Brian Paddick asking for feminist views on Self Id

[DarthArts]

Fair play - he's asking for opinions.

He's being pointed to a woman's place and a lot of other GC women and Transpeople.

@TheBrilliantMistake

Brian Paddick is a gay man, (who the thread is about) so why is a gay man more of a 'safe' bet than a lesbian. I was imagining someone who was famous or high profile not just someone who is gay, if that makes sense.

I'm led to believe this is the Chair of the LibDem LBGT+ group.

Here is a nice sample screen shot of their twitter account.

You might also want to look at this.

twitter.com/feministroar/status/979343140158140418?s=21

Brian Paddick is a gay man, (who the thread is about) so why is a gay man more of a 'safe' bet than a lesbian. I was imagining someone who was famous or high profile not just someone who is gay, if that makes sense.*

Ah, I thought you thought I had suggested Brian!
I don't think it matters if gay or lesbian as long as they aren't perceived to be all about their sexuality. The likes of Stephen Fry, Claire Balding or Sue Perkins seem like fine examples. To my mind the issue is nothing to do with sexuality though, it's entirely about genetic sex, which is why I think it's important that the public don't get sidetracked or turned off by assuming it's not a mainstream issue.

Absolutely some Mrs 2.4 kids are aware of what's going on, but still believe many aren't, and Mr 2.4 kids probably has no idea at all or zero interest until he realises the consequences for his wife / daughters.
If a well respected personality can hold their attention for long enough and explain the situation, I'm all for it.

Brian Paddick is being scapegoated by own party. twitter.com/LGBTLD/status/979451391675715585

@TheBrilliantMistake

"Ah, I thought you thought I had suggested Brian!" no, I was just thinking if Brian is a high profile man who is exploring this topic, where are the high profile women who are exploring this topic.

"I don't think it matters if gay or lesbian as long as they aren't perceived to be all about their sexuality." I completely agree. I guess it is just lesbians may feel their spaces are being encroached on a bit but I completely agree, doesn't matter their sexuality.

"The likes of Stephen Fry, Claire Balding or Sue Perkins seem like fine examples. To my mind the issue is nothing to do with sexuality though, it's entirely about genetic sex, which is why I think it's important that the public don't get sidetracked or turned off by assuming it's not a mainstream issue." Completely agree.

"Mr 2.4 kids probably has no idea at all or zero interest until he realises the consequences for his wife / daughters." Yes, agree again.
I've talked to DH he does not get it!

I think any media attention saying lets talk to women is always good. As long as it is not followed by, 'We talked to them and we still do not care.'!!!

A big area of concern for me is Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, as it now seems to be being labelled, especially of teenage girls.

Surely everyone/ anyone is worried about the massive numbers of youngsters, both male and female, suffering dysphoria.

I think maybe the cheer leading for trans kids (although I do appreciate it is being supportive of their perceived needs) may end up sweeping lots of mildly dysphoric kids in its wake into choices they will regret. Where are the mild-mannered voices wanting to support kids and caution 'wait and see'?

@InspiredByIntegrity Link is brilliant. Someone sid "Stop erasing agp" great, why do we not hear more of this. I wonder if the dragon will eat itself or whatever the phrase is, disappear up it's own backside.

I do actually care about trans identifying kids, as I know others here really do, despite being called transphobes for not swallowing hook line and sinker every bit of crap put out by trans activists.

I really feel the tide is turning.

Liberal democrats won't be getting my vote any time soon!

someone said

I wonder how that petition is doing?

Well Italian I think if someone tweeted this thread people would be shocked at the shit being spewed by the LibDems

Urgh this is so crap. That Twitter thing you linked to above Darth from the LGBT Lib Dem’s. It’s like an outdated parody of student politics, hardly a liberal or democratic nor the professional approach to you'd expect around policy debate from a political party representative.

There seems to be s fundamental leadership-level problem in the political parties on this issue- a mix of low quality thinking + dismissive misogynistic attitudes to women + dismissive attitudes to lesbian and gay people + sometimes being well meaning but very simplistic and naive.

Why on earth otherwise would a political party devolve policy making on gender self identification to one subcommittee on LGBT, (if that is the case)?

Everyone needs to be very clear that being anti self ID is not an issue of discrimination against sexual orientation or sexuality - (notwithstanding that self ID also legitimises the autogynephile fetish which some men have entered under the T banner with, and which is part of their aggressive demands for access for all men into women’s intimate spaces via an instantaneous, declaratory self Identification that they ARE a woman which need only be, under self ID, for the purposes of gaining access to those women’ spaces.).

Politicians must understand that Self ID as a policy affects everyone, both sexes, children and adults. Their voters will be affected.

Self ID has massive legal human rights and taxpayer-funded public service provision implications and as such it should be a central key issue of any political party’s debate before any policy is formed.

Have the political parties actually all had that open and democratic, informed and inclusive debate before they have adopted a supportive stance on gender self ID?

I feel this our last chance to make as much noise as possible and raise these issues publicly for everyone but especially parliamentarians before it’s too late. If Scotland brings self ID in that is bad enough but might also amount to it being too late for the whole rest of the UK by setting a precedent.

They don't make policy on behalf of the Lib Dems, that is done only at conference.

I think they are overreaching themselves, personally, but the leadership seems to be encouraging them rather than putting them back in the box named 'SAO', which is an internal party organisation. They are supposed to represent the interests of a particular group (in this case LGBT) to the party as a whole - they are not spokespeople for the party, but they do tend to act like it.

Informed debate? No, as far as I can see Self ID onto AWS was slipped into the motion on AWS voted in at Party Conference a couple of years ago.

I was there and I voted for it. At that point, Self ID was not on my radar and I hadn't thought about it at all. So, I didn't even notice it. I was so happy about AWS to be honest..I had been arguing it for years.

I bitterly regret not having caught on to the implications of Self ID, seeing it and putting in a motion amendment. It would have failed, I would have become a pariah and I have to say, I would have had to have been very brave to do so (probably more brave than I actually am). but there you go.

I don't think there was any debate about Self ID, just on the substantive topic of AWS. 2 years ago, few were thinking about it.

I didn't peaktrans until just after the Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie thing. Up until that I was, yeah, Transwomen are women and then I thought, no, they are Transwomen with a set of valid but different, experiences and oppressions. Then I realised that when you said this they all behaved exactly like a bunch of entitled men it was totally confirmed to me! Nobody with women's socialisation would behave like that - gender non-confirming? I don't think so!

LibDemWoman Do you think there is a chance of debate to revise the policy at the next party conference?
Lib Dem members won’t all agree that TW=W and may want to have party policies that protect girls and women (and ringfence opportunities for them) as well as wanting to protect everyone’s freedom of presenting however they want?

Particularly if the debate about what self ID is and how it affects us all has never been had by the Lib Dem Conference (only discussed in context of AWS) then the next conference could debate the legal implications of self ID, and talk about the very tangible everyday things that will change by self ID: the end of single sex toilets in workplaces, schools and in public, changing rooms in sports facilities and shops, single sex education and sex-based provision of charitable work and public services etc etc. Which all amounts to compounding women’s disadvantage and compromising their safety.

Members might reasonably wonder why their political party WOULDNT want to have a debate openly before creating party policies which work on the basis of self ID, given the massive implications of the precedent that the LD’s AWS decision is setting (...because that decision only works on the basis of self ID).

No, I think there's no chance.

The FPC (Federal Policy Committee) does have LD TAs on it but they're not in charge but I know that it's not on the books to do any big policy papers that might touch on Self ID.

So, that would mean a policy motion at Conference. However, there are a lot of LD LGBT leading lights on the FCC (Federal Conference Committee) and the Vice Chair is, I believe, a transwomen. So, there's zero chance of an anti-Self ID motion going ahead.

It's one of the reasons why I've left. I have no real issue with who is on the FCC or FPC, after all they were elected to them by members. Trans people need to be represented- however, these are also people who are refusing to debate, throwing people off face group books for raising it and calling any one that doesn't sign up to self ID a TERF.

The best that can be hoped for is that it is all kicked into the king grass. But with the leadership backing them, I don't even see that happening.

If anyone knows anyone who's meeting Paddick, could they please put me in touch. If they pm me the Twitter handle I can dm them.