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

Good grief, who is it in the LD party who has an interest in children being held in pre-puberty past the age of consent; and in ensuring women and children in a state of undress are available to any man who wants to join them?

Any reasonable person in the LD Party (and I believe there are many) needs to have a long, hard think about who they are associating with.

Up North we still say folk. But it's folk not folks and it's not a term of address. It's used as a collective noun for an anonymous or otherwise, hm, unclaimed? group. Folk do things, say things, believe things, over there, who knows why. Folk music belongs to no one and to us all. Folk wisdom is what they do say, but no one knows who says it, even if you're saying it yourself. There's nowt so queer as folk.

There's a very "clever" inclusion of kids in that list of groups they want to remove from the protections of Gillick, medical consent etc. Which suggests yet again that the lib dems still have a problem with predators in positions of influence:

"..we think it's vital to fully protect medical and bodily autonomy for all, including LGBT+ folks, the disabled, the pregnant, kids, and prisoners. As soon as bodily autonomy, Gillick competence, and medical consent is undermined for one group, it is undermined for us all".

"Folks" is interesting. I don't know about the US, but in the UK I often notice that it is used to soften the appearance of assertiveness in a situation of possible conflict, or to minimise the possibility that the objective conflicts will actually be perceived.

It seems aimed at replacing perceptions of hierarchy and/or real conflict with the illusion of total peaceful communality.

Ironically, my absolute go-to example of this sort of usage is that habit that MNHQ spokespeople used to have a decade or so ago when they posted on MN about forum policy, etc.

In those days, there was a very active attempt to position MN as a campaigning community (which was just incidentally an advertising industry entity), rather than as a business first and foremost. So any MNHQ pronouncement had to be made in communitarian terms. The more actual conflict there was on a given issue, and the more that HQ was (quite properly, of course) making its own top-down decisions about how to run the forum, the more instances there were of "folks" peppering their posts. It was quite entertaining.

I sometimes look at this photo of the Parliamentary Liberal Party in 1973 and think, my word, in retrospect this looks like a police lineup.

Amazing how often the present day Lib Dems arrive at a position that Jeremy Thorpe would have realised the voters wouldn't wear.

I do hope this makes it into the next Lib Dem manifesto although I suspect it’ll be too batshit even for Ed Davey.

What on earth is this bit on about. We believe any Equality Act ... and to more fully protect disabled rights which were unintentionally rolled back by the Equality Act's passing.

Not a mention of disability again in the statement.

Yes, but thinking of that would require both the capacity for logic and breaking the first commandment of trans-allyship which is that you shall have no other god but trans.

We don't need a trans -inclusive definition of Woman. It's already clearly defined and easy to understand for most sane people.

I'm also so sick of gender non conforming women being lumped in with trans and non binary. They are still women. And as a pp noted earlier, gender critical is all for gender non conformity. It's trans ideology that pushes ridiculous stereotypes.

As for demanding puberty blockers for children... These people are sick! I honestly think this movement will, in the future, be considered as twisted as PIE.

Unfortunately, we don't think it is possible for LGBT+ folks, and especially trans+ folks, or for gender non-conforming women to be able to coexist safely with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Doesn't that mean, in turn, that if the ruling had gone the other way it wouldn't be possible for women to safely coexist with the ruling?

It has been

in the archive link it makes clear it’s from LGBT LD group snd they are clear their statement goes further than the official LD position.

It is often used in the USA and US corporations are their paymasters

I find it a bit folksy

That's lovely.

But to legislate in that way would mean destroying the legal protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities. Where's the rationale and explanation of why those groups should have no legal protections under the equality act so that, let's face it, men can go into women's spaces and demand to be there while Sandie Peggie gets undressed however she feels about it, and lesbians aren't allowed to meet without providing entertainment of whatever kind to men?

Did they actually read and understand the judgment?

And do prescribe blockers for vulnerable children many of whom will turn out not to have long term gender confusion, and set them on a pathway to sterility and effectively chemical castration, but don't do that to sex offenders because it's wrong.

That makes absolutely no sense of any kind.

Men will survive just fine without access to non consenting undressed women. Let's not sterilise anyone. The reasons for both being because it's morally and ethically fucked up.

No. They’re too stupid. People genuinely are stupid on this. The penny never seems to drop.

Lgbt lid dems whose honorary president is Layla “I looks into people’s souls” Moran

It’s because they have got their ‘education’ on trans issues from USA online influencers. Rather than from actual research and data.

Their language there is such a give away as to their ‘knowledge’ base.

Is this a statement from a group within the Lib Dem’s or official policy?

We have long argued for the technical process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate to be de-medicalised,

It's bigoted to think a man should have any medical treatment or diagnosis of he wants to be legally recognised as a woman.

We strongly feel that the ban on puberty blockers should be scrapped at once

But children should be put on powerful medication if they like the 'wrong' toys or clothes for their sex. De-medicalisaton of 'gender' is only for adults (particularly males who only discover their inner womanliness in middle-age after fathering children).

wtf don’t they think ‘gender non-conforming women’ aren’t happy with the ruling? Clearly they don’t know what ‘gender critical’ means, the dolts.

Lib Dems: we're against chemical castration for nonces, even nonces who volunteer for it as part of rehabilitation

Also Lib Dems: we're absolutely in favour of chemical castration for children caught up in a social contagion

With the two big legacy parties in freefall, and lots of people not quite willing to trust Reform, this moment should be a big opportunity for the Lib Dems. If they really prefer to be the Monster Raving Loony Party writ large, that's on them.

@SocksShmocks

i noticed the folks too - making me think it’s cut and pasted from an American group with only a bit changed. Never seen a semi legal statement with folk in it in the U.K.

What has chemical castration of sex offenders got to do with LGBT? Its as if they want everyone to associate gay people with sex offenders. Its very strange.

Someone from Northern Ireland or Scotland could probably get away with "folks", but you just know this was written by an accountant from Woking.