Lib Dems actively deterring GC women

Got to say this thread will be doing wonders for any undecided voters but perhaps not in the way facts would like!

Helen Belcher's wife doesn't speak for all women in this situation

Wow I can't believe that GC activists won't listen to women. Disgraceful.

@Factsdontcare, out of interest has the Lib Dems come up with a definition of "man" and"women" and how to tell the difference between the two? I would really like to identify out of periods, the pay gap and sex-based violence.

If all the ladies became laddies, the world would be a much fairer place, no?

And if Belcher could wait for years to get a GRC, why can't others in that situation wait for their wives to leave the marriage before getting the GRC?

Belcher still hasn't got a GRC because she and her wife refuse to accept the process of the spousal veto and the idea that her wife has to consent. They both spoke at our most recent conference on this and they were both brave and amazing. The point is we fundamentally dissagee with the concept.

Lovely!

And @Factsdontcare

LD policy on the veto is not in any way contingent on no fault divorce being in place. If it was, the policy would be slightly less objectionable (though I would still have concerns for those who may not get divorced on religious grounds)

Fact is that rights of natal females (generally) to consent to being in a legally recognised same sex marriage against their will that they would have to spend large amounts of money to get out of even if they could square it with their own religious beliefs are just not important to the LDs

Just to say, I have gender critical views, I have contacted the membership team and been told I am still welcome as a member. I am glad to see there is room for different viewpoints within a party that prioritises free speech, let's not forget Tim Farron's own personal beliefs were contrary to party policy, that didn't stop him being leader.

I mean I was being glib, and ultimately on that one issue someone who is GC will struggle with party policy. But as long as you don't act in a way that breaks the parties rules, as certain prominent GC Libdems (the only one) did, then you will be able to be a member. I'm not going to say you should be kicked out for just a view, much like I don't think Tim should be kicked out as a member.

I've been saying for years that "GC" people should put forward a motion to Libdem conference to show they would be "listened to", and I would take great joy in speaking against and destroying it on the conference floor

If the partner doesn't wish to stay married they can initiate divorce proceedings whenever they want.

And it's reasonable for the divorce to be completed before the transitioning person obtains a GRC so as not to change the fundamental nature of the marriage.

The fact is they are already in a same sex marriage between two people of opposite sex, genetically, historically, biologically and also legally?

Have you changed the meaning of the word 'fact'?

And again, why the rush? Why should the non-transitioning partner be told never mind, you can initiate divorce; whereas the transitioning partner mustn't wait?

The process from a trans person coming out to their partner, starting to transition and getting legal recognition is not an immediate one, they aren't going to come out on the Monday and get a GRC on the Wednesday.

Under the self-ID proposals, someone could do just that. Which is why the current requirements under the GRA should not be changed.

@Factsdontcare

The current system does not prevent people from using an interim certificate, which will assist them with transitioning for almost all purposes.

If you really wanted to produce a policy that prevented spouses from delaying the issue of a marriage certificate unreasonably but nonetheless acknowledged that their marriage has changed too, you could propose introducing a default into the equation -i.e. partner required to consent to their marriage being transformed into single sex one, if no positive consent to live within new marriage within [say, 6/9 months - meaningful enough period to get counselling and decide on status of marriage], then marriage dissolved automatically and gender certificate is issued.

But LD policy is to force spouses into these marriages with no ability to object.

In addition, when we passed this policy, there was a trans person who still hadn't got legal recognition because they and their partner (of whom they had been married a long time before transition, and who is entirely supportive now) didn't think it was right that the partner had to give consent.

Helen Belcher's wife doesn't speak for all women in this situation. Read the trans widows threads for a different perspective.

And if Belcher could wait for years to get a GRC, why can't others in that situation wait for their wives to leave the marriage before getting the GRC?

OldCrone there is an inevitable balance here, and we try and come down in the middle as much as possible. We want quicker no fault divorce so that people, regardless of if they are the partner of a trans person or anyone else, can get divorced if they wish. The process from a trans person coming out to their partner, starting to transition and getting legal recognition is not an immediate one, they aren't going to come out on the Monday and get a GRC on the Wednesday. If the partner doesn't wish to stay married they can initiate divorce proceedings whenever they want.

The fact is they are already in a same sex marriage, even if it isnt legally such. Their position that they don't want to be in a SSM doesn't mean they should be able to block legal recognition, especially when they have literally any opportunity they want to end the marriage.

Oh buggeration, bold fail.

Your proposal is not respecting the human rights of heterosexual women who have found themselved married to men who have subsequently decided to identify as women. Many of these women don't want to be in a same sex marriage, because they don't identify as lesbians. Forcing such a woman to remain married at the time when her husband legally changes sex would be forcing her into a same sex marriage against her will until the divorce was finalised.*

It would be much fairer to these women to allow them to divorce before their husbands obtain a legal change of sex. You want to force these women to 'live a lie'.

Exactly, very well put.

@facts
Just to say, I have gender critical views, I have contacted the membership team and been told I am still welcome as a member. I am glad to see there is room for different viewpoints within a party that prioritises free speech, let's not forget Tim Farron's own personal beliefs were contrary to party policy, that didn't stop him being leader.

There's something deeply creepy about open contempt paired with a smiley.

Sarah Brown was a shorthand, given the cramped way we have to write to avoid deletion for the Facts That Cannot Be Spoken.

A Sarah Brown policy is the sort of policy that ignores girls' unsurprising level of discomfort, fear or stress in mixed-sex facilities on the grounds that it will be nicer for male people who want to use them.

Going on in a school near you, right now.

We support trans rights because it is the liberal thing to do, because we are liberals

Facts what you actually mean is : We don’t support women’s rights because we are liberals who only give a shit about men. We believe all humans are equal but men are more equal than women.

Nope won’t be voting for you.

We support trans rights because it is the liberal thing to do, because we are liberals.

Is forcing women into a same sex marriage against their will also a liberal thing to do?

If you're more than happy for everyone to vote for you, then why do your party seem so dedicated to putting people off?
And now just outright emailing back to tell women not to bother... the Lib Dems would clearly shit themselves if they got into power.
As for your voters who have differing opinions from myself and my friends, that's fine. Perhaps your party should be concerned with winning new voters but as I said previously, that might actually make them win!

Facts. Listen to yourself. You are not being consistent with what you, yourself, are saying. More than welcome to join =/= probably won't belong.

Then have a listen to what women are saying here. If you are actively involved in the party, it is essential that you listen to different arguments and positions. Listening to just one view (because the party has elbowed out anyone who differs) is not liberal at all.

You will note that as an adult, I have swallowed my utter rage at your daft 'vote UKIP!' suggestion long enough to type coherently.

The Sarah brown you are talking about isn't a member anymore and hasnt been for a while now.

I'm sure it's terrible to be in a marriage that you no longer want to be in, but that doesn't give you a right to block someone from living as they wish just so you can continue to live the lie.

Have you yet to understand that a marriage is between two people, both of whom have human rights?

Your proposal is not respecting the human rights of heterosexual women who have found themselved married to men who have subsequently decided to identify as women. Many of these women don't want to be in a same sex marriage, because they don't identify as lesbians. Forcing such a woman to remain married at the time when her husband legally changes sex would be forcing her into a same sex marriage against her will until the divorce was finalised.

It would be much fairer to these women to allow them to divorce before their husbands obtain a legal change of sex. You want to force these women to 'live a lie'.

She didnt ask if she could join the party, we don't do ideological tests on every member that joins. She asked about her views and comparability with the party and she got an honest answer. We are a pro trans party.