Lib Dem women say what?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Thanks, @Xanthangum for posting this on the holy 50:50 thread.

www.libdemwomen.org.uk/pro_trans_rights_open_letter

The first point says:

1. Variations in sex and gender, however they manifest, are a simple fact of human physiology and psychology, and neither the state nor society should pass judgement on people who deviate from what is considered the norm

Can anyone help me understand what that means? Because medicine has long since considered the "norm" to be the male body.

Do I deviate from the norm with my awkward Y chromosome? State and society certainly judges me for that.

I have voted Lib Dem in the past. I have met some of the people who have signed this open letter.

They didn't appear to be idiots at the time. Can anyone help me translate what this actually means - there is a vote coming up in Scotland, so I have until May to find somewhere to put mine.

False equivalence between women wanting to discuss their own liberty and safety and the far right is a bit of a shit tactic to play when you are effectively accusing very normal average women of being militant for that and that their opinion and life experience is therefore valueless.

It makes you look unhinged.

Now now Red opinions, doncha know!

Of the broad group of trans people, do you accept that it is the vast, vast majority who have gender dysphoria, and that these people genuinely, in good faith, just want to be able to access services to be able to deal with that in the way they prefer?

The problem here is that Mumsnet has set out its rules for discussions of gender and what many of us would like to say here is forbidden. So I'll have to content myself with saying I'd accept that some mtf transitioners have gender dysphoria. I don't think it's the vast, vast majority.

I'll have to content myself with saying I'd accept that some mtf transitioners have gender dysphoria. I don't think it's the vast, vast majority.

Yes.

@PassingThrough2

I'm surprised at the suggestion in a couple of posts above that the truly "liberal" view would be what most people on this forum seem to think about trans people and trans recognition.

The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

It seems to me that the idea that people should be prevented from living their lives how they please is really the authoritarian, illiberal one. And that seems to be the prevailing view on this forum.

Have you seen this Channel 4 programme about tracking down paedophiles?

www.channel4.com/programmes/undercover-police-hunting-paedophiles.

There's a man in it who groomed a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl online and went to meet her at an Air BnB carrying popcorn, cake, condoms, cable ties and a butt plug.

When the police intervened he explained that he didn't agree with the laws around child sex, he was a nice man, he was just living his life and of course he wouldn't have done anything to the girl unless she'd wanted him to. He was certainly planning to live his life how he pleased.

If that's what the Lib Dems stand for then thanks for the heads-up.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'll have to content myself with saying I'd accept that some mtf transitioners have gender dysphoria. I don't think it's the vast, vast majority.

Yes.

Is it gender dysphoria when you post nude pictures of yourself proudly and publically on twitter?

Asking for a friend.

When trans activists told me that it was okay for Muslim women to be driven out of women's only swimming sessions by male people in the name of "inclusivity", because the Muslim women were 'bigots', live and let live philosophy became irrelevant. What about the Muslim women those sessions were specifically set up to serve?

When people called me "cis", that wasn't live and let live, was it?

When people said anyone should be able to self-ID into women's prisons, live and let live was no longer applicable, because female inmates are also people, and the impact on them matters.

When trans activists started howling at each other that no-one should be allowed to read JK Rowling books any more and started policing other people's twitter likes, they broke the live and let live covenant first.

I'm perfectly happy to let other adults get on with their own lives. I'm not willing to be a doormat in the name of other people's self-affirmation.

As a layperson, I would hazard a guess that the vast, vast majority of ftm transitioners are indeed suffering from gender dysphoria, but I don't accept that putting them on hormone treatment with lifelong irreversible consequences is a good first remedy for that, nor is sending them off for a double mastectomy. As any doctor should surely confirm, many patients turn up with a self-diagnosis and treatment plan which is actually wrong and would be harmful if accepted and implemented.

Given the very large %age of transmen on the autistic spectrum and/or who've experienced trauma and/or homophobic bullying and/or who are struggling (as many young people do) to make sense of their emerging sexuality - why would doctors and other HCPs turn to hormones and surgery long before talking and other psychiatric therapies are exhausted?

It does look remarkably like 'liberalism' as defined by passingthrough only really counts if its about the identity of males doesn't it. Or maybe its just us women who need reeducating about this.

When psychologists, disability advocates and concerned parents (with and without autism themselves) were shouted down for raising safeguarding concerns about autistic teenagers being given inappropriate treatment, was that live and let live?

[PassingThrough2] The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

So then, why can't we self-ID on race and access services intended specifically for minorities? Or you think that would be a good liberal position to allow trans-race?

Why can't we self-ID onto an under 12s football team?

If sent to prison, why can't we self-ID into an under 18 detention centre? The liberal position is to let all age groups do that if that's how they identify?

If it's about "supporting people's right to live life as they choose", then presumably people can choose to have a biological female doctor? Or set up sports leagues only for biological women? Or set up a domestic violence shelter only for biological women?

I would also point out that the Liberal Democrats are only keen on liberalism or democracy up to a point. If the people vote for Brexit, then democracy isn't so good an idea. And I doubt they would support your right to own firearms say. No, in that case, it's going to be government interference over individual liberty.

So I doubt that the Lib Dems are acting from any sort of principle. Rather, I suggest they may just be going along with the prevailing fashion in progressive politics. Or maybe it's just a big coincidence, that recently, they discovered that their principles always required X, just as it became fashionable!

@PotholeParadies

When psychologists, disability advocates and concerned parents (with and without autism themselves) were shouted down for raising safeguarding concerns about autistic teenagers being given inappropriate treatment, was that live and let live?

No no no Pothole. You've got it wrong. These are people with views akin to the far right who should rightfully be excuded from the private members club.

I must admit I am most amused at the use of the word 'private members club' and the idea that political parties are akin to them. Its most amusing and ironic given the charge that political parties are run by the old boys club mentality.

@Zinco

[PassingThrough2] The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

So then, why can't we self-ID on race and access services intended specifically for minorities? Or you think that would be a good liberal position to allow trans-race?

Why can't we self-ID onto an under 12s football team?

If sent to prison, why can't we self-ID into an under 18 detention centre? The liberal position is to let all age groups do that if that's how they identify?

If it's about "supporting people's right to live life as they choose", then presumably people can choose to have a biological female doctor? Or set up sports leagues only for biological women? Or set up a domestic violence shelter only for biological women?

I would also point out that the Liberal Democrats are only keen on liberalism or democracy up to a point. If the people vote for Brexit, then democracy isn't so good an idea. And I doubt they would support your right to own firearms say. No, in that case, it's going to be government interference over individual liberty.

So I doubt that the Lib Dems are acting from any sort of principle. Rather, I suggest they may just be going along with the prevailing fashion in progressive politics. Or maybe it's just a big coincidence, that recently, they discovered that their principles always required X, just as it became fashionable!

Indeed. I just popped on to ask @PassingThrough2 their view on Rachel Dolezal...

Thanks for the posts, it is really helpful.

I remain confused.

If liberalism wants people to be able to live their lives freely then why am I excluded from that?

Five women are being killed a week in lockdown. This is a massive crisis. There are far more women being traumatised by male people than ever before - so, surely, a liberal society would put provisions in place to make sure that those women can go about their lives without interference from those male people who would seek them harm, or from trauma caused by those male people? This is why the law allows provision of single sex spaces - for the privacy and dignity and safety for people who are disadvantaged by our female biology in situations where we are especially vulnerable.

The problem with including male people in single sex spaces, regardless of how they identify, is that the women leave. They won't complain, they won't make a fuss, they just don't go back.

That happened in Edinburgh, where I stay. Same set up as PP's female only swim session, huge success with the Muslim community. Muslim women as a group are more likely to have diabetes or cardiovascular disease than average, so it is really important that they exercise and the swim sessions were very popular.

One transwoman complained because she was excluded on the basis of her sex, accommodations were made (without asking the service users) - and the women didn't go back. There were no letters to the local paper, there were no complaints to the council, there was no abuse dished out to the trans community - the women just slipped quietly away from a service they enjoyed and was good for their well being.

I don't understand how that is liberal.

The transwoman lives her best life, and the women were therefore unable to live theirs.

Why would I vote for a party which fails to protect women from abuse by male people, which changes the law to benefit one group of people and which doesn't mind that in doing so my rights are removed from me?

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

Except if you are a woman with the wrong pesky opinion.

I'm struggling to read that open letter as anything other than an ideology...

Your religious beleifs determine your deity and lifestyle - and your membership of the Lib Dems denotes your determination to champion male people above female people regardless of those female people's gender identity, safety, dignity, freedom of expression or will.

I think the way to get the rank and file LibDem membership to see this destruction of liberal values for what it is is to point out the assault on language, and how it makes things utterly confusing.

For example, a PPC shortlist which, for - whatever - reasons has been determined should be for women only.

If some members of the party believe that 'women' includes trans women. And other members of the party believe that it excludes trans women.... you have a problem.

Whether you want it to include or exclude trans women, we all have a problem if the definition is imprecise.

And then apply the same logic to a BAME shortlist, but you know, its actually for BAME or anyone else. You soon realise the pointlessness of a shortlist that isn't exclusionary.

[quote PassingThrough2]@Ereshkigalangcleg –I disagree with that characterisation, not least because the 'genuine and hard won struggle for [gay] rights' was my own as well, and I don't think trans people are co-opting that unwarrantedly. I know we disagree on this, but can you at least see that trans people asking for better access to trans healthcare and easier routes to transition etc are doing so genuinely, rather than to spite people or be difficult?[/quote]
@PassingThrough2
What do you mean by trans healthcare?

Surely if a transperson got cancer, broke their leg or had a heart attack the NHS would treat them just like they would any other person?

What are you referring to?

Oh, I know about the issues in healthcare.

The waiting lists are unacceptable - no one should have to wait the two years it is to be seen at a gender clinic. Those times are going up dramatically with the impact of covid, too.

However, once they get to clinic, there are problems. There simply isn't enough evidence to support the treatment protocols, bluntly put - the trans men and non binary people who go onto cross sex hormones are increasing their cardiovascular, dementia and osteoporosis risks - all of which are linked to premature death. We know this, that is why women without a gender difference who have an early menopause are given HRT. There also seems to be a lot of female athletes who were doped with anabolic steroids (related to testosterone) in the 80s who died prematurely.

The constant repeating that healthcare is transphobic also causes issues - Pink News reported the case of a trans man presenting with a broken arm to A+E being asked if he was on testosterone, and whether he could be pregnant as an example of terrible transphobia. It wasn't, it was good care - if he was on testosterone he may have osteoporosis which would be relevant to his broken arm, and as he needed an xray they had to make sure there wasn't a foetus which needed to be considered.

Calling GPs, who are seeking to provide good care with an evidence base (which may not be exactly what the person believes they need) "gate keepers" is, to my mind, at best, very rude, and at worst, harmful propaganda.

Oh, and the waiting lists are caused by the massive spike in referrals - the cause of which appears to be a mystery. There seems to be an issue with staff retention at gender clinics - the reasons behind that are similarly unexplored.

PassingThrough2

But for much the same reasons that the legalisation of homosexuality, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage were the right thing to do despite competing considerations

Apollo440

What competing considerations?
As far as I am aware these changes were the right thing to do and affected no one else. Unlike trans rights. Do you see a difference.

So specifically, what competing considerations?

PassingThrough2

Religious organisations complained of infringement of their religious liberty when same-sex marriage was introduced, for example. Similarly when hate crime legislation was brought in to allow for homophobia to be an aggravating factor in the commission of crimes. More generally, concerns about gay teachers, gay people in changing rooms, gay people serving in the military – all of these considerations were weighed against the individual freedoms of gay people. And it was determined (rightly in my view) that those individual freedoms ought to win out.

Those are NOT competing considerations. Are you determined to misrepresent and conflate everything? Those are peoples opinions. They were not felt to be a reason for denying gay people their rights. It was a simple moral decision.

Or maybe I missed the gay men insisting that they be allowed to change with women as a 'right'. Or represent their interests instead of a woman. Or insist they had the right to be on a womans's hospital ward. Or imprisoned with them.
Did gay men insist they had the right to compete against women and girls in sports.

You see that would be competing rights. Sound familar?

@PassingThrough2

I'm surprised at the suggestion in a couple of posts above that the truly "liberal" view would be what most people on this forum seem to think about trans people and trans recognition.

The Lib Dems are liberals. At a fundamental level, liberalism means supporting people's right to live life as they choose, free from interference by the state or anyone else. So of course they're going to be staunchly in favour of self-ID and other recognitions.

It seems to me that the idea that people should be prevented from living their lives how they please is really the authoritarian, illiberal one. And that seems to be the prevailing view on this forum.

The second paragraph here seems to me to be self-contradictory. Surely state sanctioned self ID, where a person chooses the sex marker on their official documentation, is state interference in the lives of its citizens. All citizens now have to accept this person as the opposite sex. This is interfering with their rights, since a male person who has chosen a female sex marker, if that female sex marker is honoured in all circumstances, will be treated as a woman in every part of his life. He will be allowed to play in women's sports, be a women's representative in a political party, take a place on a committee reserved for a woman, and if he commits a crime, serve his sentence in a women's prison.

This would have a huge impact on many women who will have opportunities taken from them and could also be put in danger. How is this not authoritarian and illiberal?

I should say this on lots of threads every day, but I'm going to take the time to say it on this one:

Thank you to so many of the contributors. Thanks for stating things so clearly
@Ereshkigalangcleg
@RedToothBrush
@Apollo440
and others I haven't had the time to consider thoroughly. Well done, just well done.