Lord Paddick resigns the LGBT LD executive

[RedToothBrush]

LGBT+LD @ lgbtlb
Public statement by the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats executive regarding the resignation of our honorary president, Lord Paddick:
1/4
The LGBT+ Liberal Democrats executive has reluctantly accepted the resignation of Lord Paddick as our honorary president.
2/4
Lord Paddick previously tended his resignation, which we declined when he made certain undertakings about his meeting with a group set up to oppose transgender equality legislation.
3/4
We regret that those undertakings have not been honoured. Subsequently Lord Paddick tended his resignation again, which has been accepted.
4/4

Lord Paddick has form for resigning

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brian-lord-paddick-quits-over-tim-farron-gay-sex-comments-lib-dem-liberal-democrat-general-election-a7789816.html%3famp
Lord Paddick quits as Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokespeson following furore over leader Tim Farron's views on gay sex
The former Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate said the decision had been made 'weeks ago.'

He quit as LD home affairs spokesperson as he was uncomfortable with Tim Farron's views on gay marriage. The resignation prompted Farron's ultimately. He is an important and influential figure in the party.

I'm not quite sure what's going on here or why. It sounds like the LGBT LD didn't want him to resign. It sounds like its connected to trans issues and Paddick's position. The timing is interesting.

I don't want to read too much into this. But its suggesting a split in opinion and approach. (I don't believe this shows that Paddick is pro-women's rights. I suspect he is more pro-due process, at least at this stage). And that its damaging to the executive as a whole.

When is the meeting with Paddick scheduled for? It could be very interesting now. Looks like Paddick really is sticking his neck out.

DO NOT BITE

But, but, but...gynaecological problems????!!!

I think it just needs to be seen and parked there. Let people ask for themselves 'what is the purpose?'

"Trans woman" can mean anything though.

I don't think it even "just" means any man who self-identifies as a woman or any man who has gender reassignment surgery. It can now also mean a biological woman who identifies as transgender. Like Jack Monroe who identifies as non-binary and therefore transgender.

That's the problem with these things. If trans can mean anything and woman can mean anything then how can you have any meaning at all?

Red do you mean 'no comments at all'? Because I see men in their answer & want to know how many of these people they talk of are transmen. Who are men as we all know.

I get doctors ignoring gynaecological problems.

Eh?

Gynaecology: the branch of physiology and medicine which deals with the functions and diseases specific to women and girls, especially those affecting the reproductive system.

Is there such a thing as trans gynaecology? Genuinely?

This is the top answer from Quora on “Do trans people need a gynaecologist?”:

Yes, absolutely. For much if the same reasons natal women do. We don't need reproductive services or other care related to having a uterus, ovaries or pregnancy. We do need exams, as well as diagnostic services and medication for infection and sometimes other interventions.

I’m a bit baffled, honestly.

I think Brian Paddick is a good man, though, ever since his London Met days, and voted for him as London Mayor.

Upthread someone mentioned that 8 women have been convicted of rape this year - are you saying these were actually transwomen?

Given that rape in the UK requires penetration with a penis how could they not be, Mary ?

I mean keep the emotion out of it completely if you must comment.

I think getting people to do EXACTLY what the LGBT LDs say and answer the question:

What’s the purpose? Work out what you’re trying to do and the language you need should follow.

Is a useful exercise and far more preferable. I don't think you need to do or comment further or to lead people a particular way.

Just get them to think about this entire conversation is sufficient. Let them think critically themselves.

The LGBT LDs started the conversation saying they thought it would led to hateful messages. What they were really doing was putting down an open invitation to people to comment to 'prove' themselves right one way or another.

Hence, don't bite.

That's why I don't think you need to comment. Just think.

Btw if anyone is in the LD policy facebook group, there's something that almost looks like a debate happening now, on self id and AWS.

I won't hold my breath but...

Women's clinics are very poorly funded. Post natal care is a poor relation. Hence MNs campaign on the matter.

Where is extra money coming from for transwomens health, which poses a set of very different needs because of biological difference?

Is anyone losing out? Is anyone gaining? Politically these are important questions which have nothing to do with whether you are pro or anti trans.

I didn’t realise that, I thought it was only in Scotland. Thanks for clarifying!

@RedToothBrush

Absolutely agree... the LibDem LGBT twitter account have already commented that they are speaking up knowing they will get a barrage of hatred....

I looked at the thread given the latest updates.

Golly - I said a hot mess in an earlier post but it's starting to look like a parody account.

The talk about the yeast infection/bacterial vaginosis is..erm...enlightening. AFAIK thrush isn't especially fussed as to sex, it just likes somewhere moist and warm and you don't need to see a gynae - or even a doctor - for thrush but knock yourself out pretending this is laydee stuff.

You dont go to a gynaecologist for thrush, you go to the sexual health clinic surely?

For difficult to treat cases I mean, otherwise just self treat as certain says.

Bacterial vaginosis is not thrush, but a bacterial infection, so needs antibiotics, which you can't get OTC, but actually need a prescription for.

Given that rape in the UK requires penetration with a penis how could they not be?
A woman can be convicted of rape if she assists a man in committing a rape.

A woman can be convicted of rape if she assists a man in committing a rape.

I understood this was not the case in England & Wales but that Scottish law was slightly different.

I saw some decent responses from Brian today, he acknowledged that what happened in Bristol was unacceptable but is still clearly trying not to engage with either side.

Rape as joint enterprise seems quite rare though. Surely there will be news reports with photos somewhere?

It's not bacterial vaginosis though. It's thrush I wish I didn't know that but I do...

Don't see how it could be anyway tbh for reasons which might be a bit tautological to go into.

I do recall seeing a news item within the last year or so about a woman convicted of rape by joint enterprise.

Eight in one year though?

There was one woman recently convicted of rape as a joint enterprise, but yes it's very rare.

English & Welsh rape law talks about 'his penis', but there is also a clause in the GRA stating transsexual people can still be prosecuted for gendered crime.

Scottish law is different in that it refers to 'Person A's penis', where a penis can be also surgically created.