Baroness Barker (LibDem) attempts to smear GC women's groups

However the blog along with its false claims that 'mumsnet are calling for a new section 28' have continued to be republished and quoted by some prominant TRAs, believed by some parliamentarians and absorbed as truth by many.

This is a cross party issue.

During Parliamentary special debate on homophobia, transphobia & biphobia:
Thu 17-May-18
"Dawn Butler referred to a social media platform where there were calls for a new section 28."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3251616-Parliament-debate-on-homophobia-today-tweet-MP-if-you-would-like-lesbian-voices-to-be-represented

Baroness Liz Barker's opening remarks as session chair of Westminster Forum above.

Many here may remember the blog posted last year by Emma Healey (MN intern/ data breach).

I believe EH took down the blog and also made a statement expressing some regret.

However the blog along with its false claims that 'mumsnet are calling for a new section 28' have continued to be republished and quoted by some prominant TRAs, believed by some parliamentarians and absorbed as truth by many.

Emma Healey's blog is the document that the Baroness Barker is recommending, when she says, "Anyone trying to understand the campaign against review of the Gender Recognition Act should read this along"

twitter.com/LizBarkerLords/status/986646386010619904

The LibDemLGBT+ twitter account continued to assert false allegations against 'Mumsnet / Mumsnetters': twitter.com/LGBTLD/status/986610149837164544

see also thread re Andrew Gilligan's response to Zoe O'Connell (LibDems) complaints:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3263172-Andrew-Gilligan-Latest-bullying-transgender-complaint-swiftly-rejected-by-parliamentary-standards-committee

It's very disturbing, and I find myself wondering how long it will take to reinstate women's rights after the homophobia and misogyny of the trans agenda has been revealed.

I've been thinking about how information survives down the generations, especially in the face of hostility from the dominant group.

From the Westminster Policy Forum last year chaired by Baroness Liz Barker (Lib Dems)

See picture for opening remarks by Liz Barker & worth being aware of comments with regards Ollie Entwhistle & government influence

Nic Williams (Fairplay for Women) response:

"I represented @fairplaywomen at the Trans Equality Conference. I was shocked by the opening remarks telling us there would be no dissent, no challenges & 'transphobes' would be removed. An appalling hostile tone set by the chair...
Imagine what is was like to have these opening words in a conf full of reps from the NHS, university, government, big business, charity. These remarks were designed to intimidate & silence. It did not. We still stood up and spoke"

twitter.com/AskNic/status/1012384349055045632

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents#prettyPhoto

This OP, together with the many links provided by PP, make it impossible to ignore the depth and breadth of TRA involvement in government.

It's very disturbing, and I find myself wondering how long it will take to reinstate women's rights after the homophobia and misogyny of the trans agenda has been revealed.

There are many long standing & influential TRAs within the LibDems: Sarah Brown (Stonewall), Zoe O'Connell, Helen Belcher (Trans Media Watch) etc

Both Brian Paddick & Layla Moran MP have publically acknowledged the influence Helen Belcher has had on their understanding of trans rights.

Thread discussing James Kirkup's article about Layla Moran's comment re 'seeing souls' rather than sex:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3431013-James-Kirkup-being-fab-again

Jane Fae's 2010 interview with Daily Mail:
(extract)
"John Ozimek was around 12 when he first secretly tried on women's clothes. It both thrilled and terrified him - so much so that he vowed never to do it again. For the next three decades, he simply locked those feelings away, hoping they would disappear.

He had a passion for politics and in 1979, aged 21, became Britain's youngest parliamentary candidate, contesting Newham South in London for the Liberal Party. A Labour safe seat, he lost, but remained heavily involved with the party's national executive.

Later, working in the macho environment of marketing and consultancy, Jane says felt she had to 'invent' a male persona to fit in, but at high-powered meetings would feel like a 'shy teenage girl', avoiding the dynamic males and gravitating towards the few women present." (continues)

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1252462/Andrea-Fletcher-devoted-fiancee-whos-sticking-man-John-Ozimek-despite-fact-wants-woman-named-Jane-Fae.html

Jane Fae's collaberation with another Lib Dem Baroness was discussed last year:
heresyandwitchcraft wrote Sat 04-Aug-18
"Oh sorry, I forgot to add the description of the documentary:
Hanging Perverts is a film manifesto journeying in the world of hardcore bondage pornography, attacking issues of censorship and personal liberty. Includes interviews with Guardian journalist John Ozimek, Baroness Sue Miller of the UK Liberal Democrats, bondage photographer Ben Westwood, barrister Leo Charalambides and BDSM pornographic actress Masie Dee. According to Britain's Criminal Justice Act, since January 2009, it is an offense for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image, including consensually and legally produced depictions of erotic bondage acts. While production is still legal, simple possession of such material can assure anyone a three-year prison sentence, as well as the ignoble status of sex offender."
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325623-Jess-Bradley-a-government-advisor-on-womens-rights-suspended-by-NUS-over-indecent-blog-Part-iii?pg=6

”The Chair Celia Macleod welcomed members and guests
including Baroness Elizabeth Barker and Dr Helen Webberley”

There you have it. Revelling in the company of a disgraced doctor who pushes medication on children. Sums it up really, doesn’t it? Yet she still has the idea she’s morally superior to women who are trying to defend women’s rights and safety.

To coin a phrase... “Wrong side of history, my arse!”

Baroness Liz Barker appears to have a significant & mutually apreciative relationship with GIRES:

www.gires.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GIRES-AGM-Minutes-September-2016.pdf
2016 GIRES AGM
'The Chair Celia Macleod welcomed members and guests
including Baroness Elizabeth Barker and Dr Helen Webberley to the 18th AGM of the Society'

1. Any Other Business

from thread evidencing some of the history of successful trans rights lobbying:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=5

'Reclaim feminism' - by which they actually mean 'take it over and force it to stop centering women'.

The Baroness has clearly never read anything about how indigenous people have been taken over and driven out of their culture and language and societies and traditions in the name of 'progress' throughout the ages, or stopped to think about how history now looks back on the colonisers who did this, and the deep damage it did to the communities invaded.

Common features: (Using the force of law to punish and police:)

Prevent the words and language.
Remove the children from the direct influence of the culture that must be 'modernised' and 'reformed' to the right way of thinking - compulsory removal from families to boarding schools to be brought up the 'right way' were popular, the TRAs are missing a trick there.
Prevent the adults having access to their children to teach them 'wrong ideas' and to ensure the culture and knowledge dies out.
Prevent and ban meetings among the people being 'modernised'.
Ban symbols, costume, activities and traditions specific to the group
Enforce the new dominant culture ways of doing things upon the group (which is obviously superior.)
Write a lot of newspaper articles about the poor deluded old fashioned numpties who must be dragged into modern life, legisimising the treatment of them as an inferior breed less deserving of standard rights, while establishing one's own obvious superiority and higher degree of evolution.

Isn't it all so familiar?

Recent thread asking, "Compulsary trans lessons in primary schools what will this involve?"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3516346-Compulsory-trans-lessons-in-primary-schools-what-will-this-involve?pg=7

silentcrow wrote, Tue 26-Feb-19
"Just dropped I go my inbox via They Work For You, last night's Lords discussion on this topic:

www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2019-02-25a.68.3

Haven't time to go into it deeply now but two things jumped out - what is, and who us behind, the Sex Education Forum cited; and that Baroness Barker's comment is rather interesting. Anyone know her views?"

from link above:
"Baroness Barker Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson (Voluntary Sector)
"My Lords, the Minister referred to good tools and materials such as those made available by the Sex Education Forum, but he will know that there are a lot of tools and materials produced by groups that have a particular perspective that they wish to push that would not comply with the objectives of these regulations. What guidance could he offer to pupils, staff or parents in a school who find themselves forced to use materials that do not fulfil the objectives set out in these regulations?"

Im aware that many TRAs are keen to outlaw prevent educators considering school resources by Transgender Trend....

Baroness Liz Barker chaired the Westminster Social Forum, 'Next Steps for Trans Equality' which took place a month before the government's consultation on gender self id opened.

There were many senior & influential policy makers there.

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

Baroness Barker (LibDems), Stephen Doughty MP (Labour) John Blair MLA (Alliance N.I) supporting/supported by (?) Pink News just before the Govt. Consultation on gender self-id had finished.

Its often interesting to see where Benjamin Cohen positions himself at these events.

LGBT Leaders: Lawmakers reject radical feminist transphobia
by Sofia Lotto Persio 12th October 2018

(extract)

LGBT+ people should be supporting the trans community in the reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), a panel of LGBT+ politicians said on Friday (October 12).

With only a week to go before the public consultation on the GRA reform closes, support for transgender rights dominated a discussion on the future of LGBT+ rights in the UK at opening evening of the LGBT Leaders conference, presented by PinkNews and hosted by Freshfields.

“Within the [LGBT] community, the four initials right now, there is no excuse to do anything other than supporting one another,” said Baroness Liz Barker, a Liberal Democrat peer who publicly came out during the passage of the Marriage Act in 2013.

That delay, according to Baroness Barker, allowed “self-identified radical feminists” to organise and “put together a whole series of assumptions and generalisations.” She compared the strategies adopted by these groups to those historically adopted by people “to foster hatred agains minorities” and called for people to “reclaim feminism.” (continues)

Baroness Barker advised people to take part in the consultation, to talk respectfully to trans people—keeping in mind how personal this conversation may be for them—and to talk to your MP. (cont.)

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/12/lgbt-leaders-lawmakers-reject-radical-feminist-transphobia/

The fact that segregating or even bloody distinguishing TW from sex offenders, cross dressers, autogynephiles and any bloke who feels like it is impossible, is one of the main reasons why women need single sex spaces.

Let us remind ourselves of Stonewall's definition of trans. It wasn't feminists who created this:

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

They don't exclude sex offenders. They specifically include gender-fluid (aka men who say they are women part-time) and cross-dressers (aka transvestites).

Let's remind ourselves of the definition of woman:
Adult human female

We can READ!

You explain which definition is more confusing and harder to maintain single-sex spaces with: figuring out which of the men who say they are trans is "legitimate" (a false question, because Stonewall says they all are), or just keeping women-only spaces for biological females?

They completely (and conveniently) ignore how this segregation would be policed

Not to mention

The fact that segregating or even bloody distinguishing TW from sex offenders, cross dressers, autogynephiles and any bloke who feels like it is impossible, is one of the main reasons why women need single sex spaces. It's twat politicians like this who 'completely and conveniently' ignore that it's impossible to police. This individual is bonkers.

We've been telling you this stuff for bloody years

They completely (and conveniently) ignore how this segregation would be policed

The writer is too stupid to even realise what they are actually saying here: that males who wish to enter female spaces are likely to ignore women's boundaries and wishes anyway.

Which makes them, automatically, not people who should be there.

This view of TW with perfectly normal, healthy male bodies as some kind of disabled or disadvantaged female born person takes this to an extreme of bullshit that removes any last shred of reason to be 'kind' or play along. And it's exclusive to idiots like this, wholly unaware of their own ivory tower or how little respect they have for women, particularly women not like them.

Oh, I had blocked out forgotten Aimee. I'll add Aimee to my ever-expanding list.

And let's not forget that the LibDems welcomed Aimee Challenor with open arms after Challenor was suspended by the Greens and then found to have failed to notify the party that their election agent father was charged with child rape and torture.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aimee-challenor-father-rape-election-agent-green-party-investigation-a8725701.html

Aimee is now the LibDems Diversity officer for Coventry

Mainstream British newspapers have run articles critical of organisations that work for trans equality such as Mermaids and Stonewall; organisations that are regulated as charities.

Ha ha ha ha ha

I hope a LibDem canvasser arrives at my door this upcoming election. I'll add Baroness Barker to my list of things to rant about.

So my list so far consists of:

• Lynne 'if you don't believe that TWAW then you aren't welcome in the LibDems' Featherstone
• the abusive attacks by the LGBT Twitter
• Layla 'see into their souls' Moran
• the hounding of Ms Bird www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dem-trans-activists-hounded-abuse-victim-b6dx39tv3?shareToken=0d628f013bc970c145c3f8d788ce0371
• Baroness Barker's attack against grassroots campaigns

That's why identity politics is such a popular and shallow thing. You don't have to show anyone if your ideas are good, you just gave to claim your label, and scream and point at anyone with the label you don't like.

It's call-out culture. What you say is not directed to the other side to try to change their mind but is actually directed to your own side to show your credentials as a valued member of the in-group.

Like much of the new politics around these days it's about gazing into a mirror. I do hope a less narcissistic form of politics begins to emerge soon.

Until or unless the T is chiselled away from the LGB it will remain politically toxic to speak against it.

Patriarchy and oppression hide behind so many things.
MRAs disguised as TRAs hide behind LGB rights.
Men covering women up with hijabs, niqabs and burkas hides behind 'religious practice'.
FGM hides behind 'cultural practice'.
Having to always cover our nipples due to breast fetishisation hides behind 'modesty'.
Porn and the industrial level exploitation of women's bodies hides behind 'sexual freedom' and 'trade'.
Pressure to shave off your pubes these days hides behind 'hygiene/individual preference'. (We've witnessed this brand new oppression being born and the post-hoc rationalisation women come out with for complying with it - a marketing tour de force as usual, chaps!)

Patriarchy and male oppression have always found a way to disguise their woman-controlling shit as something that can be embraced, defended and promoted at women's expense - even by women themselves.

I think feminists are my intellectual heroines for identifying these disguised issues over and over again despite the monumental continual gaslight that is patriarchal society.

Well this is the fecking problem these days - no one understands how to construct an argument and persuade people rationally. The only method employed is 'denounce and throw insults'.

That's why identity politics is such a popular and shallow thing. You don't have to show anyone if your ideas are good, you just gave to claim your label, and scream and point at anyone with the label you don't like.

She can fuck off with the "self identified lesbian feminists" for a kick off.

Yeah, Any, I am not sure how people talk about this to themselves and justify it.

But if the left can decide the working classes are a bunch of deplorables, with no real beef, I guess they would be able to take the same attitude to any group.

I think for many, they simply dismiss any person or group who doesn't have the right opinion. There is no room for nuance or asking questions or exploration.

I sometimes think that they know at some level that if you bring that kind of approach to questions then al kinds of beliefs they have been taught not to question are also up for examination, including the ones that aren't considered controversial. To me, that does not seem scary - it's not scary to examine critically and carefully something like the idea of racism, because I think it can stand on its merits, and it's not a bad thing anyway to think very carefully about how we conceptualise those terms and ideas - there is more than one way to think about such a complex subject. But I get the impression that for a lot of younger people, these ideas have very little theoretical foundation, they have been taught in a way that is essentially shallow.They can't defend any kind of complex questioning.
And then there are those who are all about thought control, and they love the people who have been taught to think in this way.

This line of thinking started decades ago with articles and books by academics based on the ideological belief that trans women cannot exist. It became immaterial how trans women were supposed to function in our society – probably because such people want trans women to disappear from our society. At best they call for segregation – trans people women who understand reality in their own areas, not mixing with anyone else. They completely (and conveniently) ignore how this segregation would be policed, instead relying on promoting unjustified fear.

Fixed it. The queer theory academics decided that women are now just a feeling in a man's head, and anyone who believes in biology is an awful witch who should be sent to the gulags.

So I think that's really how this statement should read, if we're going to be accurate about the situation.