Liberal Democrats: ‘why are transphobes protesting? Because they are thick’

[QuoadUltra]

In case anyone was hoping that the LibDems might offer some political sanity in turbulent times, don’t bother.

Their LGBT thread on why ‘transphobes’ - women with concerns - are ‘a bit thick’: Thread Here

We could do with a sensible third party in British politics. Too bad the Lib Dems keep ruling themselves out.

Cancelling direct debit today. Misguidedly joined before the election and before I was aware of their position on this. FFS who to vote for

This is what happens when entirely mediocre men get a platform by virtue of saying they're trans. They are suddenly experts on everything from womanhood to public policy..... Even journalism when they can barely string a sentence together (Ugla).

We are also arseholes, apparently.

Either the LibDems publicly condemn and repudiate the tweets from this account who appear to be representing their party in an official capacity.

Or we assume that these are the views of the LibDems. That women protesting a change to their rights are arseholes and transphobic.

Lots of people are a bit thick. They still have a vote though, and the right to make their voices heard.

Thanks for sharing, it explains the issues really clearly.

I agree the 'a bit thick' comment was unnecessary, they should have stopped before that.

The only conversion therapy going on is the pressure on lesbians, feminine boys and gender non conforming children to trans. They are being positively encouraged to do so.

Got half way down that to where it said sex and gender are largely the same in law - I don’t think they are, although Scotland has that worrying trend. And even if they were, bad laws should be protested.

If I want to apply for a passport, I need a witness to say who I am, and how long they have known me, I need to provide my birth certificate and I need to pay. If I want to access banking services, I need my passport or birth certificate and two bills at my address with ID. If I want to access legal services, I need passport and two bills at my address. These are all services which require me to prove who I am.

So why does changing gender require less? The only possible answer is that gender is a made up social construct, which people are supposed to have an innate feeling of in their head (not how people in the world treat them based on their body shape and privates, oh no) hence it can be anything you like. Why on earth should the opportunity to identity as whatever you like be codified in law? Just get on and do it, but recognise that the EA protects same sex spaces and identifying as what you like does not mean you have changed sex. Simple.

Why are LibDems brushing off women's concerns? Because they don't understand how voting works and that voters who feel brushed off may take that into account when placing their votes, apparently.

Can anyone point out any errors or mistakes in the Twitter thread?

It all looks factually correct to me (apart from calling transphobes 'a bit thick' which is subjective)

The Lib Dem’s are ‘a bit thick’ (among other things) that’s why hardly anyone votes for them. They disappeared up their own arse years ago. There needs to be a sane left/socialist/workers party. We currently have the choice of conservatives or loony left. At this stage I’d hold my nose and vote Tory. It’s not a good choice.

In particular, they seem to think that “sex” and “gender” are different and defined things in law.

Only they’re not. To the extent they are used in law, they’re largely interchangeable.

They have separate sections under the equalities act, so that's not quite true is it.

If the GRA is all about changing the sex on your birth certificate, then it's conflating the two - on purpose. It's saying that your declared gender should override your physical sex.

What this account isn't understanding is that I don't want a gender forced on me. I am female, I have a sex, I do not agree with gender being written into law, and whilst I understand legal fictions, and can see why someone who wishes to be the other sex would want to have all their paperwork match up, I think it would be better for society over all if we stuck to the truth regarding sex, and that trans people joined in recognizing gender as the oppressive system it is, and disrupted it by expressing themselves as they wish whilst not creating legal fictions around their sex.

No dissent is accepted in the various online LibDem groups. I've had to leave,

The equality act isn't being enforced. Activists are pressuring organisations to ignore the sex based exemptions with or without a GRC. We are seeing this in AWS, awards for women, sports for women, prisons and refuges already.

There is an oft repeated statement transwomen are women used when activists are looking to ignore the Equality Act's exemptions, which as I understand it recognises that sex isn't gender.

Self ID is thus very dangerous.

Besides, the Lib Dems are failing to recognise the biggest problem with the law: it is codifying a lie. You can't change sex. A law making it easier to lie is not a good law.

But the GRA has been around for years... so unless you are looking to repeal that and not have the law recognise transgender people as anything other then their biological sex then all this protesting about self ID is basically pointless.

The Equality and Human Rights Committee agree that sex and gender are not the same thing.

“The EHRC said that ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are not synonymous terms, and that ‘gender’ is not a protected characteristic.”

digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2017/9/14/Gender-Representation-on-Public-Boards--Scotland--Bill#Gender-representation-objective

Daim, for one: the claim that nobody has ever suggested amending the Equality Act (2010) and that claims to the contrary are just making things up.

a) Amending the Equality Act to remove single-sex protections was a recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee’s 2015 ‘Transgender Equality Report’

b) Labour at least (who like it not, LibDems, have more chance of being in government soon than you do) have made it clear that they determine eligibility for AWS based on self-declared gender, not biological sex. Now this is not the same thing as Labour necessarily intending to change the law as it stands, but:

b.1) Legislation like this comes with statutory guidance to support its implementation - outlining what organisations need to do in order to comply with the law - so the detail of what GRA changes would effectively mean in the real world for things like AWS is still up in the air

b. 2) and so, the precedent Labour set (and the fact they’re willing to get into legal disputes about it) means that “nobody’s taking away things like AWS because they’re Equality Act not GRA, you silly transphobes!” is a pretty disingenuous thing to say;

c) the broader cultural implications of conflating ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ mean that fewer organisations and political parties are using Equality Act provisions to maintain single-Dec services, because doing so is becoming increasingly seen as non-progressive and bigoted (see e.g. the recent issues about the Caledonian Sleeper, or Labour’s AWS again). We’re allowed to be concerned about the wider cultural implications of this;

d) compare the “transphobes are like the Sovereign Citizen movement, they don’t understand the law and think it’s magic words’ claim there with the previous sneering by that Twitter account about how Mumsnet couldn’t possibly have any experience with legislation (compared to the author of that account at the time wrote a whole amendment once). That’s beyond ‘a bit insulting’ and into ‘dismissive misogyny’.

If they say no you have no right of appeal.

Yes you do, see GRA Section 8

GIRES say: The GRP is definitely minded to grant applications, wherever legally possible, which is why directions are given rather than making final decisions which might not be in favour of the applicant. So despite the high rate of requests for further information very few applications actually fail outright.

About 90% of applications are successful. It would be interesting to know what grounds someone could have to appeal. Either they have the evidence or they don't.

Anyway, the GRA needs updating.

Why? LGBT+ Lib Dems say themselves it was necessary to enable people to get married prior to the same sex marriage bill. There is no barrier to marriage now so it's pretty much obsolete. Less than 5000 people have a GRC because it's simply not necessary. The only other legal differences it makes are for AWS and prisons.

2 different laws. Got it?

Yes, and they interact. In fact, Labour (Lib Dems too?) are breaking the law by allowing self-ID tw on AWS.

Nobody is updating the Equality Act. Which means NO CHANGES TO STUFF LIKE SINGLE SEX SERVICES.

Maria Miller wants to. Labour want to. Don't know if the lib dems have said, but they probably want to. Governments only last a few years. Trans lobby groups are providing training that gives the impression to orgs that the EA has already been updated. They are blatantly making up the protected characteristics and telling orgs they MUST include any self-ID trans person in single sex spaces. ManFriday is going sterling work highlighting how this is playing out on the ground. Best dismiss them as 'silly'

They are protesting about changes which literally nobody in government has proposed or hinted at

Here in black and white - see paras 17 - 22.

The best we can work out is that the people doing the protests seem to think that the Gender Recognition Act has some provision that changes how the Equality Act sees you. But it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. They made that up.

It does for the specific exception that permits AWS but labour have decided to break the law. Prison placement is not entirely governed by the EA but by prison service instructions. A GRC makes a very big difference to prison placements. If you have one you bypass the 'case by case' process of the Transgender Case Board.

In particular, they seem to think that “sex” and “gender” are different and defined things in law. Only they’re not. To the extent they are used in law, they’re largely interchangeable. But this is why you see them say stuff like “legal SEX protection for FEMALES”.

From the consultation on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Bill - The EHRC said that ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are not synonymous terms, and that ‘gender’ is not a protected characteristic.

We say we need legal sex based protection because we are disadvantaged and oppressed because of our sex, not our 'gender'.

Both groups also get hung up on birth certificates.

Because the single sex exceptions are unuseable if someone has a new birth cert via a GRC and chooses not to reveal they are trans (even if it's bleeding obvious). This is irrelevant for toilets etc, but makes a big difference for things like genuine occupational requirements (rape counsellor etc.)

THE EQUALITY ACT ALREADY WORKS ON THE BASIS OF SELF ID.

Except for AWS but see above.

It’s been law for the last 8 years.

What has changed in the last 8 years is that trans orgs are 'training' everyone to think that the exemptions can't be used or that rhey don't exist. The other thing that's changed is the huge increase in the number of people IDing as trans.

We speculate that this is because transphobes are a bit thick.

I speculate that LGBT+ Lib Dems are misogynistic arseholes. Not much speculation required really, we have eyes and some of us can even read.

All over birth certificates. Because that’s the only proposed change.

AND STILL, NOT A SINGLE REASONABLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD FOR WHY THIS REFORM IS NECESSARY

Here's a suggestion, let's just leave the law as it is and take the time to review how it's all working in practice for women.

So clearly written by someone who hates women. LibDems can't afford to lose votes at all - I hope they pick up on this.

This is a widely used and wholly effective way of selling an idea.

If you flatter your audience by telling them that they are clever enough to agree with your idea, that the dissenting are a bit dim, then folk tend to come to your side. Who wants to be considered dim? And how many are really clever enough to check the validity of what is being sold?

Used very effectively during the last two referendum campaigns (Scotland/UK)

Yes, the Lib Dem thread is technically wrong as well as being politically self-defeating.

Women are concerned about changes propoesed to the Gender Recognition Act. Women do not want to make the process of acquiring a birth certificate in a pretend sex any easier. Lib Dems have represented this as being thick.

diddlemethis: "If you flatter your audience by telling them that they are clever enough to agree with your idea, that the dissenting are a bit dim, then folk tend to come to your side. Who wants to be considered dim? And how many are really clever enough to check the validity of what is being sold?"

Well, up to a point. But I notice Brexiteers don't take very kindly to being told they're thick - it just makes them dig their heels in more. So it can be counter-productive. I think one one of the things we need to keep reminding ourselves is that there is a very vocal minority of hard-line activists dominating spaces like Twitter. Most normal people don't accept that men should be allowed in women's prisons, or women's changing rooms, or to participate in women's sports, just because they say they identify as women. Whenever a national newspaper runs a story about e.g. a violent man being allowed into a women's prison, the comments section show that the overwhelming majority of people are appalled by it. There are a lot more people reading the Mail, the Sun and the Times than there are reading Pink News.

I'd dispute that it's an effective technique, diddle.. Yes, it flatters the people who already support your position. But in a democracy, to gain power you need both to hang on to your core supporters and reach out to the middle ground. And if you have people in the middle who're wavering (someone whose position is something along the lines of "I can see why someone would feel pissed off to be made to jump through all sorts of hoops just to be who they are, and Sarah, the transwoman in accounts seems like a nice person, but I don't see how this is going to work for women's sports"), calling them thick for having reservations about the party line is going to tend to drive them into the arms of the opposition.

It's a bit like the US election. As soon as I saw Hillary say "basket of deplorables" I was screaming at the TV "did you learn nothing from the Brexiteers campaign?"

Would be politicians should be forced to write lines: Do not insult your electorate, EVER,or it will come back to bite you on the arse.

Cross post, hack

I’m a Brexiteer and gender critical feminist, and I would judge anyone who dismissed any of my political ideas as ‘thick’ etc.

It isn’t a way of changing minds (ie addressing the arguments). It’s a way of abusing the holder of opposing views to your own. It is meant to personalise.

Luckily for me, I get my self-worth elsewhere.

Sex and gender are increasingly being used as synonyms. I frequently see equality monitoring forms asking for your gender rather than your sex (which is the protected characteristic in the UK).

The Prison rules don't refer to sex or gender, they just state that women prisoners should be kept separate to males.

The Irish equality acts have gender as the protected characteristic, not sex.

Despite knowing some fantastic lib dem women, I despair of the Lib dem party when it comes to women's rights.

They had that lib dem councillor advocating that prostitution should be suggested as a career option in schools (probably only to the girls). Their policy paper describes sex work as fun and rewarding.

They object to any age verifications on internet porn sites. Before Jane Fae became a trans rights campaigner they were a lib dem pro-pornography campaigner. Maybe they still are.

The LGBT+ Libdems twitter account, which came across as relatively reasonable in this thread, until they showed their true colours by calling transphobes thick, is usually vituperative and often unhinged. It's odd that a so-called mainstream party condone this an apparently official mouthpiece of their party.