Lib Dem women say what?

We have a responsibility as liberals to represent and liberate the most marginalised people in society.

The use of "Marginalised" here is just code for "We are only prepared to grant rights to people who don't threaten the status quo". It's no different to the Conservative idea that benevolence should be bestowed on the virtuous poor from on high, but that at some point (inside toilets?) people are no longer worthy of support.

When used to influence legislation its at odds with the Declaration of Human Rights Article 7 which recognises that:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

[quote Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud]@rozwatching it's what Veronica Ivy/ Rachel McKinnon has argued and is consistent with the arguments that all differences between small gamete producing women and large gamete producing women should be seen as simple variations in the same way skin pigmentation or hair/eye colour varies.[/quote]
Ffs, of course they have...
At least they are consistent, I give them that. It would be weird if they admitted the differences in a sports context whilst criticising lesbians for having 'genital hangups'.

This is one area (the safety of my daughters) where I am prepared to make it a one-policy issue. I am equally concerned about climate change, so I'm really torn.. but I can make a lot of personal lifestyle changes to help with climate change, but I can't control the change in the definition of "woman" if it is imposed upon me. I am also concerned about public services, but if this is how the lib Dems/greens and labour view biology then I am less inclined to trust them on economics (which I previously blindly did assuming that they were more trustworthy). This whole issue has opened my eyes to how ideology can influence someone's logic.

@rozwatching it's what Veronica Ivy/ Rachel McKinnon has argued and is consistent with the arguments that all differences between small gamete producing women and large gamete producing women should be seen as simple variations in the same way skin pigmentation or hair/eye colour varies.

If they allow transwomen to compete in sport would they see requirements to lower testosterone as being akin to discrimination, as females don't have to lower their testosterone?

That is an interesting and awkward question for all proponents of gender identity-based sport categories.
Now that the IOC has ditched the surgery requirement, why would they still require males to have reduced testosterone levels before they can compete as women? If their testicles are female, so are their superior testosterone levels.

Their stance on this would just show their thinking about how they would apply the same principles to prisons, refuges, forensic examinations after rape etc... Or even the rights for eg. Female only beauticians to chose who they give intimate waxes too without fear of being sued.

I have previously voted labour, but a mix of Libdem, labour and green in local elections. Don't know who to vote for now. I have sporty daughters.

My thoughts on just one area of their statement are: Does the liberal democrat party believe in the right for females to compete in female only sport? Is that part of enabling equality or do they see it as marginalising transwomen? If they allow transwomen to compete in sport would they see requirements to lower testosterone as being akin to discrimination, as females don't have to lower their testosterone? Do the liberal democrats care about the increased risk of injury to females in contact sports, or do they see severe injuries to natal females as a necessary sacrifice to improve the opportunities of trans-women to feel that they are affirmed?

God I hate the Lib Dems. Yes, I am a current member.

Adults are different to under 18s.

With adults, I believeto high degreein letting them make their own decisions even if they are medically risky. (It's worrying as I suspect they are suffering from some type of mental illness; but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and take the side of individual liberty.)

Of course you don't let under 18s potentially harm themselves in the same sort of way, just because they sign a disclaimer.

If I went to the doctor demanding a particular painkiller or contraceptive that the doctor knew would cause me lifelong life-limiting damage there would be no option for me to sign away my their liability. Rightly so

The girls demanding those treatments have been sold a lie.

They aren't fifty year old fathers getting silicone boobies, they are fifteen year old girls wrecking their bones, brains and fertility. They need protecting.

However, once they get to clinic, there are problems. There simply isn't enough evidence to support the treatment protocols, bluntly put - the trans men and non binary people who go onto cross sex hormones are increasing their cardiovascular, dementia and osteoporosis risks - all of which are linked to premature death. We know this, that is why women without a gender difference who have an early menopause are given HRT.

I think it should only be seen as partly a medical matter. By that I mean, make them go through doctors so they can be warned of the risks. But I don't see why doctors should be responsible for prescribing to such patients when it's not clear that it's in their best interests. Rather, make the patient sign something that says they take all the responsibility, and they know this isn't a recommended treatment.

Layla Moran is making the Lib Dems look ridiculous.

Freedom of speech is absolutely not a priority say Lib Dems. You'd think it was something from The Onion.

So actually, I think that would help the criticism that the Lib Dems were unreasonably shutting down debate.

The assumption here being that the Lib Dems believe in free speech and debate which is hard to argue when they are tweeting that they don't want it in universities!

[PassingThrough2] This particular debate is one which does not have an objectively correct answer – it is just a lot of people disagreeing about the subjectively correct approach based on questions of competing freedoms. I happen to be very firmly on one side – you are on the other. You are entitled to that view, I just disagree with it.

Well if that's the case, that this issue doesn't have an "objectively correct answer", presumably it's the kind of thing where political parties should be inclined to be tolerant and allow members to disagree and debate the issues.

It's kind of strange, if there really isn't an "objective answer", that someone would declare it to be a matter of "human rights", "human dignity", and we can't tolerate any dissent from the newly adopted party line.

So actually, I think that would help the criticism that the Lib Dems were unreasonably shutting down debate.

[PassingThrough2] As for your freedom of speech arguments, I'm afraid I disagree. The Lib Dems are essentially a private club, with the purpose of winning elections. They (and every other party) have decided quite reasonably that those who are not just voters but members of the party must agree with them on their fundamental beliefs. Disagreeing about the correct approach to electoral reform is fine. Incorrectly labelling a trans woman a "man" is a view the party has decided is incompatible with their fundamental beliefs about individual dignity. They, as a private club, are perfectly entitled to expel members who disagree with that.

And Twitter is a private company that can have whatever rules they like, and ban anyone for any speech they don't like. They haven't violated anyone's legal free speech rights. As a private company, they are free to act that way.

But that doesn't mean, that on a different level, Twitter aren't quite correctly accused of being "anti-free speech" and "authoritarian" if they act to censor one side of a political debate. Twitter as a private company may have a legal right to behave that way; but other people have every right to still condemn Twitter for arguably damaging behaviour that doesn't live up to ideal values.

Same with the Lib Dems. They may have a right to expel any members that violate their rules; but there is nothing to stop people, perhaps correctly, criticising the Lib Dems for taking an authoritarian position and not allowing proper debate within the party. And you would kind of think that open reasoned debate is a part of classical liberal values; and you don't instantly jump to no-platforming people.

I just came on here to post that!

Here's the caption the Lib-Dems have put on that tweet.

Should free speech at universities be a priority right now? "Absolutely not"

^@LaylaMoran calls out @GavinWilliamson for his distraction tactics and absolutely inept performance as Education Secretary on #BBCQT t.co/dFQAjlC4uh^

So liberal, yeah?

twitter.com/libdems/status/1362548170568433669?s=21

One of those "Lib Dem women" who doesn't sound all that liberal? It's not really about freedom, is it? Well. maybe for some.

I guess once you get used to uttering nonsense it just comes naturally and you don't even realise you're doing it.

We know there is a distinct lack of lesbians of the actual non twisty language type in the LGBT branch of the party.

Looking at their Federal Board I find something interesting: there is a something else missing. Can you spot what it is?

Also, have a look at this:
ldcre.org.uk/en/page/meet-the-committee

Meanwhile this is the Conservative BAME forum team:
conservativebame.org.uk/

Can you spot a small but perhaps relevant issue?

Hmm.

Very....
...diverse.

Cranberries

Absolutely don't go down to this post.

twitter.com/delphzzzz/status/1326692105356529664?s=19