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.

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

Facts what you actually mean is : We don’t support women’s rights because we are liberals who only give a shit about men. We believe all humans are equal but men are more equal than women.

Nope won’t be voting for you.

Sarah Brown was a shorthand, given the cramped way we have to write to avoid deletion for the Facts That Cannot Be Spoken.

A Sarah Brown policy is the sort of policy that ignores girls' unsurprising level of discomfort, fear or stress in mixed-sex facilities on the grounds that it will be nicer for male people who want to use them.

Going on in a school near you, right now.

There's something deeply creepy about open contempt paired with a smiley.

@facts
Just to say, I have gender critical views, I have contacted the membership team and been told I am still welcome as a member. I am glad to see there is room for different viewpoints within a party that prioritises free speech, let's not forget Tim Farron's own personal beliefs were contrary to party policy, that didn't stop him being leader.

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'.

Exactly, very well put.

Oh buggeration, bold fail.

OldCrone there is an inevitable balance here, and we try and come down in the middle as much as possible. We want quicker no fault divorce so that people, regardless of if they are the partner of a trans person or anyone else, can get divorced if they wish. The process from a trans person coming out to their partner, starting to transition and getting legal recognition is not an immediate one, they aren't going to come out on the Monday and get a GRC on the Wednesday. If the partner doesn't wish to stay married they can initiate divorce proceedings whenever they want.

The fact is they are already in a same sex marriage, even if it isnt legally such. Their position that they don't want to be in a SSM doesn't mean they should be able to block legal recognition, especially when they have literally any opportunity they want to end the marriage.

In addition, when we passed this policy, there was a trans person who still hadn't got legal recognition because they and their partner (of whom they had been married a long time before transition, and who is entirely supportive now) didn't think it was right that the partner had to give consent.

Helen Belcher's wife doesn't speak for all women in this situation. Read the trans widows threads for a different perspective.

And if Belcher could wait for years to get a GRC, why can't others in that situation wait for their wives to leave the marriage before getting the GRC?

The process from a trans person coming out to their partner, starting to transition and getting legal recognition is not an immediate one, they aren't going to come out on the Monday and get a GRC on the Wednesday.

Under the self-ID proposals, someone could do just that. Which is why the current requirements under the GRA should not be changed.

@Factsdontcare

The current system does not prevent people from using an interim certificate, which will assist them with transitioning for almost all purposes.

If you really wanted to produce a policy that prevented spouses from delaying the issue of a marriage certificate unreasonably but nonetheless acknowledged that their marriage has changed too, you could propose introducing a default into the equation -i.e. partner required to consent to their marriage being transformed into single sex one, if no positive consent to live within new marriage within [say, 6/9 months - meaningful enough period to get counselling and decide on status of marriage], then marriage dissolved automatically and gender certificate is issued.

But LD policy is to force spouses into these marriages with no ability to object.

The fact is they are already in a same sex marriage between two people of opposite sex, genetically, historically, biologically and also legally?

Have you changed the meaning of the word 'fact'?

And again, why the rush? Why should the non-transitioning partner be told never mind, you can initiate divorce; whereas the transitioning partner mustn't wait?

If the partner doesn't wish to stay married they can initiate divorce proceedings whenever they want.

And it's reasonable for the divorce to be completed before the transitioning person obtains a GRC so as not to change the fundamental nature of the marriage.

Just to say, I have gender critical views, I have contacted the membership team and been told I am still welcome as a member. I am glad to see there is room for different viewpoints within a party that prioritises free speech, let's not forget Tim Farron's own personal beliefs were contrary to party policy, that didn't stop him being leader.

I mean I was being glib, and ultimately on that one issue someone who is GC will struggle with party policy. But as long as you don't act in a way that breaks the parties rules, as certain prominent GC Libdems (the only one) did, then you will be able to be a member. I'm not going to say you should be kicked out for just a view, much like I don't think Tim should be kicked out as a member.

I've been saying for years that "GC" people should put forward a motion to Libdem conference to show they would be "listened to", and I would take great joy in speaking against and destroying it on the conference floor

And @Factsdontcare

LD policy on the veto is not in any way contingent on no fault divorce being in place. If it was, the policy would be slightly less objectionable (though I would still have concerns for those who may not get divorced on religious grounds)

Fact is that rights of natal females (generally) to consent to being in a legally recognised same sex marriage against their will that they would have to spend large amounts of money to get out of even if they could square it with their own religious beliefs are just not important to the LDs

Lovely!

And if Belcher could wait for years to get a GRC, why can't others in that situation wait for their wives to leave the marriage before getting the GRC?

Belcher still hasn't got a GRC because she and her wife refuse to accept the process of the spousal veto and the idea that her wife has to consent. They both spoke at our most recent conference on this and they were both brave and amazing. The point is we fundamentally dissagee with the concept.

@Factsdontcare, out of interest has the Lib Dems come up with a definition of "man" and"women" and how to tell the difference between the two? I would really like to identify out of periods, the pay gap and sex-based violence.

If all the ladies became laddies, the world would be a much fairer place, no?

Helen Belcher's wife doesn't speak for all women in this situation

Wow I can't believe that GC activists won't listen to women. Disgraceful.

Got to say this thread will be doing wonders for any undecided voters but perhaps not in the way facts would like!

The fact is they are already in a same sex marriage, even if it isnt legally such. Their position that they don't want to be in a SSM doesn't mean they should be able to block legal recognition, especially when they have literally any opportunity they want to end the marriage.

They are not in a same sex marriage in any way before the granting of a GRC. People cannot change sex, and the legal fiction that someone has changed sex only comes about at the point when that person obtains a GRC.

And please think about how anti-woman you are sounding. The vast majority of people who transition after marriage are men married to women. Many of them have children. I watched the video of Helen and Helen's wife (I realise now I don't even know her name) on Helen's website. They said that their children were very young (I think they said about 3 and 6) when Helen decided to transition. Do you really think a woman in that situation has 'literally any opportunity they want to end the marriage'?

You're sounding very callous about the reality of many women's lives.

Is there any political party that isn’t fucking women over on the most basic of levels?

Let's put it in a way the LDs will care about-men.
Two men are married. We'll call them Tim and Bob. They've been married for years but one day Bob decides that he is actually a woman and wants to obtain a GRC. Bob wants to remain married and considers himself a heterosexual woman. Tim does not want to stay married. Bob obtains a GRC quickly via self-ID. Tim is now, legally (according to the LDs) a heterosexual man married to a woman and in fact always has been. Tim loses his job a few weeks later-he suspects homophobia is the reason. Tim's boss shrugs and says "nope-you're married to a woman now aren't you?"

All OK according to the LDs?

Under the self-ID proposals, someone could do just that.

Reforming the GRA towards self id does not mean recognition overnight. There is still processing, and we all know how slow government bureaucracy can be. It's about removing the mandated delays, cost, medical recognition. It's about shortening the time, not making it instant.

@Thetoddleratemyhomework sure they would be two different pieces of legislation, but they would both be passed by a Libdem government/pushed by Libdem MPs.

@facts what do you think about the rise in children transitioning? Many of us are worried about the speed at which this seems to be happening and the inreversible nature of the treatment?