Times 'Lib Dem trans activists ‘hounded’ abuse victim (Natalie Bird)''.Article refers to Zoe O'Connell & Sarah Brown

Here again (attached) is the screenshot of Sarah Brown telling a lesbian via Twitter to suck his "formaldehyde pickled balls".

"suck my formaldehyde pickled balls" tweet aimed at a lesbian

As far as I know (may be wrong) the only person that was directed to was a male local politics blogger in Cambridge. The blogger in question is widely regarded by politically active women in Cambridge (or at least all the ones I know) as a misogynist, definitely not a lesbian. It was quite fun to see these two flailing around on social media, trying to land points on each other like some third rate, provinical Gore Vidal-William F. Buckley re-run. The whole thing is laid out in excruciatingly tedious detail by the blogger in questions here

Oh wow I only just noticed that the "suck my formaldehyde pickled balls" tweet aimed at a lesbian was retweeted by Benjamin Cohen!

It's high time he was exposed also.

mobile.twitter.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1053928483653644289

The relevant twitter thread!

Thank you to these twitterers for providing Moran with the attached original tweets from Sarah Brown!

Every single politician that consorts with Sarah Brown should have these sent to them every single time they do it. They cannot be allowed to pretend they do not know who Sarah Brown is. They need to answer: do they have any comment on Brown's behaviour and their very clear and constant misogynistic public behaviour, and specifically Brown's attacks on lesbians.

I will keep this thread saved and if anyone mentions thinking of voting Lib Dem I will direct them here.

I did not know AC went to the LDs wow. A right buddy for SB they're 2 Peas in a pod.

Christ on a bike this party is doomed. How can these people be so idiotic?

Voters care right now about Brexit, about austerity and having a party to represent them when the Tories are wrecking havoc on our country. This clique of activists with their self centred identity politics and cluster B personality disorders are literally helping destroy what for many hard working people could have been a last bastion of hope.

I've never known anything like it.

After seeing the hulking great Challenor walking next to a normal woman sized reporter on BBC politics on Thursday, they must be some man sized nappies, that's for sure.

Anyone remember that character in Police Squad (the TV series The Naked Gun was based on) who was so tall his head was never in shot?

That’s really the way to get the message across re: Challinor & Co.

Layla Moran cosying up to SB

mobile.twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1053210780529651712

Fatherbuzzcagney, that was brilliant.

I wonder what they would think of someone who scares them demands access to their space.

Hence why AC thinks we shouldn't be allowed any boundaries.

After seeing the hulking great Challenor walking next to a normal woman sized reporter on BBC politics on Thursday, they must be some man sized nappies, that's for sure.

Yes I just watched that programme! Very obvious. No one is going to take AC for a woman.

Very funny.

After seeing the hulking great Challenor walking next to a normal woman sized reporter on BBC politics on Thursday, they must be some man sized nappies, that's for sure.

I do think the camera operator must have deliberately pulled back out to a wide shot to show how enormous the baby Challenor is.

Please do!

@fatherbuzzcagney

That’s hilarious, totally spot on, do you mind if I steal that?

what is the purpose of the Liberal Democrats if its not to be liberal and democratic

You can now work out what all the main parties stand for by assuming that they are the diametrical opposite of their names:

Conservatives: breaking up the UK, destroying the economy
Labour: party of the privately educated middle class who know what's best for the proles
Liberal Democrat: compared with the Russian Liberal Democrat Party both liberal and democratic; compared with anyone else, not so much
Greens: Big fans of adult size disposable nappies

Both I and my partner left when they let Challenor in.

They are a joke. Always have been.

Do remind me, what is the purpose of the Liberal Democrats if its not to be liberal and democratic?

Maintain “radical kindness”- create spaces for genuine discussion with no name calling.

Again this comes down to gatekeeping and what is regarded as name calling and acceptable standards of behaviour.

People have different thresholds.

Who has the power to decide this, is important. If you have a threat of an impossible definition of transphobia hanging over you it's bollocks anyway.

As my wise old lecturer challenged his students: "You all are so keen on censorship to make the world better, but who are the censors? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not? It's an enormous power."

And censorship can be used against you to restrict debate in a fashion which can unbalance power.

These are important issues to understand the full nature and dynamics of.

Censorship is the tool of the authoritian not the liberal.

And what happens away from these 'space spaces' also matters. It's no good being given a space you can discuss things, if you've then got people saying what you said was unacceptable on twitter for example. Or ringing up your employer or even calling the police on you.

There's few restrictions on what you can say in political advertising. Its not covered by the ASA. It came about after long discussions over freedom of speech and political advertising in Parliament. At times is deeply frustrating. The Leave.Eu poster of the queue of refugees which looks like nazi propaganda is the most obvious example.

BUT the argument is that, the press and society should simply hold people to account of it, by other means. We are seeing how this works, ironically playing out against the Woman posters.

This however is being countered by what's going on in social media and the press over coverage if their removal. So it's generating debate about consensus and standards in its own way. Central censorship via law alone wouldn't facilitate this.

What is very clear to me is that conversations and understanding of the concept of liberalism and democracy within the Liberal Democrats are non existant and fundamentally absent.

Instead it's been replaced with this concept of a conforming singular 'liberal identity' from which individuals in the party can not stray in thought or in words. Which is authoritian in nature.

The Lib Dems have long had a problem with an image of being rather stale, white middle class and large male. The efforts of trying to shatter this and make the party more diverse can not centre around a very narrow concept of liberal identity. This has the effect of only drawing people from certain backgrounds. And this restricts diversity of opinion.

The Lib Dems have got themselves into a frenzied vicious circle of trying to make themselves more diverse by methods which unwittingly make themselves less inclusive.

The party's identity crisis is astonishing to watch. It comes back time and again to who holds the real power in the excutituve branches of party.

The party can not represent others who do not conform to its mirror in its present state. It can only represent a privileged middle class, mainly male, world view.

Failure to understand what underpins liberal democracy is eating the party alive.

I'd like to thank all the contributors on this thread, as it's provided a fascinating insight and considerable background detail of which I was previously unaware.

The old disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed and not fit for process, and at our last conference we passed a motion to set up a new disciplinary process that will be more effective at dealing with issues like transphobia

The old disciplinary system was flawed because the gatekeeping was done by the people who were the problem.

If they are switching to a system where they can 'deal with the problem of transphobia better' they haven't necessarily solved the problem.

If the people concerned who are a large part of the problem happen to be trans, this can be used as a shield.

Throwing out members for 'transphobia' without a definition of transphobia is suspect.

If people part of the initial problem, you can't have an open debate on the definition of transphobia. So they in effect gatekeeper the definition of transphobia.

This then means that if you have a problem with an individual who happens to be trans, all they have to do is shout transphobia and they are instantly protected anyway.

Worst still they have more power and from the way the above is phrased it almost looks as this has been set up to get rid of any whistleblowers who complain about bullying, intimidation etc by people who just happen to be trans.

It's called gaming the system.

But hey we improved the disciplinary system after people pointed out it wasn't fit for purpose.

Q1) Humans are (pick one):

i) A product of our DNA
ii) A product of our upbringing / society
iii) A product of both, in some combination yet to be determined
iv) Whatever we say we are

Now, the scientific community has pretty much concluded that the answer is iii). But in these days of "we've had enough of experts", why not ignore science and go for iv) because it feels better?

I know that life can be horrendously awful and adolescence is truly a shit time. People who are trans, and people who are so miserable they conclude that they must be trans, are in great pain and it seems an obvious way to fix their pain is to help them transition. But the philosophical beliefs held by a small group of trans advocates and allies, aimed at shoring up a political position based around a disorder we do not understand, should not be allowed to define how we view ourselves as a species. We cannot unwrite the past, and we cannot (yet) alter our DNA. These things are important, because they are who we are, and they form the basis of our understanding of what it means to be human. The future is not pre-destined, but the story of how each one of us became the person we are is set in stone. An individual can't ignore their own story just because they don't like it, because they are a product of that story.

To say that "trans women are women" in a literal sense (as opposed to saying "we should treat trans women as women", which is a different argument) is a denial of reality in exactly the same way that climate change denial or creationism are a denial of reality. This debate is not just about how we help trans people, and it's not even just about protecting women (though both are obviously very important). This is about how we understand the world around us, and what happens to us, as a people, when those in power start tolerating a false existential narrative just so that they can be "on the right side of history".

Hi Soros, I notice you have used the phrase "trans rights" many times in your various posts. If you're still around would you mind if I asked you which rights you feel trans people don't already have?

Bearing in mind that "gender reassignment" is already a protected characteristic under the Equality Act?

I don't believe trans women are women or trans men are men, but I do believe that both have the right to express themselves however they wish without fear of discrimination or prejudice. I think non-binary is a load of old bollocks (as a woman who doesn't own a dress, wears less make-up than her husband when going out, works in a male-dominated industry in a field requiring a strong grasp of maths and engineering and ride a motorbike that I repair and service myself I reckon I'm fairly well-placed to comment!) but if it makes people happy to call themselves that then fill your boots.

So which rights exactly is it you're fighting for?