LGBT Libdems demand puberty blockers for children, and no chemical castration

[ArabellaScott]

https://archive.ph/Uyjgl

Statement for Pride month. Under the auspices of bodily autonomy.

'Unfortunately, we don't think it is possible for LGBT+ folks, and especially trans+ folks, or for gender non-conforming women to be able to coexist safely with the recent Supreme Court ruling. As the UK Supreme Court can only interpret legislation by Parliament rather than strike it down, the solution is new primary legislation that amends the Equality Act to clearly set out trans-inclusive definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, as the original writers of that Act have said they intended. This would be a good opportunity to recognise non-binary, intersex and agender folks, who deserve equal recognition and protection under the law as well.
We believe any Equality Act reform should go further, however, to protect trans+ rights more fully, and to more fully protect disabled rights which were unintentionally rolled back by the Equality Act's passing. In the current climate, we think it's vital to fully protect medical and bodily autonomy for all, including LGBT+ folks, the disabled, the pregnant, kids, and prisoners. As soon as bodily autonomy, Gillick competence, and medical consent is undermined for one group, it is undermined for us all.
We have long argued for the technical process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate to be de-medicalised, and to enshrine Self-ID in law, as it is in Ireland, New Zealand, and Argentina - about twenty countries in all, all without incident.
While we are extremely proud of the Lib Dem achievement of Same-Sex Marriage in the last decade, that legislation pre-dated the existence of no-fault divorce in the law, so that Act should now be amended to remove the Spousal Veto for married trans+ folks transitioning. LGBT+ couples deserve fair and equal access to IVF treatment, and this should be provided for in law as well.
We strongly feel that the ban on puberty blockers should be scrapped at once, as should plans for so-called ‘chemical castration’, which surely have no place in a civilised society. On the other hand, we welcome announcements for a trans-inclusive ban on so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and expect to strongly support proposals that actually do that.'

'clearly set out trans-inclusive definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’'

I would genuinely be interested to see these definitions.

Do they even realise they're talking about the same sort of drugs in both cases? Too bad for criminals, but absolutely perfect for confused children?

I think that's good that they've made a clear policy. Tricky for the large cohort of gender-critical Lib Dems but the fight that's been going on behind the scenes is exhausting and eventually one of the groups had to prevail.

Oh I see, it's a group within the party. I guess the fight goes on.

Men in women’s prisons did for auld Sturgey and it’ll be the end of them too.

They can crack on, it won’t stand up to any type of scrutiny. Fuckwits.

How convenient for their donor, Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Wow, really?

They sound absolutely bonkers, these folx.

Possibly off topic but I see the use of ‘folks’ a lot in these kind of statements. Why ‘folks’ rather than ‘people’? Is there a context / subtlety of meaning I don’t understand? To me ‘folks’ sounds twee, like you’re trying to get people on their feet for a barn dance: ‘come on folks!’

Obviously this is the usual nonsense from the Lib Dem’s but why “trans folks”?? Why do they insist on wanting to sound theyre just like some good ol small town American ‘trans folks just like all folks y’all’. This is not an episode of mr fucking Ed

sorry I know this is 100% not the point of the thread but as it’s the Lib Dem’s I knew it would be the standard fuck wittery anyway

I think they are unlikely to meet the normal definition of “clearly”.

Or of men and women

Someone from Northern Ireland or Scotland could probably get away with "folks", but you just know this was written by an accountant from Woking.

What has chemical castration of sex offenders got to do with LGBT? Its as if they want everyone to associate gay people with sex offenders. Its very strange.

@SocksShmocks

i noticed the folks too - making me think it’s cut and pasted from an American group with only a bit changed. Never seen a semi legal statement with folk in it in the U.K.

Lib Dems: we're against chemical castration for nonces, even nonces who volunteer for it as part of rehabilitation

Also Lib Dems: we're absolutely in favour of chemical castration for children caught up in a social contagion

With the two big legacy parties in freefall, and lots of people not quite willing to trust Reform, this moment should be a big opportunity for the Lib Dems. If they really prefer to be the Monster Raving Loony Party writ large, that's on them.

wtf don’t they think ‘gender non-conforming women’ aren’t happy with the ruling? Clearly they don’t know what ‘gender critical’ means, the dolts.

We have long argued for the technical process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate to be de-medicalised,

It's bigoted to think a man should have any medical treatment or diagnosis of he wants to be legally recognised as a woman.

We strongly feel that the ban on puberty blockers should be scrapped at once

But children should be put on powerful medication if they like the 'wrong' toys or clothes for their sex. De-medicalisaton of 'gender' is only for adults (particularly males who only discover their inner womanliness in middle-age after fathering children).

Is this a statement from a group within the Lib Dem’s or official policy?

It’s because they have got their ‘education’ on trans issues from USA online influencers. Rather than from actual research and data.

Their language there is such a give away as to their ‘knowledge’ base.

Lgbt lid dems whose honorary president is Layla “I looks into people’s souls” Moran

No. They’re too stupid. People genuinely are stupid on this. The penny never seems to drop.

That's lovely.

But to legislate in that way would mean destroying the legal protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities. Where's the rationale and explanation of why those groups should have no legal protections under the equality act so that, let's face it, men can go into women's spaces and demand to be there while Sandie Peggie gets undressed however she feels about it, and lesbians aren't allowed to meet without providing entertainment of whatever kind to men?

Did they actually read and understand the judgment?

And do prescribe blockers for vulnerable children many of whom will turn out not to have long term gender confusion, and set them on a pathway to sterility and effectively chemical castration, but don't do that to sex offenders because it's wrong.

That makes absolutely no sense of any kind.

Men will survive just fine without access to non consenting undressed women. Let's not sterilise anyone. The reasons for both being because it's morally and ethically fucked up.

It is often used in the USA and US corporations are their paymasters

I find it a bit folksy

in the archive link it makes clear it’s from LGBT LD group snd they are clear their statement goes further than the official LD position.