Lib Dem women say what?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Thanks, @Xanthangum for posting this on the holy 50:50 thread.

www.libdemwomen.org.uk/pro_trans_rights_open_letter

The first point says:

1. Variations in sex and gender, however they manifest, are a simple fact of human physiology and psychology, and neither the state nor society should pass judgement on people who deviate from what is considered the norm

Can anyone help me understand what that means? Because medicine has long since considered the "norm" to be the male body.

Do I deviate from the norm with my awkward Y chromosome? State and society certainly judges me for that.

I have voted Lib Dem in the past. I have met some of the people who have signed this open letter.

They didn't appear to be idiots at the time. Can anyone help me translate what this actually means - there is a vote coming up in Scotland, so I have until May to find somewhere to put mine.

1. Variations in sex and gender, however they manifest, are a simple fact of human physiology and psychology, and neither the state nor society should pass judgement on people who deviate from what is considered the norm

They are bundling together medical disorders of sex development and gender identity to attempt to make the case for gender identity ideological views.

Thing is, I can totally go with that, except I know what they actually mean (and it's not how I'm reading it).

So when I read that, I parse it as:

Variations in physical characteristics, are a simple fact of human physiology (e.g some women have more body hair than average, some women may have very little breast tissue, some men are short, some men may have a lot of breast tissue, some people have chromosomal disorders that might affect their appearance in a way that isn't "typical" of their sex) and no one should be mocked or disadvantaged or pushed by society to change their body just because they don't fit our expectations of what that body should look like.

Variations in gender expression (such as boys liking pink and sparkles, girls wanting short hair), are a simple fact of human psychology, and neither the state nor society should pass judgement on people who deviate from what is considered the norm.

Hurrah for both of these things!

But I think the devil is in the "however they manifest" and means ladybrain and TWAW.

And for avoidance of doubt in this crazy mixed up world, when I say woman or man in that first paragraph, I mean adult human female/male.

First name at the top. April Preston.

Radical Association again in control...

This lot are the authoritarian looney tunes of the party who don't understand the word liberal.

@RedToothBrush

First name at the top. April Preston.

Radical Association again in control...

This lot are the authoritarian looney tunes of the party who don't understand the word liberal.

Good spot. If she told me it was raining, I'd look out of the window to check.

I've never heard of either of those. Looks like they campaign for remain, what am I missing?

Have a look on the 50:50 thread. I put a bit about it there and linked to some of the issues.

They are divorced from reality and have a culture of totalitarism and bullying.

Thanks, Red.

Click through from this quote tweet for a twitter highlight of a thread from AP.

twitter.com/StoatlyL/status/1326668347115773953?s=19

@RedToothBrush

Have a look on the 50:50 thread. I put a bit about it there and linked to some of the issues.

They are divorced from reality and have a culture of totalitarism and bullying.

That was very interesting Red, thank you.

It's a real shame that Lib Dems have lost their way. They should be the ones offering the rational liberal alternative in all this even with their atrocious track record on safeguarding.

I'm surprised at the suggestion in a couple of posts above that the truly "liberal" view would be what most people on this forum seem to think about trans people and trans recognition.

The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

It seems to me that the idea that people should be prevented from living their lives how they please is really the authoritarian, illiberal one. And that seems to be the prevailing view on this forum.

It's a classic example of motte and bailey if you ask me.

1. Variations in sex and gender, however they manifest, are a simple fact of human physiology and psychology, and neither the state nor society should pass judgement on people who deviate from what is considered the norm.

Motte: We shouldn't pass judgement on people who have differences of sex development or who are gender non-conforming (or both).

Bailey: It's judgemental to disagree that transwomen are literally women.

2. It is irresponsible at best and malicious at worst, to refuse marginalised people such as the transgender community the right to organise or access sheltered accommodation.

Motte: Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and vulnerable people should be able to access appropriate sheltered accommodation.

Bailey: Males should be able to access female single-sex spaces.

3. Every person has a right to receive prompt medical care that is free at the point of service.

Motte: I heart the NHS.

Bailey: Transgenderism isn't an illness, but trans people should be given access to elective cosmetic surgery on the NHS for free.

4. No person, and especially no child, should be made to undergo unnecessary medical treatments without their informed consent.

Motte: Babies with DSDs should not be surgically operated on to alter their genitals for no good reason.

Bailey: OK, you've got me here. This one basically requires you to support the Bell v Tavistock judgement.

5. We have a responsibility as liberals to represent and liberate the most marginalised people in society.

Motte: Everyone should be equal in a liberal society and we ought to put effort in to make that happen.

Bailey: Oppression olympics ahoy!

@PassingThrough2

I'm surprised at the suggestion in a couple of posts above that the truly "liberal" view would be what most people on this forum seem to think about trans people and trans recognition.

The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

It seems to me that the idea that people should be prevented from living their lives how they please is really the authoritarian, illiberal one. And that seems to be the prevailing view on this forum.

If you want to have an argument with me about liberalism i will happily oblige. Ive done this before with other members of the radical association and all that has done before has been to demonstrate they font have a fucking clue what they are talking about and just how dangerously authoritarian they are.

Being liberal is about living as you want but liberal democracy recognises the need for cooperation and compromise in certain situations based on power dynamics.

Yes you can live as you like - but you can not do that at the expense of others.

You also can not hound people out of politics in the way that was displayed by the Radical Association.

Liberalism rests on the pillars of justice for all and on the power of the truth and on the concepts of reasoning and science being fundamental to this.

Thus chanting transwomen are women - a thought terminating cliche - is completely incompatible. This does not mean that transwomen should not have certain protections. Indeed a liberal approach would recognise that but also look at unintended consequences and harms and look to minimise these as much as possible by clearly identifying them and spelling it out bluntly (the truth) and the reasoning what is the best way to deal with those conflicts. In this way people understand that the proposals are as fair to everyone as possible and no one is disadvantaged more fundamentality than others for the sake of ideology. 3rd spaces as an option definitely would be on the table as part of a liberal discussion and we would be allowed to say transwomen are men without fear (including fear of censorship).

Chucking out women from the party for not taking the party line is fundamentality illiberal. And its undemocratic for having a no debate policy of any kind.

The liberal pillar of consensus is not possible if there are exclusions from the debate. Moral consenusus is reached by mutal consent not censorship.

An example: Treating Tim Farron the way he was was fundamentality illiberal. He may hold the view that he does agree with homosexuality (i dont like that) but he did act in a way which was liberal by always voting for gay rights despite that and never trying to stop peopke from living in this way. But because he has on record stated thats not his personal belief his actions were deemed unimportant and he was punished for his words and wrong think by the party.

This in no way means that i condone or argue with Farron. Just that i recognise that liberalism isnt an identity where you must have certain beliefs and certain subjects are off limits. Its a compromise and debate types system which dissects problems forensicly and does a balanced judgment call taking into account the issues and considerations of all parties.

@PassingThrough2

I'm surprised at the suggestion in a couple of posts above that the truly "liberal" view would be what most people on this forum seem to think about trans people and trans recognition.

The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

It seems to me that the idea that people should be prevented from living their lives how they please is really the authoritarian, illiberal one. And that seems to be the prevailing view on this forum.

Well it seems that we have to say it until we are blue in the face. No one is preventing trans people living their life. What they can't do is appropriate women's rights. Women are entitled to; female health care providers single sex changing room single sex sports male free domestic violence shelters women's shortlist to address underrepresentation and god forbid you are imprisoned, single sex prisons

UNDERSTAND?
So lay off with 'preventing you living your life' nonsense.

It seems to me that the idea that people should be prevented from living their lives how they please

Do you actually draw any lines? Ever heard the saying "your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins"? Can you really not think of any circumstances when people should be "prevented from living their lives how they please"? What about the rights of others?

I agree that liberalism incorporates the 'pillars' you describe, but in my view those are secondary to its main bedrock – the fundamental (and initially revolutionary) principle of liberalism which sets it apart from competing ideologies like conservatism and socialism is the prioritisation of the right of the individual to live according to their own conception of 'the good life' (whether that be a religious, political or other set of beliefs). Every major liberal philosopher for the past 350 years has worked from this same fundamental –from Locke to Hobhouse to Raz to Rawls to Anderson. And that respect for individual freedom is why liberalism will (and, in my view, should) favour the state treating trans people as their preferred gender identity – because to a liberal, to deny them that is to deny them their individual dignity, which offends the central idea of liberalism. It is the exact same principle which underpinned liberal support for, eg, gay rights post-war.

As for your freedom of speech arguments, I'm afraid I disagree. The Lib Dems are essentially a private club, with the purpose of winning elections. They (and every other party) have decided quite reasonably that those who are not just voters but members of the party must agree with them on their fundamental beliefs. Disagreeing about the correct approach to electoral reform is fine. Incorrectly labelling a trans woman a "man" is a view the party has decided is incompatible with their fundamental beliefs about individual dignity. They, as a private club, are perfectly entitled to expel members who disagree with that. The same is true for those who express, for example, racist sentiments or fascist beliefs (and these are simply examples to illustrate that a club can set its own boundaries, not to make any equivalence between those views and the views held by many on this forum).

The political liberalism of the Liberal Democrats is about how the party wants to organise the machinery of the state. It doesn't mean that internally, organisationally, the party has to allow people holding literally any view whatsoever to be a member of it. It is somewhat surprising to me that someone who professes to be a liberal is in favour of forcing private entities to admit members they don't want.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Sure, everything is a balancing act. But for much the same reasons that the legalisation of homosexuality, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage were the right thing to do despite competing considerations, I think that steps to make the lives of trans people easier are on balance the right thing to do as well. For example, improving access to trans healthcare and enabling trans people to transition more easily doesn't strike me as harming anybody, but does help people live their lives more freely.

If the Liberal Democrats want to be taken seriously on any level understanding what liberalism and liberal democracy is regardless of whether they are a private club or not is kind of a basic starting point given they are a political party.

Either they believe in liberal democracy or they dont.

Either they believe in the pillars of science and the importance of truth or they don't.

And if they dont then they are not being liberals or democrat regardless of whatever the fuck they call themselves.

We have got a situation where this concept of 'liberal identity' which is a certain group of beliefs is being deliberately for the purposes of being misleading to carry moral weight being confused and conflated with liberal democracy.

In the same way that there are abuses of language and meaning between sex and gender.

You may not like this being spelt out but frankly thats tough shit.

And this is why people won't vote for them. Because they are anti-science, dishonest, manipulative authoritarians who are on a power trip.

Also if you vote yourself as a private members club rather than a serious political party then fuck me what is the point of the Lid Dems other than being a boys club for the boys, with no girls allowed?

It really does highlight the issue of it being a privileged circle jerk factory.

@RedToothBrush – I've explained what liberalism is: it has a centuries old history, and is about the priority of the liberty of the individual. This particular debate is one which does not have an objectively correct answer – it is just a lot of people disagreeing about the subjectively correct approach based on questions of competing freedoms. I happen to be very firmly on one side – you are on the other. You are entitled to that view, I just disagree with it.

Again, though, I'm not sure how "letting people do what they want" can possibly be authoritarian or manipulative or dishonest.

As to your point about private members' clubs, that was just to illustrate that they can accept who they want according to their own rules – to remove people as members is not 'censorship'. All political parties, from the biggest to the smallest, are private members' clubs, and they all operate on exactly the same principle. You are free to set up your own party and have whatever membership rules you like, for example.

I think that steps to make the lives of trans people easier are on balance the right thing to do as well.

You are making a false comparison when you coopt other people's genuine and hard won struggles for rights, to prop up a flimsy and sexist argument that a group of demanding male people should be able to trample over established women's rights because it's better for them.

But for much the same reasons that the legalisation of homosexuality, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage were the right thing to do despite competing considerations

What competing considerations?
As far as I am aware these changes were the right thing to do and affected no one else. Unlike trans rights. Do you see a difference.

So specifically, what competing considerations?

Again, though, I'm not sure how "letting people do what they want" can possibly be authoritarian or manipulative or dishonest.

You are either extremely naive, or you are disingenuous. Do you understand why safeguarding measures exist? Why we don't just let everyone do exactly what they want? Or should we get rid of them all, which yes, is what queer theory ideology supports.

A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and property by rule of law.

How can something be liberal and democrat if certain groups are excluded from participating because they are deemed to have the wrong opinions? How are those excluded free to exercise their liberty and live as they wish?

Telling people they have no place in the party (to be represented) if they dont believe transwomen are women...