Conflicted about LibDems and Thursday

[crosstalk]

I was somewhat surprised to find they'd ditched a candidate because she insisted that sex rather than gender was an issue. I questioned this and got (diced down) this response from the party

"We are further concerned at the tone of a misleading campaign run across the media over the past couple of years which unfairly conflates issues. It seeks to present trans people as a threat to women but does so without evidence. We support the rights of all women to justice, dignity, and equality.

Trans rights are not in opposition to women’s rights, and trans women have used single sex facilities for decades without a problem. Behaviour in those spaces is covered by public order offences, meaning that any individual causing concern in those spaces can be removed."

Before Thursday I'd like to get back to them before casting a vote.

@MissLawls Please don't spoil your ballot on my first sentence. But I do find it difficult that the LibDems can't see a conflict between two issues.

Another long term Lib Dem voter here who won’t be voting for them this Thursday. I have an independent option so probably going for that instead.

@merrymouse No, I've had no local contacts. I did contact the national party about their position and they got back late with the response I did in my OP (but then they're a small party with fewer volunteers so can't respond as quickly). I'm just trying to decide with less than 48 hours to go. Mine is not a swing seat.

So grateful for this thread. I was having a serious LD wobble today but this has reminded me so clearly of why I can't vote for them. Which doesn't solve my problem on Thursday

Jeanhatchet i knew you would have done your research. Thank you for alerting us to this. 🙂

My LD MP replied to me when I contacted her at the time of the GRA consultation. Here's an extract from her response:
Any request to exclude transgender women from women only spaces must be justified under the Equality Act. Given the lack of incidents involving transgender women in women only spaces, there must be a strong case for changing the law
Make your own judgement.

My judgement. LibDems fuck right off with your women denying stuff

Quite. I'm not even sure if her understanding of the law is correct.
Well hopefully my vote will count on Thursday.

I have voted LibDem for years. After hearing JS on the Today programme yesterday I am even more convinced that they will never get my vote again. Tory, Labour or Brexit are my other options. I'm really sorry Suffragettes but I won't be voting on Thursday.

Well exactly Hohonoshow. It's utterly disingenuous and once again demonstrates a complete failure to understand that it is not transwomen specifically that are the concern but the removal of barriers to men entering women's spaces. In any case how do they think this data on incidents is going to be generated given that: (a) only a tiny fraction of even the most serious sexual assaults etc are ever reported to anyone; (b) many of the 'incidents' don't constitute crimes or will be crimes that the victim is unaware of (hidden cameras); and (c) the Lib Dems are encouraging a response of hostility to anyone who raises objections. Would they really think that the teenage girls in my changing room example (above) would be reporting their discomfort to anyone. The most likely outcome is that they simply stop going without telling anyone why. If they do report it then at best they're likely to be told to go somewhere else anyway and at worst they'll be labelled bigots and get a visit from PC Gul and the thought police.

There was a trans woman who assaulted a young girl in the female toilets of a supermarket, not a million miles from where this MP (and I) live, its a nonsense to say there is a lack of concerning incidents. I didn't even reply to her as there was nothing sensible to argue with.

“and trans women have used single sex facilities for decades without a problem. Behaviour in those spaces is covered by public order offences, meaning that any individual causing concern in those spaces can be removed."

This is standard narrative and completely disingenuous. The only transwomen who may be in single sex spaces are those with a GRC. Even with a GRC in some cases a transwoman may not be allowed. Only 5000 people in the UK have a GRC and of those only about 3000 are MTF. So there are very very few transwomen with a GRC and the process for getting one is rigorous. But self I’d changes this very radically. ANY man, trans or not, can get a GRC and new birth certificate. No transition is required. The previous situation is not comparable.

The only transwomen who may be in single sex spaces are those with a GRC.

Many men who identify as women use women's spaces - places like toilets and changing rooms, where they don't have to show ID.

But it's not true to say that there have been no attacks on women or girls in these spaces. Here's one (possibly the one Hohonoshow was referring to).

metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgender-woman-18-sexually-assaulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/

So to the MP who said there had been a "lack of incidents involving transgender women in women only spaces", I'd like to know how many incidents there have to be, and how many girls and women have to be harmed, before she will consider our rights as well as those of the male-born transgender people.

ANY man, trans or not, can get a GRC and new birth certificate. No transition is required.

And it won't even matter whether or not they've got them. Once you've established that it's trivial to ID as a woman and no medical consultation or formal changes are required at all (for instance there's no assumption that a 'real transwoman' will be someone trying to dress convincingly 'as a woman', and so anyone else is just taking the piss), then any man can just say 'but I'm a woman' and will have to be believed. No one will be able to challenge any man in women's single-sex spaces any more.

Women are far more at risk then, even if the previous arrangement where some transwomen used women's toilets was also open to abuse. The scenario of some random creep wandering into the ladies and hanging around, but then saying "but I'm a woman" when challenged, hadn't even been dreamed of before, but the idea that no predatory men will take advantage of this change in social rules forced by changes in actual law (without even needing to do the self-id bit) is a delusion.

I would still have to vote Lib Dem tactically on Thursday if I could, but I won't in any other context. I find their take on this completely mystifying.

This is how bad things are right now. A whole page on why we can't vote LibDem and no one has mentioned the so called ''spousal veto'' yet, which effectively changes the marriage contract and prevents women from divorcing partners who transition.

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

I suspect getting taken to task on this by the likes of Radio 4 and Holly Willoughby has come as a complete shock. Let's face it, virtually no-one in the broadcast media was prepared to ask these questions even a few short months ago.

I think the LDs were so convinced that they were simply going to hoover up millions of outraged Remain voters in this Brexit election, that they could sneak the self ID issue through on its coattails.

That demonstrates to me a total inability to read the room on both counts. I bet the other parties who stood down candidates in the Remain Alliance are spitting feathers.

I'm the same OP. I was going to vote LibDem for their Brexit stance, but just cannot now because of self id. I listened to Jo Swinson's interviews on Radio 4 and LBC and couldn't believe my ears frankly. I have an 8 year old DD, and very concerned. My constituency is marginal between Tories and Labour, and I just don't know.

Oh the irony! People who see no problem with the destruction of democracy through the unilateral revocation of a legitimate vote just because they are not on the side which won are up in arms over the revocation of rights which protect them to appease a different minority.

The LibDems have a self destruct button. They had a high moral ground on Brexit and should have stuck to that.

Plenty of people would have been attracted to a party who stuck to the single issue, acknowledged that they would not earn a majority, but who could be well placed to push remain within a coalition.

Why on earth did she not recognise, as the other parties have, that the gender issue is too new and unexplored for the majority of voters, and therefore not one on which to take a firm stand.

Oh the irony! People who see no problem with the destruction of democracy through the unilateral revocation of a legitimate vote just because they are not on the side which won are up in arms over the revocation of rights which protect them to appease a different minority.

I have to say I think this is a good point - and I'm a remainer. What with that and with pledging to change the equality act without even reading the consultation results, how they have the nerve to use 'democrat' in their name is beyond me.

Interesting to know who pushed the TWAW agenda to the fore. Completely against the stay under the radar tactics advocated by the Dentons report and used so successfully up to now. (HelenB?)

Margins are tight, and it may have cost both staunch remainers to have real influence within a coalition, and TRAs their #nodebate approach.

Now that journalists have been able to question the trans orthodoxy it will be difficult to stop them.

Jo Swinson is effectively the Prince Andrew of politics. She opened the discussion but is unlikely to have the last word.

People who see no problem with the destruction of democracy through the unilateral revocation of a legitimate vote

Aaah apologies

See i read the OP and was responding to her post

Should have realised That someone would be along to have a pop because i hadn’t mentioned every single reason why i am loathe to vote LD

Interesting to know who pushed the TWAW agenda to the fore

Indeed.

Well it wasn't my post and I know it's off topic but I do think the point - about a self-styled democratic party having form when it comes to ignoring democracy - is a valid one.

Sorry cross post.