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.

[quote PotholeParadies]Click through from this quote tweet for a twitter highlight of a thread from AP.

twitter.com/StoatlyL/status/1326668347115773953?s=19[/quote]
The to sheer fucking audacity!

"April
@AprilPreston_
·
Nov 12, 2020
It breaks part of the act where a group of marginalised people can’t be told about their own repression by an institution/those not of that protected group. Aka Cis people can’t say how trans feel people feel."

But TW can tell women what it feels like to be a woman? Fuck that noise.

There's a bit in one of Terry Pratchett's books where the town blacksmith, Jason Ogg, has the skill and ability to shoe absolutely any animal. He shoes Death's horse (it's a fantasy novel, for those not familiar). He shoes a unicorn, with silver shoes. Someone once brought him an ant to shoe, which he did with a magnifying glass. There is a price for this power, the power to shoe anything brought to him, which is that he has to shoe anything brought to him.

I've been lurking here since the row over JK Rowling's essay last June took me all over the internet looking for some kind of rational explanation. I found it here. The Jason Oggs of this board are really impressive! Keep shoeing!

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 answer to that is because liberalism is all about men and their desires - economic, sexual, etc. Oh, and women are not people. That’s the only way it makes sense.

For example, improving access to trans healthcare and enabling trans people to transition more easily doesn't strike me as harming anybody, but does help people live their lives more freely.

@PassingThrough2
Trans people have the same right as anyone else to use the NHS. If you are referring to healthcare specifically for trans people, why do people who don't have a medical condition need this specific healthcare?

just want to be able to access services to be able to deal with that in the way they prefer?

I was struck by this from page 2.

These poor people just want to do whatever they want even if that means taking something away from many other people like all of the Muslim swimmers.

Putting just in front of a demand for a blank cheque is almost comical.

Cranberries

Absolutely don't go down to this post.

twitter.com/delphzzzz/status/1326692105356529664?s=19

@Darcinian

just want to be able to access services to be able to deal with that in the way they prefer?

I was struck by this from page 2.

These poor people just want to do whatever they want even if that means taking something away from many other people like all of the Muslim swimmers.

Putting just in front of a demand for a blank cheque is almost comical.

It must be said that the LDs seem to have issues with representation within their federal system and structure.

We know there is a distinct lack of lesbians of the actual non twisty language type in the LGBT branch of the party.

Looking at their Federal Board I find something interesting: there is a something else missing. Can you spot what it is?

Also, have a look at this:
ldcre.org.uk/en/page/meet-the-committee

Meanwhile this is the Conservative BAME forum team:
conservativebame.org.uk/

Can you spot a small but perhaps relevant issue?

Hmm.

Very....
...diverse.

@Darcinian

just want to be able to access services to be able to deal with that in the way they prefer?

I was struck by this from page 2.

These poor people just want to do whatever they want even if that means taking something away from many other people like all of the Muslim swimmers.

Putting just in front of a demand for a blank cheque is almost comical.

Its almost as if the party is run by about 30 - 50 people tops.

@PotholeParadies

Cranberries

Absolutely don't go down to this post.

twitter.com/delphzzzz/status/1326692105356529664?s=19

That's both 😄 and 🤦

I guess once you get used to uttering nonsense it just comes naturally and you don't even realise you're doing it.

I've requested a meeting with my Lib Dem MP. Going to ask about the party's discrimination against me and my gang.

Gang being a sex class.

twitter.com/libdems/status/1362548170568433669?s=21

One of those "Lib Dem women" who doesn't sound all that liberal? It's not really about freedom, is it? Well. maybe for some.

I just came on here to post that!

Here's the caption the Lib-Dems have put on that tweet.

Should free speech at universities be a priority right now? "Absolutely not"

^@LaylaMoran calls out @GavinWilliamson for his distraction tactics and absolutely inept performance as Education Secretary on #BBCQT t.co/dFQAjlC4uh^

So liberal, yeah?

[PassingThrough2] As for your freedom of speech arguments, I'm afraid I disagree. The Lib Dems are essentially a private club, with the purpose of winning elections. They (and every other party) have decided quite reasonably that those who are not just voters but members of the party must agree with them on their fundamental beliefs. Disagreeing about the correct approach to electoral reform is fine. Incorrectly labelling a trans woman a "man" is a view the party has decided is incompatible with their fundamental beliefs about individual dignity. They, as a private club, are perfectly entitled to expel members who disagree with that.

And Twitter is a private company that can have whatever rules they like, and ban anyone for any speech they don't like. They haven't violated anyone's legal free speech rights. As a private company, they are free to act that way.

But that doesn't mean, that on a different level, Twitter aren't quite correctly accused of being "anti-free speech" and "authoritarian" if they act to censor one side of a political debate. Twitter as a private company may have a legal right to behave that way; but other people have every right to still condemn Twitter for arguably damaging behaviour that doesn't live up to ideal values.

Same with the Lib Dems. They may have a right to expel any members that violate their rules; but there is nothing to stop people, perhaps correctly, criticising the Lib Dems for taking an authoritarian position and not allowing proper debate within the party. And you would kind of think that open reasoned debate is a part of classical liberal values; and you don't instantly jump to no-platforming people.

[PassingThrough2] This particular debate is one which does not have an objectively correct answer – it is just a lot of people disagreeing about the subjectively correct approach based on questions of competing freedoms. I happen to be very firmly on one side – you are on the other. You are entitled to that view, I just disagree with it.

Well if that's the case, that this issue doesn't have an "objectively correct answer", presumably it's the kind of thing where political parties should be inclined to be tolerant and allow members to disagree and debate the issues.

It's kind of strange, if there really isn't an "objective answer", that someone would declare it to be a matter of "human rights", "human dignity", and we can't tolerate any dissent from the newly adopted party line.

So actually, I think that would help the criticism that the Lib Dems were unreasonably shutting down debate.

So actually, I think that would help the criticism that the Lib Dems were unreasonably shutting down debate.

The assumption here being that the Lib Dems believe in free speech and debate which is hard to argue when they are tweeting that they don't want it in universities!

Layla Moran is making the Lib Dems look ridiculous.

Freedom of speech is absolutely not a priority say Lib Dems. You'd think it was something from The Onion.

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.

I think it should only be seen as partly a medical matter. By that I mean, make them go through doctors so they can be warned of the risks. But I don't see why doctors should be responsible for prescribing to such patients when it's not clear that it's in their best interests. Rather, make the patient sign something that says they take all the responsibility, and they know this isn't a recommended treatment.

If I went to the doctor demanding a particular painkiller or contraceptive that the doctor knew would cause me lifelong life-limiting damage there would be no option for me to sign away my their liability. Rightly so

The girls demanding those treatments have been sold a lie.

They aren't fifty year old fathers getting silicone boobies, they are fifteen year old girls wrecking their bones, brains and fertility. They need protecting.

Adults are different to under 18s.

With adults, I believeto high degreein letting them make their own decisions even if they are medically risky. (It's worrying as I suspect they are suffering from some type of mental illness; but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and take the side of individual liberty.)

Of course you don't let under 18s potentially harm themselves in the same sort of way, just because they sign a disclaimer.

If the basis of medicine is "first do no harm" then there is an issue with enabling people to do themselves harm. We wouldn't do it for anything else.

God I hate the Lib Dems. Yes, I am a current member.

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

It's a classic example of motte and bailey if you ask me.

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.

Motte: We shouldn't pass judgement on people who have differences of sex development or who are gender non-conforming (or both).

Bailey: It's judgemental to disagree that transwomen are literally women.

2. It is irresponsible at best and malicious at worst, to refuse marginalised people such as the transgender community the right to organise or access sheltered accommodation.

Motte: Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and vulnerable people should be able to access appropriate sheltered accommodation.

Bailey: Males should be able to access female single-sex spaces.

3. Every person has a right to receive prompt medical care that is free at the point of service.

Motte: I heart the NHS.

Bailey: Transgenderism isn't an illness, but trans people should be given access to elective cosmetic surgery on the NHS for free.

4. No person, and especially no child, should be made to undergo unnecessary medical treatments without their informed consent.

Motte: Babies with DSDs should not be surgically operated on to alter their genitals for no good reason.

Bailey: OK, you've got me here. This one basically requires you to support the Bell v Tavistock judgement.

5. We have a responsibility as liberals to represent and liberate the most marginalised people in society.

Motte: Everyone should be equal in a liberal society and we ought to put effort in to make that happen.

Bailey: Oppression olympics ahoy!

Thank you, this is really helpful seeing the Mottes and the Baileys.

My thoughts on just one area of their statement are: Does the liberal democrat party believe in the right for females to compete in female only sport? Is that part of enabling equality or do they see it as marginalising transwomen? If they allow transwomen to compete in sport would they see requirements to lower testosterone as being akin to discrimination, as females don't have to lower their testosterone? Do the liberal democrats care about the increased risk of injury to females in contact sports, or do they see severe injuries to natal females as a necessary sacrifice to improve the opportunities of trans-women to feel that they are affirmed?

Their stance on this would just show their thinking about how they would apply the same principles to prisons, refuges, forensic examinations after rape etc... Or even the rights for eg. Female only beauticians to chose who they give intimate waxes too without fear of being sued.

I have previously voted labour, but a mix of Libdem, labour and green in local elections. Don't know who to vote for now. I have sporty daughters.

I saw this on twitter from @xxJxxane

"What's more likely; that a tone of life long left leaning LGBT supporting women have inexplicably and uncharacteristically all suddenly become bigots or that there might be other issues and concerns?"

I'm going to print out the Motte and Bailey and ask my Lib Dem MP that question.

I'm very cross that they are taking my rights away from me and except me to be happy about it. That's more suited to Chinese governing.

If they allow transwomen to compete in sport would they see requirements to lower testosterone as being akin to discrimination, as females don't have to lower their testosterone?

That is an interesting and awkward question for all proponents of gender identity-based sport categories.
Now that the IOC has ditched the surgery requirement, why would they still require males to have reduced testosterone levels before they can compete as women? If their testicles are female, so are their superior testosterone levels.