservedly.