Lib Dem conference big vote on supporting women's rights tomorrow

Thanks, my comment is awaiting moderation, I'm betting it won't pass. 😂

"My feminism was born when I went to university ..."

She done learned it, so she must be a proper 'feminist'.

There's also the arrogant implication that she must know better than other people because she went to university so knows things and is educated and other people aren't.

Lord give me strength against these fuckwits who think they know everything and actually know completely fuck all.

It's interesting to consider what might be at risk if Reform get in.

Labour or a leftist coalition may try to change the EA to diminish womens rights. Reform may scrap it all together.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dnjg896zno

I think she means the head tilt.

To be fair, Suella Braverman talks about repelling the EqA and going back to having stand alone acts to protect sex and other characters.

One of the problems with the EqA is it balances the rights of women and girls with the rights of men with the PC of GR. That may make sense in some situations, but its been used in safeguarding, too.

That's part of the problem with politicians, they look at it like scales and are convinced that women and girls have more rights than men with GR. I think thats what Lammy meant about dinosaurs hoarding rights, its as if we should make concessions in safeguarding for fairness.

If sex discrimination was a separate act, maybe the idea of compromising safeguarding for mens rights would be harder to argue? Although the GRA was written before the EqA, so maybe not!

I don’t think Reform can be trusted to draft equality legislation.

Which party could be trusted?

One of the problems with the EqA is it balances the rights of women and girls with the rights of men with the PC of GR. That may make sense in some situations, but its been used in safeguarding, too.

This was directly addressed by the Supreme Court ruling.

It explicitly referred to the fact that Sex was the only protected characteristic infringed on by another. Which was why not only did they rule that sex mean biology, but that in confirming clarifying that, they said the only group disadvantaged by this clarification where those with a GRC. ie the around 10,000 people in the UK.

And at the time some trans people with GRCS did write about that, but it was more useful to the TRAs to whip up the fake hysteria of all those who aren't even covered by the EA or the GRA to say their rights have been taken away.

Whereas you could say, it is more a correction or reminder to the public at large to behave in a decent way. ie not having men use any excuse to intrude into women only spaces.

Forget about good manners and empathy, it is about telling people not to behave like aggressive and in some instances violent louts.

This is interesting: https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/2102631669710942712?s=20

The way votes transfer in Lib Dem elections means that with three slots to fill, the Trans motion got through on first preferences.

But it wasn't a sure thing if they had only had two motions being selected.

The conference papers all said that there were two slots reserved for Emergency Motions, but in the end they actually found room for 3.

I mean, we will probably never know if this was deliberate. But if any senior Lib Dems are out there looking at this car crash, the knowledge that someone might have had a hand in gerrymandering things to advantage the TRAs must be a bit galling

Farage is quoted as wanting to.get rid of all protected characteristics.

I’d go with the woman who thanked someone from another party because she can see how key it is.

A party that doesn’t revolve around servicing crypto billionaires.

The scottish leader Alex Cole Hamilton says lies about the law and who advises him.x.com/hightreebud/status/2102397240799313962?s=46

So rigged then. So much for the Democratic part of their party name.

One of the problems with the EqA is it balances the rights of women and girls with the rights of men with the PC of GR. That may make sense in some situations, but its been used in safeguarding, too.

This mischaracterises the Equality Act. There is no balancing of rights of women and girls with the rights of men with the PC of GR. The PCs are standalone.

The Times is reporting there was some Lib Aden shindig last night where they were all singing Let us pee to the Beetles tune. In a week where a trans policeman is on trial for raping a little girl in a ladies’ toilet, the disconnect is appalling. Literally partying while little girls have their lives destroyed.

The point is no PC takes priority over another, when PC conflict, we have to balance rights.

If politicians believe that the PC of GR allows people to be treated as their target sex, its understandable that they will make policies to allow men to use women's spaces. I dont agree, but what is the point of GR if it isnt about being treated as the opposite sex? Gender non conformity could be protected under sex.

When politicians talk about 'safe spaces' and single sex spaces, its their attempt to balance rights. They are making single sex spaces and single gender spaces.

As I said, I dont agree, and it isn't going to work because it imposes gender onto everyone. Also, theres no point to single gender spaces. But I can see how they are getting there from the EqA.

I dont agree, but what is the point of GR if it isnt about being treated as the opposite sex?

In the Equality Act it's about protection from discrimination and so you need a comparator.

Trying to think through your suggestion on being gender non conforming, if somebody didn't give somebody a job because they were trans, and there were no PC of gender reassignment, what would the comparator be? Maybe the PC of belief would work better?

We know that the TRAs worked with Marie Goldman - LDs Women and Equalities spokesperson - on the wording of the motion. They have confirmed this on Reddit and Bluesky.

Speak only for yourself . I care being patted down by a man.

I dont agree, but what is the point of GR if it isnt about being treated as the opposite sex?

The PC of GR is definitely not about being treated as the opposite sex. It's about GR which as changing sex is impossible means only making yourself look like the opposite sex. Most trans identifying men look absolutely ridiculous & nothing like a real woman. If there wasn't a PC of GR then employers could legitimately refuse to employ TIMs because they found TIMs ludicrous & distasteful.

It's impossible to have "single gender spaces" - there are at least 60 genders (I lose count)

A gender recognition certificate recognises gender, not sex. It enshrines a transwoman's right to use Mrs/Miss as a title and that sort of thing, but it doesn't change the person's sex in contexts where what sex you are is actually important.

The Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment means that a male person who has a feminine (or any other non-masculine) gender identity must not be treated any less favourably than a male person who has a masculine gender identity. Must not have any less access to employment, housing, services etc than would be the case if dressing and presenting as male.

As it is also the case that female people must not be discriminated against compared to male people, and must not have any less access to employment, housing, services etc than would be the case if they were male, this is fundamentally the same in terms of prevention of discrimination as "being treated as a woman" in almost all circumstances - ie where the sex of the individual is (or should be) immaterial.

In circumstances where the material fact of the sex of the individual is important and relevant, the sex of a trans individual remains the same as it was at birth. However, service providers will in many such cases need to provide a unisex alternative provision because while they cannot pretend they are offering a single sex service while making exceptions for some people of the opposite sex, they also shouldn't require trans individuals to use the option that is provided for their birth sex if that would cause either them or other service users unacceptable distress - the SC ruling confirmed it would be discriminatory to leave trans people excluded from both options if only 2 options exist.

This has been gone over so many times.

A GRC makes a man a "legal woman" but does not make them the same as biological women.

The protected characteristic of Sex mean that only those born female are protected by the characteristic of Sex.

And as I said up thread the Judge pointed out that in fact their ruling made it clear that those with a GRC could feel they had lost out.

But that is only because thanks to Stonewall etc., they never were biological females but had been led to believe they should be taken as such.

Those with a GRC have rights to change passport etc.. And not be discriminated against for being trans gender.

And just to repeat again, one of the reasons the Supreme Court ruled ie confirmed that sex means sex, is that to not do that would mean that sex would be the only protected characteristic that is undermind by another.

And yes in the past many of us have asked what it the point of a GRC. Apart from being a "win" for campaigners on gender dysphoria, it is little more than telling people you have had surgery to alter your body, or are on the "pathway" to doing that. (So far 10,000 in total in the UK)

Added to which it is now basically irrelevant as all the campaigning and shouting is about those who "self identify" - who aren't covered by any part of the law.

Although they have been taken into account by the EHRC guidelines in saying that "gender neutral" toilets should be provided.

Which you would thought that people who say they are part of that "identity" would be celebrating.

But of course aren't, as the main purpose of the campaign IS to infringe on women's sex based rights.

Who would have thought this?!!!!!!!!

Only 3 published comments in response to article saying how brilliant the writer is ....

If everyone acknowledges men with PC of GR or with a GRC haven't changed sex, and services are provided by sex, and gender is not sex - why can't they use the correct sex facilities?

If everyone understands its gender that is transitioned not sex, why is everyone aware of how distressed these male men would be in the male facilities, have male passports or be refered to as Mr, a long established sex title.

These men want to be in the women's space but the compromise is to give them other spaces away from the other male people. But why, if its so clear that gender and sex are different?

The GRA and PC of GR do confuse sex and gender. From the EqA: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." Also, a man with a GRC can have a female birth certificate.

I am well aware of the SC, and the GRC (its not a pathway to surgery by the way iwanttoretire).

What im saying is, its understandable that halfwit politicians and libdem party faithful think that some sort of sex changed has happened or spaces are gendered - why else would these men need to be away from other men?

The GRA and the PC of GR are bonkers. They are not nothing, they are a safeguarding nightmare. They allow men to concel their sex. They also confuse politicians who simply dont understand them.