Lib Dems actively deterring GC women

[DontBuyANewMumCashmere]

Today I emailed the Lib Dems expressing an interest in joining their party.

I stated no one should receive discrimination or abuse for their transgender status but explained that I am GC and I asked if there was room for GC women in the party.

I received the following response:
Thank you for getting in touch. Whilst we appreciate your interest in joining, you should be aware that the Liberal Democrats are a trans inclusive party, and we have made it clear that we fully behind trans communities. As liberals we champion everyone’s right to live the life they want. By the sounds of your email it appears that your values are not aligned with ours so we are probably not the right the party for you.

I am flabbergasted. I didn't expect that I would have to believe that humans can change biological sex in order to be a member of the Lib Dems.

I am so disappointed. I was going to vote for them in the GE (passionate Remainer) but I cannot if this is their response.

There is no one to vote for. I am lost.

Yes, it's a low priority to me. I think someone who managed to keep their 'gender' hidden long enough for the legal process of marriage can wait for the legal process of gender recognition. Why not?

As someone who is homosexual myself, I could never proscribe to an argument, position or policy that comes down to "stay in the closet because who you are is inconvenient for those around you". I'm sure it's terrible to be in a marriage that you no longer want to be in, but that doesn't give you a right to block someone from living as they wish just so you can continue to live the lie.

vote UKIP instead

Did you mean to make yourself sound such an utter twat?

Seriously, that's so comically revealing. 1/10, must try harder to hide loathing and contempt for women who disagree with you.

TheProdigalKittensReturn ukip are the only party who oppose GRA reform in great Britain, the Tories have started to backtrack a little but the progress they have made so far is ok given its the Tories, a knowing a lot of Tories the party still supports it when it comes down to it.

Are you literally unable to conceive of the existence of people whose priorities are different to yours? This is like reading the Brexit threads.

Yeh, let's accept the word of a LD activist on the Tory party stance.

As a Tory member. I'm calling bullshit on that one.

@Factsdontcare can you pass on the message that I, and all my friends aged 25-35 from the Midlands to the North will never ever ever ever ever vote Lib Dem and your name is mud.
Cheers.

Are you assuming, by any chance, that anyone who isn't a trans rights cheerleader (including one of the founders of Stonewall) is homophobic? Wouldn't be the first time.

www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,cofounder-of-stonewall-calls-for-calm_14648.htm

TheProdigalKittensReturn sure, but I'm here to put forward what the actual Libdem policy is rather than "the Libdems want to force people back into failed marriages with bullies". You are free to have your own prioritise and views and vote however you want

Gangrenethatmightwork there isn't a way to input canvass date that has come from Mumsnet. But as someone from the north close to that age range I know there are lots of us who clearly aren't your friends

TimeLady I mean as a Tory member you have just as much say in Tory policy as i do

Well, @Factsdontcare, thanks for convincing me that the lib Dems absolutely will not listen to women. Good job!

Not to be rude but in terms of trusting the expertise of randoms on the internet about the spousal veto stuff I'm going to defer to Tinsel, who's a bit less obviously ideologically motivated.

I'm not sure 'well meaning naivety' is a policy, precisely.

I do think that the title of this thread is accurate: the LibDems are indeed actively trying to deter anyone who disagrees that people change sex from voting for them. That's depressing, speaking as a long-term LibDem voter.

What is wrong with looking at both sides of an argument, reflecting on relative degree of harm caused, and coming up with policies that do minimal damage (or, gosh, improve matters)?

And please don't say that yours ARE the minimal damage policies, if their effects are disproportionately bad for women and girls.

YourOpinionIsNoted what exactly do you mean by not listen to women though. You mean we disagree philosophically and ideologically with certain women. Our leader is a woman, the MPs incharge of this policy area are women, the people who wrote the policy itself are women. Our policy committee (which writes the manifesto) has so many women on it there were diversity quotas to put an extra man on for balance. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we "won't listen to women".

If you disagree with our policy you are free to join the party and write a motion for our conference. But you obviously won't so that

Crikey, Facts.

there are lots of us who clearly aren't your friends is a bit of a sinister way round to put it.

If you disagree with our policy you are free to join the party

Really? Have you read the response from your party to a woman who asked if she could do that?

the people who wrote the policy itself are women

Female ones? Or Sarah Brown?

DodoPatrol our policies aren't disproportionately bad for women. And we arent in the business of compromising on freedom and fundamental principles. We support trans rights because it is the liberal thing to do, because we are liberals.

And to be clear, this thread was about our diversity team rightful pointing out to someone that they probably won't belong as a member. More than happy for you all to vote for us

She didnt ask if she could join the party, we don't do ideological tests on every member that joins. She asked about her views and comparability with the party and she got an honest answer. We are a pro trans party.

I'm sure it's terrible to be in a marriage that you no longer want to be in, but that doesn't give you a right to block someone from living as they wish just so you can continue to live the lie.

Have you yet to understand that a marriage is between two people, both of whom have human rights?

Your proposal is not respecting the human rights of heterosexual women who have found themselved married to men who have subsequently decided to identify as women. Many of these women don't want to be in a same sex marriage, because they don't identify as lesbians. Forcing such a woman to remain married at the time when her husband legally changes sex would be forcing her into a same sex marriage against her will until the divorce was finalised.

It would be much fairer to these women to allow them to divorce before their husbands obtain a legal change of sex. You want to force these women to 'live a lie'.

The Sarah brown you are talking about isn't a member anymore and hasnt been for a while now.

Facts. Listen to yourself. You are not being consistent with what you, yourself, are saying. More than welcome to join =/= probably won't belong.

Then have a listen to what women are saying here. If you are actively involved in the party, it is essential that you listen to different arguments and positions. Listening to just one view (because the party has elbowed out anyone who differs) is not liberal at all.

You will note that as an adult, I have swallowed my utter rage at your daft 'vote UKIP!' suggestion long enough to type coherently.

If you're more than happy for everyone to vote for you, then why do your party seem so dedicated to putting people off?
And now just outright emailing back to tell women not to bother... the Lib Dems would clearly shit themselves if they got into power.
As for your voters who have differing opinions from myself and my friends, that's fine. Perhaps your party should be concerned with winning new voters but as I said previously, that might actually make them win!

We support trans rights because it is the liberal thing to do, because we are liberals.

Is forcing women into a same sex marriage against their will also a liberal thing to do?