Lib Dems publish revised "Transphobia" definition

[Birdsweepsin]

Well, having had at least two sets of legal advice, the Liberal Democrats have reviewed and revised their previously ridiculous 'definition of transphobia'

While not perfect, this new version is a massive improvement. Mainly, it has removed all references to Stonewall, and accepts that members are totally ok to hold 'gender critical' views and that these views are not in themselves transphobic.

Much wailing and teeth gnashing from the TRA wing of the LDs at the moment.

More here: twitter.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1592290749839998977?s=20&t=ZL6QIrC3gsmIqd3AbNgNiA

Ohhhh might there soon be a political party I can vote for? Watching with interest.

The Liberal Democrats “reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, caste, heritage, class, religion or belief, age, disability, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation”.

What is gender identity? There's no such thing in law.

Straight from the off, it's incoherent nonsense.

“‘Transphobia’ is the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans.

The Liberal Democrats use ‘trans’ as an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a variety of terms.

You can't dislike someone based on something we can't define, and the person themselves might use a variety of terms to describe.

Transphobic behaviour may include (i) attempting directly or through advocacy to remove trans people’s rights, (ii) misrepresenting trans people, (iii) abuse of trans people, and (iv) systematically excluding trans people from discussions about issues that directly affect them.”

Ffs.

Then they go onto say you're not allowed to create an environment that's hostile to trans people. I wonder who decides the definition of hostile 🙄

If disciplinary action is taken, the focus will be on the misconduct itself, i.e. the way someone has acted or expressed themselves, not the underlying views of the speaker.

you can hold your legally protected views, but woe betide you if you use the wrong tone.

But could you ever forgive any party who had behaved like this? I will never again have any faith in any organisation of any stripe whatsoever that has been on the gender identity ideology train.

Holding and expressing gender critical views, whether in internal debates or publicly, is protected by law under the Equality Act, Article 9 ECHR and Article 10 ECHR and is permitted. Those who hold such views may express them freely, as long as they do not harass or discriminate against trans people, nor create an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to trans people.

I would expect recognition of the reality of sex would be perceived as creating an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to trans people. Let alone doing anything to get a reset in the balance of conflicting rights.

Or even asserting that there's a conflict in rights.

This is no good because, at the end of the day, the current situation where we have male sex offenders in women’s prisons, is untenable for female people. So yes, the rights of these males should be, IMO, removed. That would fall foul of the definition.

But it’s interesting what this reveals about the strategy of the TRAs: shore up existing gains (because there won’t be any more for some time) and get vocal young activists to protest to make it appear that this is a massive compromise. It’s not.

This further tweet by Liberal Voice for Women is interesting:

twitter.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1592290752058609664

They attempt a definition of trans but not of trans people's rights, without one things like attempting to remove trans people's rights are meaningless. Does this refer to rights that exist in law that are the same as anyone else's or Stonewall Law or some other bullshit TRAs have made up?

I do not think they have changed politically this is just an arse covering exercise to make sure their policy fits in with law. While it is welcome, it does not represent a genuine change of heart in the party.

Yes, they've taken out the blatant illegal advice and left in all the rest. It's all emotive and subjective. Telling a man he's not allowed in the woman's toilet is going to be viewed as hostile and the removal of his rights.

Go figure.

Transphobic behaviour may include (i) attempting directly or through advocacy to remove trans people’s rights, (ii) misrepresenting trans people,

Hmm where trans rights are in direct opposition to women's rights they frame it as removing trans peoples rights.

I wonder, do they have a definition of misogyny that includes advocating to remove women's rights, because stonewall advocating to change the EA to remove a right to single sex spaces is just that. 🤔

(ii) misrepresenting trans people,

What does that mean? Mentioning AGP? Saying they're men violating women's boundaries?

Out of interest what was their previous definition of transphobia?

There is still an ongoing discrimination case against the Lib Dems taken Natalie Bird who was suspended for wearing an Adult Human Female t-shirt

(iv) systematically excluding trans people from discussions about issues that directly affect them.”

I hope they have an identical provision covering women. How often have we heard about a lack of consultation of any women's group that might disagree with the orthodoxy being spouted.

www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrats-adopt-definition-of-transphobia-65868.html

It was fairly comprehensively demolished even at the time, see here and a feminist legal opinion here

Im not sure i could vote for a party that told met that they didn’t want people who think that you can’t change sex to vote for them…

Do they also have sections in their code of conduct about the protected characteristics of age, marital status, pregnancy, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and of course sex - more pointedly, do they have a section in their code of conduct that refers to the freedom of speech of those standing up for the rights of biological women, those rights which are at times, in conflict with those of trans identified people.

Yes, it’s the asymmetry that’s striking. For decades, women have not been consulted on laws and policies that affect them. People of gender remain a ‘special case’.

Previous poster is right, this is mere arse-covering.

Definitely arse covering but it is always good to see the results when TRA bullshit meets the cold reality of the law.

It's not easy being Green
or Labour or Lib Dem
women's rights are now mean
to those who would be fem.

Repent but first confess
to a jury of they and them
every no to be a yes.

Without a handmaiden's kiss
that frog can't become a princess.

Embrace your erasure cis.

This is merely playing lip service.

'removing rights' will be seen as attempts to retain women's rights to safe spaces.

I'm never sure whether arse covering is better or worse, tbh.

Do we chip away at the madness tiny bit by bit? Carve out a space where we can debate openly, and allow the issues to be addressed slowly, using sunlight and evidence?

Or do we just keep raging against the entire monolith?

I honestly don't know which is best in the long run.

Had a laugh at this quote from a PP:
The Liberal Democrats use ‘trans’ as an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a variety of terms.

That would be most of the posters on these boards being designated ‘trans’. And of the last sentence, describing ourselves in the terms of ‘woman’.
Transwomen being women!!!!