Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

338 replies

R0wantrees · 19/10/2018 09:40

article by Lucy Bannerman
(extract)
"A victim of domestic abuse was removed as a judge of a radical thinking prize and “hounded” out of her role within the Liberal Democrats for saying that she did not believe that men who identified as women should have access to women’s refuges.

Natalie Bird, 38, a mother of two who fled an abusive former partner, was accused of “dangerous transphobia” by transgender activists in the party. She had said that opening up safe spaces without proper safeguards to anyone who said that they were female could put women at risk.

She opposed segregating women’s refuges by chosen gender instead of biological sex, and said that it was not fair to make female victims of domestic violence, abuse and rape share services with people with “functioning” male anatomy.

After being allegedly bullied on social media by party activists, Ms Bird was brought before a disciplinary hearing to face a complaint in the name of Zoe O’Connell, on behalf of the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats. The correspondence says that Ms Bird had “expressed troublesome views”.

The hearing found no evidence to support the complaint of transphobia, but Ms Bird lost her position as chairwoman of the Radical Association, made up of party members, following a vote of no confidence. This cost her her role as a judge of the Ashdown Prize for Radical Thought; an ironic move, Ms Bird said, given that the prize’s aim was to reward “big, bold, radical” solutions to society’s most “daunting problems . . . no one has the courage to argue for” (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dem-trans-activists-hounded-abuse-victim-b6dx39tv3

Hopefully many LibDem Members will stand in support of Natalie Bird.

O'Connell and Brown make a mockery of the LibDem priciples and their bullying abusive behaviour has been allowed to run unchecked within the party.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
SorosPaysMe · 19/10/2018 17:18

So are you now saying even though the hearing found no evidence of transphobia, you have a different judgement to the hearing based on a different definition of transphobia?

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 :)

And regardless of if a technocratic disciplinary process makes one judgement on if someone had broken the members code of conduct, that does not stop members of a party organisation removing someone because of their values and conduct.

QuietContraryMary · 19/10/2018 17:17

Was that the Aimee Challenor who claimed to have an autism diagnosis checked & rechecked. Utter fantasist.

FatherBuzzCagney · 19/10/2018 17:16

a horrible, mean, abelist transphobe

So give us an example of her transphobia. If I assume you're not just on here because you're a masochist who gets their kicks having their arse handed to them by a bunch of strangers, I have to assume that you want to actually convince at least someone reading this thread of what you are saying. You must have an example, so why not provide it?

SorosPaysMe · 19/10/2018 17:15

Datun The transphobia was her being hostile and rejecting the RA and LibDem fundamental view that Trans women are women. Trans men are men and Non-Binary people are legitimate and real. She also acted in an unprofessional and horrible way, but as ive said im not going to go into any specific examples because its private information that you don't have a right to know about.

Trousered · 19/10/2018 17:15

So Soros, a few questions if you are still here.

From the times article:
Ms Bird was brought before a disciplinary hearing to face a complaint in the name of Zoe O’Connell, on behalf of the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats. The correspondence says that Ms Bird had “expressed troublesome views”.

The hearing found no evidence to support the complaint of transphobia,

So are you now saying even though the hearing found no evidence of transphobia, you have a different judgement to the hearing based on a different definition of transphobia?

Just getting this clear. Also highly amused at the "edgy" nature of managing not to be stupid enough to pretend men really are women ….....

Actually what is your personal theory while you are here? Is it a RADICAL one, please tell? Or is it just a "nice" idea?

Datun · 19/10/2018 17:14

It was a pretty funny comeback tbh

If you're 12.

JoanSummers · 19/10/2018 17:14

What about the bit about calling trans women's smegma after a prominent lesbian feminist? Anything to say about that sorospaysme?

deepwatersolo · 19/10/2018 17:14

The very clear implication from Luke's post on Twitter was that if you don't believe 'Trans Woman are Woman, Trans Men are Men', then you will be removed from the Radical Association.

Yes, that is true. Because that is the stance of not just the Radical Association, but the federal Liberal Democrats...

I take it the Liberal Democrats do not understand, how language works.

R0wantrees · 19/10/2018 17:13

Yes, that is true. Because that is the stance of not just the Radical Association, but the federal Liberal Democrats, each of the state parties, the Young Liberals and the policy of our Parliamentary Party. If you don't agree with that then you are at odds with our fundamental values.

and there you have it, not liberal or democratic.

You don't understand the difference between policy and values.

OP posts:
SorosPaysMe · 19/10/2018 17:12

@JoanSummers Also she didn't tweet that at a lesbian, she tweeted it to a cis man. Its misinformation/fake news propagated by the anti trans lobby that it was directed at a lesbian

Datun · 19/10/2018 17:12

because she is a horrible, mean, abelist transphobe and her values and views were incompatible with being the Chair of said organisation.

By saying...?

SorosPaysMe · 19/10/2018 17:12

JoanSummers No :) It was a pretty funny comeback tbh

JoanSummers · 19/10/2018 17:11

Hey @sorospaysme

Do you consider Sarah Brown a terrible person for tweeting at a lesbian to "suck my formaldehyde pickled balls"?

SorosPaysMe · 19/10/2018 17:09

The very clear implication from Luke's post on Twitter was that if you don't believe 'Trans Woman are Woman, Trans Men are Men', then you will be removed from the Radical Association.

Yes, that is true. Because that is the stance of not just the Radical Association, but the federal Liberal Democrats, each of the state parties, the Young Liberals and the policy of our Parliamentary Party. If you don't agree with that then you are at odds with our fundamental values.

She was removed both because of her views and because she was a terrible person which is what i said in my original comment you people seem to have taken this as me saying it was just because she is a terrible person. So let me be abundantly clear and put it in terms you lot will hopefully be able to comprehend, she was removed by the democratic processes of the Radical Association because she is a horrible, mean, abelist transphobe and her values and views were incompatible with being the Chair of said organisation.

R0wantrees · 19/10/2018 17:09

Karen Lindsey: who edits LibDem Voice (their member magazine)
A core liberal value is not to allow marginalised groups to be victimised, especially in the media. A person’s identity is not a subject for debate- we must stand against attacks. In Scotland, the tone is friendlier and there is more collaboration in the voluntary sector.

Worth being aware that Aimee Challenor was writing for LibDem Voice 9/10/2018

www.libdemvoice.org/why-the-national-autistic-society-were-right-to-reverse-their-decision-on-award-winning-charity-mermaids-58805.html

OP posts:
JoanSummers · 19/10/2018 17:09

I wonder why no prominent LibDem or any of Brown's pals are able to comment on Sarah Brown's documented misogyny, lesbophobia, and abuse and harassment of women and transsexuals?

Worried about their own position, or do they share Brown's views?

Either way, they have no credibility.

Datun · 19/10/2018 17:08

SorosPaysMe

But you're saying that disagreement was about transphobia and other things. Without backing any of that up. And to you, transphobia means refusing to deny reality.
Your credibility is zero.

deepwatersolo · 19/10/2018 17:08

One of the reasons, as I explicitly said (and ill quote it below) was because she is transphobic.

Soros you do understand that language is made up of words and those words have meanings, yes? Sex based protections are not transphobic and to state that transwomen are male and not women reflects the only truth that the defined meanings of those words can reflect.

There isn't even an alternative definition of male, female, man, woman on offer by 'the other side', that this could be called into question on the basis of alternative definitions of words. There are none.

QuietContraryMary · 19/10/2018 17:06

"if you asked members of the BNP then you would get 99.999%. Thats in no way relevant to the members of RAs right to remove someone as their chair if they disagree with them."

Hang on a minute, I thought you removed her because she was a terrible person. Make your mind up FGS. Own it.

QuietContraryMary · 19/10/2018 17:05

"Your comment suggests that there is a problem with her being removed for being transhpobic? "

No, I placed the word 'transphobic' in quotation marks, since it was the cause cited at Luke Graham's twitter. I suspect that we have different opinions on what constitutes transphobia, so the accusation of 'transphobic' is inherently problematic without data on what she was accused of.

The very clear implication from Luke's post on Twitter was that if you don't believe 'Trans Woman are Woman, Trans Men are Men', then you will be removed from the Radical Association.

If you want to come along now and say 'actually it was because she was a terrible person in these other ways', well perhaps you should have thought about that before crowing to Mumsnet, a month ago or whatever it was, that you had removed this woman for not sharing your views on gender.

SorosPaysMe · 19/10/2018 17:05

Datun I don't know if you just don't understand democracy and difference of opinion or are just being intentionally ridiculous? The membership of RA is obviously going to have different views from those of the times, if you asked members of the BNP then you would get 99.999%. Thats in no way relevant to the members of RAs right to remove someone as their chair if they disagree with them.

Datun · 19/10/2018 17:02

Natalie was binned from her job because she was bad at it and had values which didn't fit with the organisation. If you don't like it, set up your own version of RA thats gender critical, but thats what democracy is.

How come your democracy is completely at odds with everyone else's?

The Times newspaper, 97% of people disagree with you.

Pink news, 82% of people disagree with you.

R0wantrees · 19/10/2018 17:02

Reposting WhenHarpySings as it may have got lost:

"My notes from the Lib Dem fringe meeting in Brighton:

The meeting had the following people speaking at it:

Karen Lindsey, who edits LibDem Voice (their member magazine)
James Morton of the Scottish Transgender Alliance
Emma Ritch, Engender
Sarah Brown (Lib Dems)
Sal Brinton (President of the Lib Dems)

Unless something below is in quote marks consider it paraphrased.

Karen Lindsey:
A core liberal value is not to allow marginalised groups to be victimised, especially in the media. A person’s identity is not a subject for debate- we must stand against attacks. In Scotland, the tone is friendlier and there is more collaboration in the voluntary sector.

James Morton:
This is about making sure transgender people don’t have to go through red tape. They want their brith certificate changed without red tape or panel.

Here are the three things we want:

  1. Remove the psychiatric requirements to getting a GRC and the 2year time delay. We want a statutory self-declaration- which will be legal declaration. Lying on it would be punishable. This is about people living permanently in their new gender, not flip flopping back at random. {Note- this seems to contradict what James Morton said at the We’re Still Here Conference- where they did discuss being able to legally change back without it be viewed as ill intentions.}

  2. Remove age restrictions on the GRC. Kids in distress should be listened to. Kids don’t have much ID and don’t want to be outed as trans. Puberty blockers are reversible, just pause puberty.

  3. Non binary people should be able to get a gender neutral birth certificate. They may present as one gender or the other on a part time basis or want to opt out of gender entirely. Non binary ID is not taken seriously.

Dont’ bother with people on Twitter- talk in person to the people in the “moveable middle”. Allies can help with this.

Emma Ritch:
How do we reconcile feminist and trans understandings of rights. In Scotland VAWG orgs have to be inclusive as a condition of funding. We have trust and strong relationship with Scottish Transgender Alliance.
As a feminist group we have been collaborating with other women’s orgs so that we are all on the same page and we could communicate that women’s organisations were in favour [of the proposed changed to the GRA in Scotland] & we had no concerns.

English women’s organisations are contacting the Scottish organisations about the “difficult conversations” they are having to have around this issue.

One reason the tone of the debate has been better in Scotland is because feminist organisations in Scotland are listened to and receive funding from the Scottish government so their view is valued.

The media is also different in Scotland- the tone in the Scottish papers the Herald and the Scotsman is more positive on the GRA.

The debate in England has become messy, hostile and polarised. There needs to be acknowledgement where things have been messy and feminist organisations should help the tone by supporting the trans organisations.

Understand concerns come from real fears and act together against VAWG

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

Sarah Brown:
I had to fight a bi-election because a woman resigned because she didn’t want to abide by the Equalities Act.

A year ago media stories were transphobic but puerile “Stella became a fella” type stories.

Now in the USA there are toilet bans, military bans and trans people are having their passports confiscated.

The same people want to attack trans rights in the UK- trans is an easy soft target to start attacked LGBT rights.

There’s been vicious feminist transphobia.

The tone of the media coverage has changed because of the proposed GRA changes, which have been deliberately conflated with the Equalities Act. The spaces governed by EA2010 are NOT under review- this is a lie.

If you’re a violent person you can’t get into refuges full stop.

“They are lying about the law””

“There is something more insidious going on”- the rhetoric has become more sophisticated and is equating transwomen with violence and males. They even have a name for us- “Tims”- trans identified male. “We are not male”.

They are using the same tactic as the pro-Brexit campaign with demonising a marginalised group. They even have tame transwomen on their side and are using “weaponised politeness”. It’s easy to sound polite and reasonable when you are trying to take away people’s rights.

It’s an organised campaign to demonise transwomen. “I’m frightened”.

They want to repeal all transgender people’s protections in the EA2010 and repeal the GRA2004.

Transwomen are portrayed as violent men. When we display emotion about this we are accused of shutting down debate. They want capitulation and submission. Trans rights are human rights.

We need good civic education. This is not a debate. The narrative has been decided. Natasha Kennedy monstered for making a list of transphobic lecturers- she was just trying to protect young people.

Sal Brinton:
Respect tolerance and understanding are at the core of Lib Dems. The change on discourse is alarming. If you removed “trans” from it and replaced with “black” it would be seen as unacceptable.

In the party, the discipline process will be amended. The disciplinary panels will be trained. Adjudicators and investigators will be trained in the core hate crime area. They will need to be trained before they are eligible to be on a panel.

We need to call out intolerance. there is a different tone amongst people under 20 but this cannot wait.

I reiterate that I would not object to a parliament where 50% of seats were held by transwomen because “I don’t differentiate”

OP posts:
JoanSummers · 19/10/2018 17:02

Hey @sorospaysme
Any comment on Sarah Brown's documented misogyny, lesbophobia, and abuse and harassment of women and transsexuals?

R0wantrees · 19/10/2018 17:00

I don't think SorosPaysMe's comments need much analysis. they can simply be read and understood.

OP posts: