Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Lib Dems publish revised "Transphobia" definition

69 replies

Birdsweepsin · 15/11/2022 07:04

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

OP posts:
Theeyeballsinthesky · 20/11/2022 18:19

Totally agree Dream - being very clear about the difference between sex & gender & gender identity is absolutely crucial. I don’t see how it’s possible to make proper clear laws without it

the problem is we have repeatedly asked fir gender identity to be defined without recourse to sexist stereotypes - and it never happens

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 24/11/2022 14:50

If anyone were thinking of rejoining to try to balance the numbers a bit, this might hearten you

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/11/23/liberal-democrats-transphobia-definition-backlash-layla-moran/

OP posts:
PermanentTemporary · 24/11/2022 17:19

Ooh I bet i know who the 'one person' is who is supposed to be making gender critical pushback happen in the party according to that Pink News article. The LD gender fanciers are obsessed with getting rid of him, in a thoroughly Liberal and Democratic way. The idea that some people have joined or stayed in the LDs because of him seems to pass them by. Luckily they also seem to be unaware of the huge numbers of LD women working to restore some balance in party policy.

They perhaps need to agree whether this has happened 'in Trans Awareness Week' or 'in the lead up to Trans Awareness Week'. After all, before we know where we are it will be 'the aftermath of Trans Awareness Week'.

Birdsweepsin · 24/11/2022 17:24

To be fair, you really have to work hard to find a week or month that isn't some sort of Trans celebratory/awareness/remembrance day.

OP posts:
Ofcourseshecan · 24/11/2022 18:17

Birdsweepsin · 15/11/2022 08:59

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

Thanks for the link, Bird. Some interesting comments, including that large chunks had been copied from the International Human Rights Association's definition of antisemitism.

One example of antisemitism: Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion” which sadly is still common in some parts of the world and led to genocide within living memory.

And of transphobia: Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or physical or mental harming of trans people because of their gender identity - has anyone got evidence of this ever happening?

No hyperbole in (implicitly) likening rude remarks online to genocide, no, none at all ....

nilsmousehammer · 24/11/2022 20:56

'mental harming'....... ffs

No one mention reality.

But crack on threatening to rape and kill females while removing their access, equality, privacy, dignity, retraumatising them, subjecting them to harassment and rape in prisons....

Birdsweepsin · 25/11/2022 13:40

Oo! Looks like both sets of advice are now available. Hang on while I make myself a cup of tea.... 🍵

liberalvoiceforwomen.org/blog/gva-advice

OP posts:
TheBiologyStupid · 25/11/2022 13:48

Great - thanks, Birdsweepsin.

nilsmousehammer · 25/11/2022 13:51

in the Lib Dems, leaders invited trans activists to write the parameters of permitted speech about sex and gender identity within the party. Anyone with a passing familiarity with this debate could have predicted that their conclusion would be that everything is transphobic, that the party should never countenance any debate at all on this matter and that holders of unorthodox (for unorthodox read ‘entirely ordinary’) views should be expelled. Did they expect everyone to just go along with this?

We urge the incoming Federal Board to learn from this costly, time-consuming and highly damaging exercise. Understand that the trans activists’ appetite for ever more censorious interventions will never be sated. Find your spines.

That's extremely well put.

ChristinaXYZ · 26/11/2022 12:29

Happylittlechicken · 15/11/2022 07:44

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

They've changed things to met up with the law but the party is still full of bullying TRAs who don't want women to speak.

Birdsweepsin · 04/12/2022 14:48

Dear Liberator,

There’s a new Lib Dem definition of transphobia that is being hailed as a victory by gender critical people. Which only means they haven’t actually read it properly.

Well that's just rude.

Recent legal cases mean that gender critical views such as a belief in the immutability of sex are a protected belief under the Equality Act, Article 9 ECHR and Article 10 ECHR. But crucially the Forstater judgement only gave protection to those gender critical beliefs which do not seek to destroy trans rights.

I haven't met anyone, in the Lib Dems or outside it, who wishes to 'destroy trans rights'. "Trans rights are human rights" is a hollow, meaningless cliché. The author of this letter is - dangerously- conflating holding the view that sex is immutable with the view that trans people shouldn't exist, or are somehow inferior.

This doesn’t give transphobes the right to express any heinous opinion they like and claim protection.

As well it shouldn't. But 'transphobes' and 'people who hold gender critical views' are not the same thing.

The definition also contains the unequivocal statement from our preamble that the Liberal
Democrats “reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon… gender identity”.

Again, good. (And all the other protected characteristics too, but carry on)

Having a protected belief does not exempt anyone from this. And there is a very, very narrow range of ways that gender critical beliefs could be expressed that would “not harass or discriminate against trans people, nor create an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to trans people”

Very very narrow? I'm afraid this is bonkers. So called 'gender critical beliefs' are utterly mainstream. They are what your mum thinks, namely that boys aren't girls, and never will be. This is not discriminatory or hostile, it is just reality. Saying it is hostile doesn't make it so.

We all hear things we disagree with, all the time. Get over yourself.

The clarity of this definition will mean our
disciplinary system is more capable of dealing with transphobic behaviour.

Real Transphobic behaviour? Good. Don't waste the disciplinary committee's time attacking people who think preferred pronouns are a luxury in this age of people going hungry and unable to heat their kids bedrooms

And the legal advice received did say that we could hold our candidates to a higher standard - insisting for example that they agree with a set of key policies. Candidate approval and
selection is a matter for state parties, and this advice will be passed to them.

Asking candidates to agree with sensible policies is a good idea.

As a party we have excellent policies around trans
rights, all of which have been overwhelmingly
supported at our conferences.

This wouldn't have anything to do with a policy of no-platforming so-called 'Terfs' at Conference, and imposing a code of silence so strict that people who dissent are treated with the disciplinary code, a code which was based on a Definition of Transphobia that has - whoops! - just been found to be unlawful?

Ed Davey and Christine Jardine recently met a group of trans members in Westminster to hear about their experiences and what they need from our party, and I’m hopeful that this will lead to more positive statements from our parliamentarians.

Me, I'm looking forward to similar meetings with disabled members, gay and lesbian members, Asian members, black members, working class members, older members, single parents, women etc etc etc

I know that some people are disappointed that
the party has had to accept the implications of the Forstater judgement. I’m one of those people. But I firmly believe that our new definition is both legally sound (which is important to ensure the party doesn’t spend all its money on lawsuits with transphobes)

[... you didnt think to make sure it was legally sound before publication and implementation?]

and makes it clear that behaviour that hurts or
discriminate against trans people is not welcome in our party.

As well it shouldnt be.

There is an aggressively hostile environment towards trans and non-binary people in this country. It’s fuelled by the media, exacerbated by Tory politicians and makes our country a worse place for everybody.

Nothing to do with centring "trans ideology" as greater than everyone and everything else... Sacré bleu

The Liberal Democrats will always stand up for trans rights and work to make both our party
and the country a safe and welcoming space for trans and non binary people.

.... and Every member of a minority, yes?

Mary Regnier-Wilson
Chair, Federal People Development Committee

Letter here: Liberator 415 https://liberatormagazine.org.uk/back-issues/

OP posts:
waterwitch · 04/12/2022 15:01

Sadly, I doubt Mary would like to clarify/engage in any real debate around this. I enjoyed your annotations though, thank you Birdsweepsin

Manderleyagain · 05/12/2022 11:14

It's quite funny that the over reach by the gender activists in the form of an unlawful definition has ended up with the lib dems being the only party with a stated policy that gender critical speech is positively allowed.

(I would think it's the only one).

It's not a good sign that the English council executivecresponded like they did, linked 24/11 above. Even though it was before the legal opinions were published I think. Its even more worrying that no one voiced any alternative opinion at all if we are to believe the report. Not even a note of caution, lip service to free expression & plurality, or suggestion to get legal input. All on message. In Any group of people that suggests something wrong. What an illiberal bunch.

bellinisurge · 05/12/2022 11:22

Trouble is, saying the sky is up and the earth is down constitutes hatefulness in the eyes of the TRAs. They have all been seduced by the idea that talking about safety, privacy and fairness for biological women constitutes hate speech

TheBiologyStupid · 05/12/2022 11:33

Indeed, bellini - "safety, privacy and fairness" are a dogwhistle for bigots, apparently... You really couldn't make it up.

nilsmousehammer · 05/12/2022 17:13

'Dog whistle for bigots' - translated means 'that's devastating to my argument and all I've got is to try and shame you into not daring to say it'.

Fuck that.

Birdsweepsin · 05/12/2022 18:34

It's quite funny that the over reach by the gender activists in the form of an unlawful definition has ended up with the lib dems being the only party with a stated policy that gender critical speech is positively allowed.

Excellent point @Manderleyagain

OP posts:
LaughingPriest · 05/12/2022 19:02

So one only ones NOT protected under Maya are those seeking to destroy human rights.
How many of those do they believe are members of the Lib Dems? I'm a bit concerned about this - is "people seeking to destroy human rights" a problem in the LDs then? We were right to raise it as an issue then, no?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page