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

…though I suppose it all depends on how they are defining gender.

Misogynistc behaviour may include (i) attempting directly or through advocacy to remove womens' rights, (ii) misrepresenting women, (iii) abuse of women, and (iv) systematically excluding women from discussions about issues that directly affect them.

That's great! Going to check it all out now.

Phobia refers to an irrational fear. My concerns are very far from irrational. I have no issues with trans people per se, I just feel that they should have their own 'safe spaces', instead of stealing those that women (and exclusively women, oddly enough not) have fought so hard for for generations.

IW not very happy: archive.ph/RJXzX

So hold on, if non trans people can’t define transphobia, surely only women (female ones) get to define what a woman is? Or is IW invoking double standards

You're doing that thing of expecting logic and fairness/equality of standards again.

It doesn't work like that. It's ok for TQ+ people to do many things that it's absolutely forbidden for female people to do.

For example it's awful to seek to lobby in ways that TQ+ political activists disagree with and feel may infringe their rights (unspecified), but righteous and perfectly acceptable for the TQ+ political lobby to seek to remove and destroy female rights (actual). In fact its evil for females to resist. Apparently.

Ahhh yes. I forgot about that. My fluffy lady brain. It only I had a clever person if the make persuasion to help me. Maybe IW will be free…. I hear IW is at a bit of a loose end these days.

In a sense, it doesn't really matter. We can all come up with whatever outlandish definitions we please. It isn't going to change the fact that a transwoman is male, not female.

The flouncing has started...

archive.ph/2022.11.18-204327/www.thenational.scot/news/23136018.indy-group-co-founder-leaves-libdems-transphobia-definiton/

Ah. So unless they can oppress females without conscience they're taking their ball home?

Balls, I believe Nilsmouse.

Of course. Yes. And bats.

So looking at IW's tweet and the comments underneath it seems like there can never be any compromise or middle ground found between trans people and GC people. There is to be no acceptance from them that trans people have not changed sex and that we are allowed to say so.

https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/article/2022/1437811/statement-on-revision-of-definition-of-transphobia

Publishing this on the first day of trans awareness week was also, frankly, shocking.

Oh FFs is there any day that isn't some trans celebration day?

This week was Interfaith Week. No huge fanfare. Just lots of people with different, often conflicting, strongly-held beliefs in something unprovable, got together, listened to each other, and tried to find common ground and ways of understanding each other, and accepting each others' beliefs without adopting them or submitting to them.

twitter.com/CharleyHasted/status/1594013142698409985?s=20&t=sREdl4kyESVNCxIfQvkDug

We (Lib Dem LGBT+ group)

have evidence they (Lib Dem Federal Board, the body that commissioned, and then pulled the illegal definition of transphobia)

were not in possession of all the facts (when they got legal advice that they were breaking the law)

Oh yes?

You just gotta love the way they shout It's the Law then when The Law comes along and says No, it isn't the response is they were not in possession of all the facts.

Cannot bear anyone or anything proving them wrong.

democracycoma.wordpress.com/2022/11/19/not-so-liberal-dem-voice/

Thanks, IdisagreeMrHochhauser - that's an excellent article. The Lib Dems continue to have a problem with "Liberal" and "Democratic", it seems.

I had hopes there for a moment... And then read the new definition and got as far as the 'assigned at birth' codswallop and had that sinking feeling that nothing has really changed.

Does anyone else agree that it might actually be better to have gender identity recognised in law?

The more policy separating gender and sex the less argument there is to infringe on the rights of single sex spaces, and the recognition of GC in law I feel paves the way for that.

Interesting point Dreamwhisper, forcing them to explicitly define gender identity - but they won't. Plus they will start from that ridiculous assertion of 'gender assigned at birth'.

Gender identity only works for them if it remains indefinable, unquantifiable and all in the eye of the person claiming it and no law can possibly be made on that basis.

We've asked and asked on this Board for those who support GI to give us the criteria for it and answer comes there none.

I think if this issue is becoming as big as it seems to be, proponents of furthering trans rights for legitimate reasons might need to make a concession here.

I do understand that transmedicalism is seen as an offensive idea to some trans people, I don't know to what extent and what proportion feel this way. And I'm not saying everyone who identifies as trans needs to be for example, someone who has had top and bottom surgery and is on life long hormones..

But surely if you are to fight for rights, there has to be some sort of agreed definition, or else how do you know what you're even representing? Otherwise how can you justify campaigning to change the law and society?

I genuinely feel like the only way for both women and transgender people is to separate sex and gender as much as possible.