They are free to disagree RedToothBrush, but our policy was written with the influence of our own trans members, and passed by the membership at our conference. Its a democratic process, and the existence of some trans people who disagree with that policy isn't really relevant? Why should their view trump the view of our trans members (who are larger in number) and of the democratic decision of conference?
If you want to get into a debate on the concept of 'democracy', I'm quite happy to oblige.
For one, its not just a vote that counts, but also the circumstance and fairness of a vote that affects whether something can legitimatly be called 'democratic'.
The problem with a lot of party politics across the board is about accessibility of it to all groups. We have something of an issue, where party politics for a number of reasons, are closed to certain groups to get their point across. How can poor single women with young kids get to Brighton to go to the conference for example? Are they particularly under represented in local politics? Does this matter? (Clue: yes it does).
Trans people who knew about the vote were always going to be more motivated to take part in a vote on the subject. There are lots of people who aren't fully aware of the subject as its simply not on their radar. My local LD counsellor didn't believe me when I raised it with him. Democracy relies on people being well informed and consulted on big subjects, rather than putting something off the radar. (He's horrified by the totalitarianism of it btw)
And then there is the culture around political debate and freedom to express an opinion. There were lots of women who have been too intimidated to speak about this publically on twitter in their own name out of fear of being 'outed' and losing their job. Never mind to go to conference and vote on the subject. There have been examples where women have been chucked out (under the guise of a 'democratic vote' which more closely resembles a witch trial) of roles within the party for asking questions that others don't want to discuss.
You know, liberal democracy is about more than a gerrymandered vote in a climate of intimidation which excludes certain groups simply by virtue of their wealth don't you?
Because as a liberal democrat, you are shit hot on how to be inclusive and understanding obstacles to debate. And you understand that democracy is an ongoing process in which a vote is not necessarily the final point in the conversation. You know like the LDs entire Brexit policy follows. You don't get to pick and choose when a vote is democracy 'the end' and when a vote is part of an ongoing conversation of democracy. It would be rather hypocritical if you did take that line, now wouldn't it?
Its funny really. This stuff should be the underpinning principles and concerns of a party that calls itself the liberal democrats. Unfortunately its been highjacked by a bunch of people who care more about a fixed liberal identity where you all have to agree with a policy or 'fuck off'. The paradoxical identity crisis of the party could not demonstrate itself louder.
Care to comment further?
I also note that you still haven't responded as to what trans people who disagree with the policy should do, because they have 'the wrong views' about their own rights and what policy the party has.
Should they 'fuck off' too?