LGBT Libdems demand puberty blockers for children, and no chemical castration

Exactly. I think the lack of reaction/horror from the wider commentators/media illustrate some of the mismatch in understanding.

I think most of the less informed but generally sane people tend to overlay reasonable caveats or assumptions onto their demands that they assume are blindingly obvious eg:

“of course there would have to be limits to their proposed kids’ bodily autonomy for ‘trans healthcare’’

”of course if we update the EA with a trans inclusive definition of woman/man, it won’t mean that we place male rapists in female prisons”

“of course they don’t want to go as far as legalising paedophilia when they push for kids’ bodily autonomy”

But bodily autonomy, as they pointed out previously, is universal and absolute. Either kids can consent to puberty blockers for no medical reason AND consent to sex or they can’t consent to either.

It is important to note that at no point have any of the trans lobby and its champions in high places ever distanced the movement from or condemned these things. If asked, they just attack the person asking the questions. I think that says it all, doesn’t it?

It's a coherent position if you have a particular understanding of consent: that children can meaningfully consent to this and child sex abusers can't. I disagree with this (and particularly strongly on the first) but I don't think it's fair to accuse them of hypocrisy.

I have always suspected "folks" arose as left-wing jargon in the US because it imitated the way lots of black people speak. It's fundamentally cultural appropriation.

Honestly it sounds like the whole thing was put together in a “yes and ho” session from the thick of it

it would be funny if they didnt have so many councillors, MPs and activists who genuinely believe this stuff

It's a remarkable document. The line about chemical castration in particular is extraordinary. As PPs have pointed out, they seem to be opposed to chemical castration for nonces, but in favour of it for same-sex-attracted teenagers. And what is it doing there in the first place, unless you think that nonces are part of the LGBT+ rainbow? Are they really saying the quiet part out loud?

This sentence is also pretty bonkers and/or terrifying: "In the current climate, we think it's vital to fully protect medical and bodily autonomy for all, including LGBT+ folks, the disabled, the pregnant, kids, and prisoners."

Bodily autonomy for kids? Allowing them to have a tattoo aged 8, for example? Or start sexual relations aged 12? And why "kids", rather than "children"? It's very disturbing. And again, what are "prisoners" doing in there? Why would you want to lump prisoners in with LGBT people and disabled people?

The whole document is a mess. Those are just two of the standout bits.

Fair and important questions.

The position of LGBT+ Lib Dems is an issue and needs criticism.

However the BIG worry is how they influence the position of the Lib Dem leadership. Ed Davey's recent statement on June 1st for Pride was not great, and obviously he has been influenced and Lib Dem gender crits are pointing that out.

Zoe Hollowood 🔶 🇪🇺
https://x.com/hollowood_zoe/status/1929109116749795345

I just read your message about Pride and was hoping you could clear up two things 1) when you refer to 'divisive culture wars' are you referring to women advocating for their sex-based rights? 2) what do you mean by the 'roll back of trans rights' post SC clarification?

Lib Dem Voice for Women are fighting back. The Lib Dems now are allowing women to speak because of the legal requirement and Zoe's victorious court case. They have been at conference, they do get to speak at debates. That is NOT going to change. However the TA faction have MORE influence, they were heckling realist speakers etc.

The Lib Dems now know and accept women cannot be silenced altogether unlike the Greens, and their tradition of debate meant that this is more natural for them, but they are perhaps more dangerous because of that. They control more councils and have more MPs. They sound more reasonable. The battle inside the Lib Dems is going to be nasty.

The only way to stop them is via the pincer movement that changed the Tories, and even the SNP. Gender crits within speaking up, alongside heavy criticism from without. Threads like this help.

Well said. And come to think of it, why is Harriet Harman still supporting changes to the law that will remove safeguarding and let male rapists back into female prisons?

I understand that she is one of the people mentioned by the Lib Dem group that apparently was involved in the original drafting of the EA and she now claims they always intended that TWAW.

SHE might have intended that, fresh from her support for PIE, but it was clear from reading the whole thing, the majority of her colleagues didn’t. What is it about HH that drives her to do this?

Thanks for reminding me why I can never vote Lib Dem again.

I'm rewriting this sentence for clarity, because the LibDems don't seem to be able to join the dots.

We strongly feel that the ban on chemical castration for children should be scrapped at once, as should plans for so-called ‘chemical castration’, which surely have no place in a civilised society.

I raised an eyebrow at one of the other people categories, 'the pregnant'.

Oh gosh I missed that. 🤣🤣

MAP is an identity in the rainbow alphabet. Queering/destroying all boundaries is the key desire in GI. So yes, it's not accidental.

And tbf they are demanding ‘bodily autonomy’ for kids. We all know what that means!

So the + = PIE?

I posted upthread to say Layla Moran is honorary president in surprise to no one

lgbt.libdems.org.uk/about/executive/honorary-officers

Good question. It always seems to be the tras that jump to a link between them. Are they trying to tell us something?

My money is on Helen Webberley and Susie Green being in there somewhere. Maybe with Layla Moran.

They’re falling into the trap of an overly expansive view of civil liberties, by arguing that limiting the ‘freedoms’ of one group limits us all. This was the same mistake ‘Liberty’ made in the 1970s wrt the Paedophile Information Exchange.

We should definitely bring back far more widespread use of the word ‘dolt’. It is perfect for this group and many others.

Do they not realise how insane they sound? (I’m guessing not)

If anyone's read any academic papers about equity or genderwoo you'll notice the word they tend to use is "folkx" with an x on the end. The stem "folk" has basically been co-opted into pure virtue signalling to show how inclusive they are.

There's a wild lot of stuff that can hide under the plus.