Response from my LD candidate

Still nothing - assume I’m not going to get anything now.

I email all my local candidates. So far...nothing...

Plus the liberals had an opportunity ton help Labour form a government last election, but they chose to support Tory austerity instead.

It's worth noting that the Lib Dems are also pro-prostitution and pro-pornography

Absolutely! I've voted Lib -Dem on a couple of occasions in the past - but never again. Recent conversations and experiences with liberals has really given me far deeper understanding of what Liberalism looks and feels like. It provides no radical analysis. It supports existing power structures. Can't seem to resolve or handle conflicts of interest. It does not recognise women as a 'group'.Furthermore, It attracts all sorts of people with 'niche' interests......

I was surprised to see that this LD candidate still uses the 'outdated' word 'transsexuals'. It doesn't seem as if he understands the issue.

And I agree with Justhadathought, the Lib Dems will never give an inch on this issue. It's in their DNA. There are many threads on this forum about prominent Lib Dems and how they have shamed women who happen to think that being a woman is more than an idea in someone's head. Try the one on Lynne Featherstone.

If you cannot vote for the Tories, and care about women's rights, the Lib Dems are not a good choice.

It's worth noting that the Lib Dems are also pro-prostitution and pro-pornography.

It is not that men might "lie" about being trans in order to access women only spaces, it is more that the very definition of trans now incorporates all manner of people. From middle aged heterosexual fetishists, to young bearded blokes who are trying to "expand the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman", to that very small number of 'traditional' fully re-assigned transsexuals, who have always been with and amongst us.

People need to be aware that the Lib-Dems are never going to shift from this position. It is embedded in their philosophy and therefore in their political viewpoint.

The Liberals do not recognise women as a group in requirement of special protections. They see everyone as an individual with equal rights to every other individual ( GC women do too - but also recognise a conflict of rights in this case), and have no method for dealing with conflicts of interest. They also do not recognise existing power or privilege structures. It is just " be nice" and "shove up".

"But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population."

Yes, I agree that this really misses the point.

The concern is about men as a group, not trans people as a group.

I think it's also important to point out that some women need single sex spaces because they have experienced trauma. The problem is not that a particular male bodied person is objectively a risk, but that their presence is traumatic.

One possible consequence of this approach is that the measures we have committed to introducing under reform of the Gender Recognition Act do not necessarily mean that self-identification will be introduced. For example, the results of the consultation and any further scrutiny of the legislation may suggest that it should not. Further, our commitment to reforming the Gender Recognition Act does not rule out protection of single-sex spaces where this is deemed to be a proportionate means to meeting a legitimate aim.

Very interesting reply Sheep.

I suspect this is because Richmond Park is such a marginal seat, but at least it shows that one candidate is listening.

Posted too soon.

Because one he's no doubt grudgingly accepted that some men lie, then you can lead him back to selfID and the whole 'acceptance without exception' being a barrel of horseshit. The liars will use this barndoor-sized loophole that they are planning to implement.

"Right I'm going to reply while he remembers writing to me. Any suggestions to improve?"

I'd pick him up on this bit - "But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population."

This telegraph article "... suggests there are up to 1,500 transgender inmates among the 90,000 prisoners in England and Wales, more than ten times previous estimates, and at least four times the number in the general population."

That can only mean one of two things -

1. They ARE more likely to commit offences, or
2. Men lie about being trans

He can't admit to (1.) he's already stated the opposite. That leave (2.), and he'd have to admit that not all the men 'identifying as women' are telling the truth. They aren't the most oppressed group ever - some are, and they're being usedas human shields by the liars and predators; and what is he going to do about THAT! Prevention is the only sensible thing, safeguarding, etc.

I also seem to remember (but don't have to hand) that about 20% of the male prison population are in for sexual offences, but those claiming to be trans were at about 40%. Again - are they more liable to be sex offenders or are a load of them lying about being trans, and if they're lying why would that be?

But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population

Whenever this argument is used, I ask if they are also planning to remove DBS checks for teachers and those working in schools. After all, we should not assume that teachers, or others are more likely to abuse children....... except it has been shown that people who wish to abuse children are attracted to this profession. Similarly, males who wish to abuse females will be attracted to accessing single sex spaces.

Therefore DBS checks should be done, even though it reduces the right of privacy of teachers to protect the vulnerable - children. It is the children who matter.

Males should not be in single sex spaces, to protect the vulnerable sex - females.

This does not mean teachers are all perverts, nor that TW are all abusers. Twisting the argument to this is ridiculous.

There are instances where the rights of transwomen trump females, but this is not spaces set aside for a single sex. Each vulnerable group will have their own area that their needs trump others, it is a problem when one group think they should always come first.

Who really cares what the rate of crime is for TG people?

Basically, women want women only spaces. Away from men. No matter how they identify.

Males beating women in sport isn't a crime.
Males breaking a women's sporting world record isn't a crime.

A male standing there in the women's change rooms/loos isn't a crime.

A male person going into a lesbian meet-up, asking for your number isn't a crime.

A male person going on a blind-date with a female lesbian isn't a crime.

We just don't want it!

That should be enough.

But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population.

Again and again and again. It’s not transgender people who are more likely to commit crimes. It’s men.

LD have lost my vote because of this issue.

The law already provides significant protection to girls and women who are attacked, whatever the identity of the attacker.

The conviction rate for rape is lower than other crimes, and falling.
Its so low it recently made national news.
I'm disgusted that these people are happy to tell women that all we need to do is seek justice after the damage is done.

Look, you can ask the CPS to prosecute if anyone attacks you. What more do you want? Preventative measures? Privacy and dignity? Being able to meet in a female only environment if you choose? Tsk.

I'm pretty sure it's because it's costing votes in a marginal ....