Response from my LD candidate

[BedsorestoaSloth]

OK - namechanged again since I'd be identifiable from this and chasing the candidate down on Twitter for an email.

Response from my Lib Dem candidate - quite some distance as a 3rd candidate in my constituency but very strongly Remain area so I guess probably hoping for greater things....

I raised contact sports, residentials for teenagers and domestic violence refuges (weeks ago, before Swinson & Jardine but referencing Berger and Moran).

You may have seen my other replies on similar subjects on Twitter.

If so you'll have realised I do not take a hardline view on this subject, and want to hear from people who have practical questions like yours which need resolving.

I respect the rights of people who want to be recognised in a non-binary gender identity. Many of these people are vulnerable, have experienced high levels of discrimination, violence, mental health problems and suicide. We need to do more to make life easier for them.

I can see that this recognition can cause concerns for some women and girls, including in the kinds of examples you give. And clearly all women and girls have the right not to experience violence, from any quarter. But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population.

I would hope that both the law, and institutions like schools, hospitals, councils, prisons and refuges, can find a way to reconcile these rights as far as possible through consultation, dialogue and practical compromise. The law already provides significant protection to girls and women who are attacked, whatever the identity of the attacker. But institutions who make the kinds of decisions you refer to need to take account of the rights of both parties. I'm not saying that is always easy. But I would hope sensible people who can see both sides can find workable solutions.

So basically let's all presume unicorns for a hypothetical we hope won't arise despite evidence it already has. I'm raging. The possibility of harm for people suffering gender dysphoria is paramount. The reality of detriment - up to and including abuse, violence and death - for women already happening is ignored. And if violence happens in future, well there's legislation to deal with it after the event so that's OK then.

I'm not bloody voting for him.

That answer is bollocks!

There's only a few hundred votes between Lib Dem and cons where I live, so got the quickest response ever today when I followed up their first useless response with my decision not to vote for them today .... what do we think of this latest response?

Dear Xx

Thank you for your email of 26th November.

I believe there has been a misunderstanding in our communications, and I am sorry that this happened.

Our manifesto (and of course Sarah) is squarely against abuse in any form, and the prison case you describe is one where abuse has occurred and is not in any way something that could be supported by her as a result of policy reform.

I believe the miscommunication happened because your original note mentioned self-identification, and that my answer to you was based upon what we have committed to as a party, rather than a discussion of things that we have not committed to. The Liberal Democrat manifesto does not mention self-identification at all, and so it cannot in any way be construed that we are committed to supporting self-identification. The manifesto is clear that we intend to complete the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, specifically by removing the requirement for a medical report, the need to pay a fee, and that it will recognise the non-binary gender identities.

You have of course raised an important point for policy-makers to be aware of, which is that any policy can have unintended consequences if not properly thought through and appropriately consulted before implementation. Our commitment to Reform of the Gender Recognition Act will be carried through with consultation and understanding of the safeguards needed - as any legislation and reform must be. This will include full consideration of the consultation that was carried out earlier this year, which specifically recognised that people had concerns about how the Gender Recognition Act would interact with the Equalities Act 2010. One possible consequence of this approach is that the measures we have committed to introducing under reform of the Gender Recognition Act do not necessarily mean that self-identification will be introduced. For example, the results of the consultation and any further scrutiny of the legislation may suggest that it should not. Further, our commitment to reforming the Gender Recognition Act does not rule out protection of single-sex spaces where this is deemed to be a proportionate means to meeting a legitimate aim. This would apply, for example, as a means of mitigating risks in the prison incident you highlighted. Risks would need to be considered both for risks to women as you mentioned, and to transwomen in mens jails.

I do hope this has clarified Sarah's position for you.

with kind regards,

Hi XX

It appears that Ms Olney is OK with allowing any man to self- ID as a female, regardless of whether they are trans or just aiming to gain access to female spaces. See Karen White – a rapist who was moved to a female prison as she self-IDd as a woman despite still having all male anatomy, and who then went on to sexually abuse women inmates, as an example of what is already happening. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/karen-white-transgender-prisoner-jailed-life-sexual-assault-rape-a8579146.html

Shame on the Lib Dems for selling women and young adults down the river. I cannot vote for a party which is unable to see the danger to women and young adults in self-ID.

Regards

Dear Xx

thank you for your email of 14th November regarding women's rights and gender self identification. This is a really important area and one that has been addressed squarely in our manifesto. The key points that we are committed to support on gender rights are based on the premise that we believe should be able to go about their lives without fear of discrimination. We believe that government needs to take an active role both in punishing discrimination and ensuring that it does not happen in the first place. We will:
• Complete reform of the Gender Recognition Act to remove the requirement for medical reports, scrap the fee and recognise non-binary gender identities.
• Introduce an ‘X’ gender option on passports and extend equality law to cover gender identity and expression.
• Ensure accurate population data on sexual orientation and gender identity by including a question on LGBT+ status within the 2021 Census
• End period poverty by removing VAT on sanitary products and providing them for free in schools, hospitals, hostels, shelters, libraries, leisure centres, stadiums, GP surgeries, food banks, colleges and universities.
• Scrap the so-called ‘Pink Tax’, ending the gender price gap.
• Require schools to introduce gender-neutral uniform policies and break down outdated perceptions of gender appropriateness of certain subjects.
• Outlaw caste discrimination.
If I have the honour to become elected I will be supporting the development and implementation of these policies.

Our full election manifesto containing these and all our other policies can be read at the link below.

Jo’s Plan for the Future
Read Jo Swinson's Plan for Britain's Future - Stop Brexit Build a Brighter Future - Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2019
www.libdems.org.uk

with kind regards,

Xx

Hello Sarah

In determining which way I will vote at this upcoming election I am trying to understand how each candidate would vote w.r.t. women’s rights and gender self ID.

Would you vote to uphold women’s sex-based rights as outlined in the Equality Act and , if necessary, strengthen them?

Or would you allow anyone self-identifying as a woman to claim these rights regardless of their actual sex?

If you could confirm before polling day,

Thanks

It's interesting that both of those responses (while no use to women) resile from the 'self ID or die, TERFs can f**k off' style replies which have come from the Lib Dems to other enquiries.

I wonder whether this is just two candidates who are less keen on the manifesto commitment, or whether they are squirming because they've found its costing votes.

BedsorestoaSloth

The law already provides significant protection to girls and women who are attacked, whatever the identity of the attacker.

What sort of response is that? Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I'm pretty sure it's because it's costing votes in a marginal ....

Look, you can ask the CPS to prosecute if anyone attacks you. What more do you want? Preventative measures? Privacy and dignity? Being able to meet in a female only environment if you choose? Tsk.

@donquixotedelamancha mine has already had his arse handed to him on Twitter by 2 other constituents so I think that's partly why he's treading carefully. But still can't manage to muster anything more than 'whoops collateral damage' about us females.

The law already provides significant protection to girls and women who are attacked, whatever the identity of the attacker.

The conviction rate for rape is lower than other crimes, and falling.
Its so low it recently made national news.
I'm disgusted that these people are happy to tell women that all we need to do is seek justice after the damage is done.

@refusetobeasheep interesting that this respondent claims that self-ID isn't mentioned in the manifesto and may not be the conclusion as a result of the consultation. They clearly have actually heard some of the concerns. But unfortunately seem unaware of what their beloved party leader and other prominent figures are merrily applauding on self-ID.

LD have lost my vote because of this issue.

But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population.

Again and again and again. It’s not transgender people who are more likely to commit crimes. It’s men.

Right I'm going to reply while he remembers writing to me. Any suggestions to improve?

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate the desire to support people struggling with gender dysphoria. However I am extremely disappointed to find that your solution is essentially that women and girls are collateral damage.

The reasonable compromises you dream of should have been found before the protections of single sex provision began to be eroded. You do not have to google hard to find instances of actual harm as a direct result of single gender provision replacing single sex – in prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence refuges etc. Continuing to talk of some idyllic compromise where everyone can just be happy is culpably naïve.

Suggesting that legal recourse exists in cases of violence is extraordinary. As a parent I do not take comfort from being able to go to the police because my daughter has become a statistic as a victim of sexual assault at school. I want to protect her from such an ordeal as far as I am able to – also the point of every safeguarding principle. I’m not suggested that teenagers suffering gender dysphoria are more likely to commit such offences. I am suggesting that offering single-gender (as opposed to single-sex) provision for accommodation, changing rooms etc offers an open invitation to males who do want to commit such offences. It simply eases their access to girls by reducing the social resistance and challenge they might otherwise face in entering female-only spaces, as people are unable to challenge boys present in case they identify as trans.

The contributions of Jo Swinson and Christine Jardine in recent days have reinforced the consistency of the Liberal Democrat position. It confirms that there is no way I will give my vote to a Liberal Democrat on December 12.

Who really cares what the rate of crime is for TG people?

Basically, women want women only spaces. Away from men. No matter how they identify.

Males beating women in sport isn't a crime.
Males breaking a women's sporting world record isn't a crime.

A male standing there in the women's change rooms/loos isn't a crime.

A male person going into a lesbian meet-up, asking for your number isn't a crime.

A male person going on a blind-date with a female lesbian isn't a crime.

We just don't want it!

That should be enough.

@Qcng I really hope we get there. And I agree with you. But the brave and stunning narrative has been so unchallenged I think there is a genuine belief amongst those with influence and decision making power that most women are fine with it. And there are women who can be trotted out to endorse that.

So 'we don't want it' is dismissed as a minority view. Puuuullll has a way to go yet.

But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population

Whenever this argument is used, I ask if they are also planning to remove DBS checks for teachers and those working in schools. After all, we should not assume that teachers, or others are more likely to abuse children....... except it has been shown that people who wish to abuse children are attracted to this profession. Similarly, males who wish to abuse females will be attracted to accessing single sex spaces.

Therefore DBS checks should be done, even though it reduces the right of privacy of teachers to protect the vulnerable - children. It is the children who matter.

Males should not be in single sex spaces, to protect the vulnerable sex - females.

This does not mean teachers are all perverts, nor that TW are all abusers. Twisting the argument to this is ridiculous.

There are instances where the rights of transwomen trump females, but this is not spaces set aside for a single sex. Each vulnerable group will have their own area that their needs trump others, it is a problem when one group think they should always come first.

"Right I'm going to reply while he remembers writing to me. Any suggestions to improve?"

I'd pick him up on this bit - "But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population."

This telegraph article "... suggests there are up to 1,500 transgender inmates among the 90,000 prisoners in England and Wales, more than ten times previous estimates, and at least four times the number in the general population."

That can only mean one of two things -

1. They ARE more likely to commit offences, or
2. Men lie about being trans

He can't admit to (1.) he's already stated the opposite. That leave (2.), and he'd have to admit that not all the men 'identifying as women' are telling the truth. They aren't the most oppressed group ever - some are, and they're being usedas human shields by the liars and predators; and what is he going to do about THAT! Prevention is the only sensible thing, safeguarding, etc.

I also seem to remember (but don't have to hand) that about 20% of the male prison population are in for sexual offences, but those claiming to be trans were at about 40%. Again - are they more liable to be sex offenders or are a load of them lying about being trans, and if they're lying why would that be?

Posted too soon.

Because one he's no doubt grudgingly accepted that some men lie, then you can lead him back to selfID and the whole 'acceptance without exception' being a barrel of horseshit. The liars will use this barndoor-sized loophole that they are planning to implement.

One possible consequence of this approach is that the measures we have committed to introducing under reform of the Gender Recognition Act do not necessarily mean that self-identification will be introduced. For example, the results of the consultation and any further scrutiny of the legislation may suggest that it should not. Further, our commitment to reforming the Gender Recognition Act does not rule out protection of single-sex spaces where this is deemed to be a proportionate means to meeting a legitimate aim.

Very interesting reply Sheep.

I suspect this is because Richmond Park is such a marginal seat, but at least it shows that one candidate is listening.

"But we should not assume that transexuals or others with non-binary gender identities are more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population."

Yes, I agree that this really misses the point.

The concern is about men as a group, not trans people as a group.

I think it's also important to point out that some women need single sex spaces because they have experienced trauma. The problem is not that a particular male bodied person is objectively a risk, but that their presence is traumatic.

Hi all,
We've deleted some obviously inflammatory posts from last night and have banned the poster as per our guidelines.
Many thanks for not rising but reporting, thus allowing us to deal with the situation at face value. Your co-operation in sticking to our most ancient guidelines is very much appreciated.

People need to be aware that the Lib-Dems are never going to shift from this position. It is embedded in their philosophy and therefore in their political viewpoint.

The Liberals do not recognise women as a group in requirement of special protections. They see everyone as an individual with equal rights to every other individual ( GC women do too - but also recognise a conflict of rights in this case), and have no method for dealing with conflicts of interest. They also do not recognise existing power or privilege structures. It is just " be nice" and "shove up".

It is not that men might "lie" about being trans in order to access women only spaces, it is more that the very definition of trans now incorporates all manner of people. From middle aged heterosexual fetishists, to young bearded blokes who are trying to "expand the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman", to that very small number of 'traditional' fully re-assigned transsexuals, who have always been with and amongst us.

I was surprised to see that this LD candidate still uses the 'outdated' word 'transsexuals'. It doesn't seem as if he understands the issue.

And I agree with Justhadathought, the Lib Dems will never give an inch on this issue. It's in their DNA. There are many threads on this forum about prominent Lib Dems and how they have shamed women who happen to think that being a woman is more than an idea in someone's head. Try the one on Lynne Featherstone.

If you cannot vote for the Tories, and care about women's rights, the Lib Dems are not a good choice.

It's worth noting that the Lib Dems are also pro-prostitution and pro-pornography.

It's worth noting that the Lib Dems are also pro-prostitution and pro-pornography

Absolutely! I've voted Lib -Dem on a couple of occasions in the past - but never again. Recent conversations and experiences with liberals has really given me far deeper understanding of what Liberalism looks and feels like. It provides no radical analysis. It supports existing power structures. Can't seem to resolve or handle conflicts of interest. It does not recognise women as a 'group'.Furthermore, It attracts all sorts of people with 'niche' interests......