Times 'Lib Dem trans activists ‘hounded’ abuse victim (Natalie Bird)''.Article refers to Zoe O'Connell & Sarah Brown

[R0wantrees]

article by Lucy Bannerman
(extract)
"A victim of domestic abuse was removed as a judge of a radical thinking prize and “hounded” out of her role within the Liberal Democrats for saying that she did not believe that men who identified as women should have access to women’s refuges.

Natalie Bird, 38, a mother of two who fled an abusive former partner, was accused of “dangerous transphobia” by transgender activists in the party. She had said that opening up safe spaces without proper safeguards to anyone who said that they were female could put women at risk.

She opposed segregating women’s refuges by chosen gender instead of biological sex, and said that it was not fair to make female victims of domestic violence, abuse and rape share services with people with “functioning” male anatomy.

After being allegedly bullied on social media by party activists, Ms Bird was brought before a disciplinary hearing to face a complaint in the name of Zoe O’Connell, on behalf of the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats. The correspondence says that Ms Bird had “expressed troublesome views”.

The hearing found no evidence to support the complaint of transphobia, but Ms Bird lost her position as chairwoman of the Radical Association, made up of party members, following a vote of no confidence. This cost her her role as a judge of the Ashdown Prize for Radical Thought; an ironic move, Ms Bird said, given that the prize’s aim was to reward “big, bold, radical” solutions to society’s most “daunting problems . . . no one has the courage to argue for” (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dem-trans-activists-hounded-abuse-victim-b6dx39tv3

Hopefully many LibDem Members will stand in support of Natalie Bird.

O'Connell and Brown make a mockery of the LibDem priciples and their bullying abusive behaviour has been allowed to run unchecked within the party.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

Watching this thread play out is amazing (sad but amazing!).

A) There seems such a disconnect with some people like Soros from mainstream and real life.

B) Whilst I've voted for Lib Dems in the past, if, as Soros is claiming, this is the reality of the party, they're hammering the nail in the coffin of never voting for them again, ever. (Though, to be honest, that was a given already seeing as noone senior in the party seems to be concerned about that bonkers twitter account of their LGBTQ division)

C) You don't even have to be a student of language to spot the very clear markers in Soros' posts that indicate they belong to a particular biological category. (I may be wrong, 'cos it's the internet, but the signs are all there. I think there will be a lot of adult human females reading their posts and recognising that dominant, dismissive, overbearing tone and use of phrasing.

D) I feel a tiny inkling of pity for all those trapped in repeating the phrase 'transwomen are women'. It reminds me very much of when young children get so stuck in saying something, despite all reality demonstrating the opposite, that in the end they have a meltdown tantrum.

They just can't roll back from their statements.

Sometimes you just have to walk away whilst they throw themselves prostate on the floor in the middle of Sainsburys, because you're not going to be able to help them!

*Prostrate FFS. I can't believe I did that, so often I see it used accidentally instead of prostrate.

...mind you, probably relevant and applicable to many in this case, throwing themselves and their attached prostate on the floor!

pombear I just woke up my DS in the next room by laughing and snorting uncontrollably at reading this eternal truth about ‚sometimes you just have to walk away ‚cause you can‘t help the tantruming child anyway...‘

Emma Ritchie quoted on VAWG organisations in Scotland having to be inclusive as a condition of funding.
Women working in VAGW organisations in Scotland KNOW the Emperor has no clothes; they just do not dare say so, and do their best with the resources they have.

Sometimes you just have to walk away whilst they throw themselves prostate on the floor in the middle of Sainsburys, because you're not going to be able to help them!

Autocorrect is GC.

deep apologies for waking your DS!

It really is the main visual analogy that I see in this case.

It must be so difficult, once you've adopted the 'transwomen are women' mantra, despite many, increasing stable, rational adult voices challenging you to say "really? Come on, that's a really kind thing to say to men who feel like women, but really, do you really think that"?

So you have two options.

1: Acknowledge that, of course, you're being inclusive, progressive, kind, etc, but you know realistically no human being can really change their biological sex. Bit embarrassing, but an adult thing to do.

2: Stand fast with your mantra. Repeat it daily, firing it off to anyone who disagrees with you (not sure how you think that'll change opinions, but hey, it's an approach). Less embarrassing, because you're a warrior, you're a progressive, and you're fighting against 'phobes. (Despite the fact that many of those you label as 'phobes are either people who are LGB, or fought for LGB rights for years - old hat nowadays though, queer is the new black )

I still visualise them tantruming on their tummies in the middle of Sainsburys. But transwomen are women, listen to me mummy, transwomen are women

Well that went well. I went out for a couple of hours and the top blew well and truly off.

The general position of the men lining up behind this is "these are men's rights. We want to force you to consent if you agree or not."

Soros - you lot are humanphobes, humanrights phobes, consent phobes, femalephobes, realityphobes, freespeechphobes.

Turph - Iris Child captures it (if anyone hasn't, please read the entire poem): I Will Not Say It

what if I am in your space?
would you say it to my face?

what if all the legal courts
say I can be in your sports?

what if laws are made for me
stopping you from stopping me?

what if a panel all agreed
gave me the paper I said I need?

pombear you nailed it. I was pretty surprised when I realized the TWAW crowd literally has no rational argument. At all. It is really like toddlerd trying to will reality to bend to their demands, which are simply unfulfillable. (Reminds me of toddler-age DS demanding that I force people on the beach to install this gigantic inflated island/slide thing in the sea that they have in summer, but not in autumn. Now that was a tantrum.)

Sal, Vince and the rest of the party stands with trans rights and against the ignorant values of Natalie and other transphobes who deny the reality that Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men and Non-Binary people are legitimate and real

I am 100% certain that Vince knows that transwomen are not women. Fuck knows why he’s not sorting this all out but you are deluding yourself if you think the grown ups really believe that

I'm a former Lib Dem member and voter without anyone to vote for.

Still, this thread is giving me some fascinating stuff for me to raise with my Lib Dem MP; I'm looking forward to putting them on the spot

you nailed it. I was pretty surprised when I realized the TWAW crowd literally has no rational argument. At all.

This really can't be emphasised enough.

Echo echo can you hear the sound of the echo of your own voice.

We you only want to hear the echo of your own voice you have really lost your way.

How can you represent anyone but yourself?

Echo echo can you hear it

Hi Soros, I notice you have used the phrase "trans rights" many times in your various posts. If you're still around would you mind if I asked you which rights you feel trans people don't already have?

Bearing in mind that "gender reassignment" is already a protected characteristic under the Equality Act?

I don't believe trans women are women or trans men are men, but I do believe that both have the right to express themselves however they wish without fear of discrimination or prejudice. I think non-binary is a load of old bollocks (as a woman who doesn't own a dress, wears less make-up than her husband when going out, works in a male-dominated industry in a field requiring a strong grasp of maths and engineering and ride a motorbike that I repair and service myself I reckon I'm fairly well-placed to comment!) but if it makes people happy to call themselves that then fill your boots.

So which rights exactly is it you're fighting for?

Q1) Humans are (pick one):

i) A product of our DNA
ii) A product of our upbringing / society
iii) A product of both, in some combination yet to be determined
iv) Whatever we say we are

Now, the scientific community has pretty much concluded that the answer is iii). But in these days of "we've had enough of experts", why not ignore science and go for iv) because it feels better?

I know that life can be horrendously awful and adolescence is truly a shit time. People who are trans, and people who are so miserable they conclude that they must be trans, are in great pain and it seems an obvious way to fix their pain is to help them transition. But the philosophical beliefs held by a small group of trans advocates and allies, aimed at shoring up a political position based around a disorder we do not understand, should not be allowed to define how we view ourselves as a species. We cannot unwrite the past, and we cannot (yet) alter our DNA. These things are important, because they are who we are, and they form the basis of our understanding of what it means to be human. The future is not pre-destined, but the story of how each one of us became the person we are is set in stone. An individual can't ignore their own story just because they don't like it, because they are a product of that story.

To say that "trans women are women" in a literal sense (as opposed to saying "we should treat trans women as women", which is a different argument) is a denial of reality in exactly the same way that climate change denial or creationism are a denial of reality. This debate is not just about how we help trans people, and it's not even just about protecting women (though both are obviously very important). This is about how we understand the world around us, and what happens to us, as a people, when those in power start tolerating a false existential narrative just so that they can be "on the right side of history".

The old disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed and not fit for process, and at our last conference we passed a motion to set up a new disciplinary process that will be more effective at dealing with issues like transphobia

The old disciplinary system was flawed because the gatekeeping was done by the people who were the problem.

If they are switching to a system where they can 'deal with the problem of transphobia better' they haven't necessarily solved the problem.

If the people concerned who are a large part of the problem happen to be trans, this can be used as a shield.

Throwing out members for 'transphobia' without a definition of transphobia is suspect.

If people part of the initial problem, you can't have an open debate on the definition of transphobia. So they in effect gatekeeper the definition of transphobia.

This then means that if you have a problem with an individual who happens to be trans, all they have to do is shout transphobia and they are instantly protected anyway.

Worst still they have more power and from the way the above is phrased it almost looks as this has been set up to get rid of any whistleblowers who complain about bullying, intimidation etc by people who just happen to be trans.

It's called gaming the system.

But hey we improved the disciplinary system after people pointed out it wasn't fit for purpose.

I'd like to thank all the contributors on this thread, as it's provided a fascinating insight and considerable background detail of which I was previously unaware.

Maintain “radical kindness”- create spaces for genuine discussion with no name calling.

Again this comes down to gatekeeping and what is regarded as name calling and acceptable standards of behaviour.

People have different thresholds.

Who has the power to decide this, is important. If you have a threat of an impossible definition of transphobia hanging over you it's bollocks anyway.

As my wise old lecturer challenged his students: "You all are so keen on censorship to make the world better, but who are the censors? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not? It's an enormous power."

And censorship can be used against you to restrict debate in a fashion which can unbalance power.

These are important issues to understand the full nature and dynamics of.

Censorship is the tool of the authoritian not the liberal.

And what happens away from these 'space spaces' also matters. It's no good being given a space you can discuss things, if you've then got people saying what you said was unacceptable on twitter for example. Or ringing up your employer or even calling the police on you.

There's few restrictions on what you can say in political advertising. Its not covered by the ASA. It came about after long discussions over freedom of speech and political advertising in Parliament. At times is deeply frustrating. The Leave.Eu poster of the queue of refugees which looks like nazi propaganda is the most obvious example.

BUT the argument is that, the press and society should simply hold people to account of it, by other means. We are seeing how this works, ironically playing out against the Woman posters.

This however is being countered by what's going on in social media and the press over coverage if their removal. So it's generating debate about consensus and standards in its own way. Central censorship via law alone wouldn't facilitate this.

What is very clear to me is that conversations and understanding of the concept of liberalism and democracy within the Liberal Democrats are non existant and fundamentally absent.

Instead it's been replaced with this concept of a conforming singular 'liberal identity' from which individuals in the party can not stray in thought or in words. Which is authoritian in nature.

The Lib Dems have long had a problem with an image of being rather stale, white middle class and large male. The efforts of trying to shatter this and make the party more diverse can not centre around a very narrow concept of liberal identity. This has the effect of only drawing people from certain backgrounds. And this restricts diversity of opinion.

The Lib Dems have got themselves into a frenzied vicious circle of trying to make themselves more diverse by methods which unwittingly make themselves less inclusive.

The party's identity crisis is astonishing to watch. It comes back time and again to who holds the real power in the excutituve branches of party.

The party can not represent others who do not conform to its mirror in its present state. It can only represent a privileged middle class, mainly male, world view.

Failure to understand what underpins liberal democracy is eating the party alive.

Do remind me, what is the purpose of the Liberal Democrats if its not to be liberal and democratic?

They are a joke. Always have been.

Both I and my partner left when they let Challenor in.

what is the purpose of the Liberal Democrats if its not to be liberal and democratic

You can now work out what all the main parties stand for by assuming that they are the diametrical opposite of their names:

Conservatives: breaking up the UK, destroying the economy
Labour: party of the privately educated middle class who know what's best for the proles
Liberal Democrat: compared with the Russian Liberal Democrat Party both liberal and democratic; compared with anyone else, not so much
Greens: Big fans of adult size disposable nappies

@fatherbuzzcagney

That’s hilarious, totally spot on, do you mind if I steal that?

Please do!

Very funny.

After seeing the hulking great Challenor walking next to a normal woman sized reporter on BBC politics on Thursday, they must be some man sized nappies, that's for sure.

I do think the camera operator must have deliberately pulled back out to a wide shot to show how enormous the baby Challenor is.