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

There is a LOT of talk right now about Burnham gambling on an early election, one which would reduce Labour's majority or even force them into coalition with Lib Dems. In that case the Lib Dems crazy becomes very worrying indeed.

indeed! It was the Lib Dem coalition with the tories which first really put this nonsense into government circles in 2011 www.gov.uk/government/publications/transgender-action-plan

It was a mess besides Zoe and one other standing up for reality, but this policy and supposedly key vote will never get mentioned in Lib Dem election pamphlets strangely. Any more than the Greens in Holborn who have leaflets with a chunk on Gaza and never mention their gender policies.

Article in the Telegraph makes a very good point in its coverage of the vote. This kind of thing opens a gulf between Labour and the other leftish parties. Yet Labour is unlikely to campaign on it.

Tom Harris
The Lib Dems’ trans madness is a symptom of the Left’s cowardice
Only the Conservatives and Reform can be relied upon to uphold women’s rights
But the Lib Dems didn’t get where they are today without an impressive understanding of how campaigning works. Dozens of crucial by-elections have fallen to the party unexpectedly over the decades because of their knowledge of how to identify and gather support even in the unlikeliest of constituencies.
So the strategists behind today’s debate and vote will have considered how vulnerable it would make their candidates in marginal seats. And they will have concluded, rightly, that in a great number of constituencies, this issue will not be raised by their chief opponents, whether they are the Labour Party or the Green Party.
Labour might ostensibly back the EHRC, and is set against any amendment to the Equality Act, but judging from the public comments of its MPs you have to ask why. There would be zero appetite among sitting or aspiring Labour MPs to attack the Lib Dems on this issue because they are only too aware that their own activists, on whom candidates depend to get the message out and the votes in, are just as sympathetic to trans-identified males as the Lib Dems are.
Labour’s candidates at the next election are every bit as likely as their Lib Dem opponents to squirm and equivocate when they’re asked at a local hustings to define what a woman is. After all, few of them care about offending women in the audience; offending a trans person is utterly unforgivable.
This is not an issue on which Labour is in any position, or has any desire, to take political advantage. Which in itself is a political absurdity. At some point in the last 10 years, the parties of the Left, alongside the trade union movement, collectively decided that the fight for women’s sex-based rights should be abandoned to the Right.
https://archive.is/1SZFd

The problem for those wanting to deny women's existence is that we know what they are up to very well now and so do others. The big question is whether the TAs in the Lin Dems can do more than win votes internally. There is a LOT of talk right now about Burnham gambling on an early election, one which would reduce Labour's majority or even force them into coalition with Lib Dems. In that case the Lib Dems crazy becomes very worrying indeed.

You don't think it's possible a lesbian might enjoy touching a woman's body? Or a gay man enjoy touching a man's body? It isn't guaranteed but it is possible.

If I were a masseuse and Brad Pitt walked in.. I would definitely enjoy that more than professionally. It's okay to admit you're human!

Yes exactly this. They could easily overturn all the work by women.

I won't derail this thread by getting into the details, but I have to challenge the idea that there's no difference between a man, and woman who happens to be a lesbian, carrying out physical searches, or care, on a woman.
You suggest that lesbian sexuality is just the same as male sexuality, just a mirror image of it.
I'm telling you it's not, lesbians do not pose the threat of violence towards women that men statistically do, and a lesbian woman in a woman-only space is just another woman in a woman-only space. No big deal.

I could say more, but that isn't what this thread is about, so I'll just leave it at that.

I won't derail this thread by getting into the details, but I have to challenge the idea that there's no difference between a man, and woman who happens to be a lesbian, carrying out physical searches, or care, on a woman.
You suggest that lesbian sexuality is just the same as male sexuality, just a mirror image of it.
I'm telling you it's not, lesbians do not pose the threat of violence towards women that men statistically do, and a lesbian woman in a woman-only space is just another woman in a woman-only space. No big deal.

I could say more, but that isn't what this thread is about, so I'll just leave it at that.

I know the meaning of the word literally.

The rest of your post is incoherent, imagined, irrelevant nonsense. What has sexual orientation got to do with it? Why does sitting down to wee feature? Who is asking for cameras in public toilets?

I suppose it depends on the individual. I wouldn't mind a gay man patting me down - remember it's all public - but I think it's likely political correctness that we don't check sexual preference for that job role.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think you're being patronising and naive if you think straight/lesbian women can't be intimidating or violent: including sexually. And it isn't 'just' the intimidation factor of a man that puts women off being frisked by them(!) - are you saying women won't mind a very short, skinny, frail man frisking them?!

Your argument is damaging to the equality of lesbian women and is quite old school. It's like saying a man shouldn't mind a woman lusting after his female partner because it's "not a big deal or a threat". No one said being a lesbian is the exact same as being a straight man - it's like you're twisting it to 'stand up for gay women' but you don't need to. Because my point is valid: no one actually cares about it (the frisking thing). Clearly you don't. I know I don't. But then apply that thinking elsewhere: nothing wrong with an actual transwoman in women-only spaces (i.e. someone not lying about who they are) - but we have to shut that down due to what it leads to and that's sad for genuine transwomen but we need the sensible transwomen to get vocal about it and fight their own 'community' because women aren't being listened to.

I suppose it depends on the individual. I wouldn't mind a gay man patting me down - remember it's all public - but I think it's likely political correctness that we don't check sexual preference for that job role.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think you're being patronising and naive if you think straight/lesbian women can't be intimidating or violent: including sexually. And it isn't 'just' the intimidation factor of a man that puts women off being frisked by them(!) - are you saying women won't mind a very short, skinny, frail man frisking them?!

Your argument is damaging to the equality of lesbian women and is quite old school. It's like saying a man shouldn't mind a woman lusting after his female partner because it's "not a big deal or a threat". No one said being a lesbian is the exact same as being a straight man - it's like you're twisting it to 'stand up for gay women' but you don't need to. Because my point is valid: no one actually cares about it (the frisking thing). Clearly you don't. I know I don't. But then apply that thinking elsewhere: nothing wrong with an actual transwoman in women-only spaces (i.e. someone not lying about who they are) - but we have to shut that down due to what it leads to and that's sad for genuine transwomen but we need the sensible transwomen to get vocal about it and fight their own 'community' because women aren't being listened to.

I suppose it depends on the individual. I wouldn't mind a gay man patting me down - remember it's all public - but I think it's likely political correctness that we don't check sexual preference for that job role.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think you're being patronising and naive if you think straight/lesbian women can't be intimidating or violent: including sexually. And it isn't 'just' the intimidation factor of a man that puts women off being frisked by them(!) - are you saying women won't mind a very short, skinny, frail man frisking them?!

Your argument is damaging to the equality of lesbian women and is quite old school. It's like saying a man shouldn't mind a woman lusting after his female partner because it's "not a big deal or a threat". No one said being a lesbian is the exact same as being a straight man - it's like you're twisting it to 'stand up for gay women' but you don't need to. Because my point is valid: no one actually cares about it (the frisking thing). Clearly you don't. I know I don't. But then apply that thinking elsewhere: nothing wrong with an actual transwoman in women-only spaces (i.e. someone not lying about who they are) - but we have to shut that down due to what it leads to and that's sad for genuine transwomen but we need the sensible transwomen to get vocal about it and fight their own 'community' because women aren't being listened to.

I suppose it depends on the individual. I wouldn't mind a gay man patting me down - remember it's all public - but I think it's likely political correctness that we don't check sexual preference for that job role.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think you're being patronising and naive if you think straight/lesbian women can't be intimidating or violent: including sexually. And it isn't 'just' the intimidation factor of a man that puts women off being frisked by them(!) - are you saying women won't mind a very short, skinny, frail man frisking them?!

Your argument is damaging to the equality of lesbian women and is quite old school. It's like saying a man shouldn't mind a woman lusting after his female partner because it's "not a big deal or a threat". No one said being a lesbian is the exact same as being a straight man - it's like you're twisting it to 'stand up for gay women' but you don't need to. Because my point is valid: no one actually cares about it (the frisking thing). Clearly you don't. I know I don't. But then apply that thinking elsewhere: nothing wrong with an actual transwoman in women-only spaces (i.e. someone not lying about who they are) - but we have to shut that down due to what it leads to and that's sad for genuine transwomen but we need the sensible transwomen to get vocal about it and fight their own 'community' because women aren't being listened to.

I'm going to put this very bluntly.

I consider myself to be a firm centrist and the LDs are generally usually a party I would at least consider voting for (I'm a swing voter - so I do not necessarily stick with one party).

The conference makes it very easy for me to say a VERY hard no to voting for them. We should not be at this stage at this point. They are now openly advocating for the straight up removal of women's rights.

Its beyond frustrating and upsetting.

I do not think the conference represents even LD members never mind voters well either (for reasons I won't go into here).

If anyone wonders why there is a problem within British politics the failure of the liberal democrats to understand the underpinning concepts of equality in the equality act and impact on human rights, this subject shows it up well. And this ISN'T restricted to transrights / womens rights. Its about the whole concept of equality and protections within our society for all across the board.

Its pure, utter blindness and puritanical ideological nonsense which is divorced from practical reality and the basic mechanics of how the legal system works at its very core. If you can't define something, you can't legally enforce shit and this always results in harms and injustices. 'Being nice' is not a legal concept. We all want to be nice, its just that some people aren't nice.

Utter over-privileged wacko bullshit.

Its completely counter productive and is building a HUGE backlash.

I'm going to put this very bluntly.

I consider myself to be a firm centrist and the LDs are generally usually a party I would at least consider voting for (I'm a swing voter - so I do not necessarily stick with one party).

The conference makes it very easy for me to say a VERY hard no to voting for them. We should not be at this stage at this point. They are now openly advocating for the straight up removal of women's rights.

Its beyond frustrating and upsetting.

I do not think the conference represents even LD members never mind voters well either (for reasons I won't go into here).

If anyone wonders why there is a problem within British politics the failure of the liberal democrats to understand the underpinning concepts of equality in the equality act and impact on human rights, this subject shows it up well. And this ISN'T restricted to transrights / womens rights. Its about the whole concept of equality and protections within our society for all across the board.

Its pure, utter blindness and puritanical ideological nonsense which is divorced from practical reality and the basic mechanics of how the legal system works at its very core. If you can't define something, you can't legally enforce shit and this always results in harms and injustices. 'Being nice' is not a legal concept. We all want to be nice, its just that some people aren't nice.

Utter over-privileged wacko bullshit.

Its completely counter productive and is building a HUGE backlash.

i suspect the involvement of Helen Belcher in this absurd policy volte face by the Lib Dems. Besides being a Lib Dem councillor in Wiltshire, HB works in the House of Lords as a 'researcher' for Baroness Elizabeth Barker. All while being the chair of lobby group Transactual. He is also a consultant to the LGBT Consortium and a columist for Byline Times

The LGBT Lib Dems are a bunch of people who have no responsibilities and too much time. They dominate the whole party and have engaged in behaviour to intimidate, bully and otherwise force individuals out of the LDs. They were heavily involved in what happened to Natalie Bird. Numerous members also sit on other groups within the federal organisation within the party. They have more influence within the party for this reason. The number of active members who participate at national level is surprisingly small. Its a few hundred or so, that's it. Few people realise how the whole party is largely run out of sheds and isn't a professional outfit.

Ordinary female members who have full time jobs and kids don't have a chance compared to this, because it isn't their whole life obsession. They don't attend nationals. They haven't got the time to be on every sodding committee ever. We can't compete.

This is one of the key issues relating directly to sex discrimination - women with kids don't have the same representation because they don't have the time to represent their own interests in this way. And if we do we face levels of abuse and harassment that far outweigh that ANY male has to contend with.

Also see the Green Party.

This is why both parties are in such an utter mess. They are not in a fit state to be governing anything tbh.