I have a serious problem with some transgender activists. I have a sibling who is transgender. I would not like them to be discriminated against. The trouble is that what the activists advocate and the way they do it is not truly liberal either because of the way in which it is disrespectful and impinges on the lives of women in a way that is illiberal and has implications. There are actions that some transgender activists take who do not understand that and completely lack sensitivity.
The trouble is that you can not take an action which does not affect the other and in some cases there are very vulnerable people involved on both sides.
I struggled for a long time with it, as I regard myself as liberal. Its when I realised that there was a certain illiberal angle to it tied up in sexism that I started to question it a bit more and think its not quite as black and white as I once believed.
I think its a tough area. Where the line is, I think largely depends on whether there are vulnerable groups involved and what the impact of actions has, and to what extent.
For me, its about actions rather than thoughts. I don't like the idea of thought police.
In this particular case, I'm not sure how much this is about the actions of Farron and how much of it is about thought policing to be honest. Whilst I take the point about not following evidence and absenting in abortion votes, I also think its more about thought policing than that.
I also note the lack of media questions about Farron's voting on abortion where evidence comes into it and holds more weight due to the presence of the scientific element. It been much more focused about LGBT rights, which comes with a powerful and vocal lobby group behind it. If it was about Farron's illiberalism as a whole, why focus on one and virtually ignore the other?
The blindness of the media and the lobbying groups tells a second story too. One which isn't just about promoting liberalism and rights.
What I do think, is that Farron probably couldn't have carried on as leader. Not least because it was about to turn into a party row which would have been damaging to the party. I also think that there are plenty of people who are unable to see past the issue and that undermined the party. I can name two friends who have a very big problem with it (neither is gay).
I think its easy to think its a black and white subject as most people will never find themselves in a situation where their liberalness is really put to the test nor under the microscope.
I think Farron is a decent, honest man of the type which we need more of in parliament. I'd take more Farron than a lot of MPs who blindly tow the party line all the time. His honesty about it all is as much of a problem as his voting record, and that's a shame.
I do have to say that some of what is levelled here is about a desire for perfection. Perfection that is impossible to achieve for any politician. I think recognition of this is also needed. Perhaps Farron isn't right for leader but I do think he has been hounded in a way that also merits its own scrutiny.