Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Trans row threatens to overshadow Lib Dem conference

266 replies

IwantToRetire · 17/09/2025 20:38

Sir Ed Davey faces activist revolt over party rules that allow biological men to take women’s posts

The current rules allow those who “self-identify as women” to stand for party posts set aside for women, which the activists say dilutes the chance that biological women can reach the top of the party.

The vote will be put before conference on Saturday, but it is understood that trans rights activists will try to get it cancelled to avoid embarrassment. This is despite a YouGov poll showing that three-quarters of Lib Dem members do not support the party’s stance on allowing gender self-ID.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/17/trans-row-threatens-to-overshadow-lib-dem-conference/

Also at https://archive.is/hykSr

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
fromorbit · 20/09/2025 10:37

They win this time. Liberal Women will keep fighting till they win. It is only a matter of time. It is going to become an annual event till women are allowed to exist.

Liberal Voice for Women
https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1969330162844995934

14m
Our attempt to ensure women's representation in the LibDems
shut down once again.
LDConf voted to cancel our motion F4 which would have made our Constitution fair and lawful.
The MPs left the room - to their shame. Craven?
Brilliant and passionate speech by hollowood_zoe

To be clear - Zoe was allowed to speak for two minutes on why we should be allowed to debate the motion. Someone else was allowed the same time arguing to shut down the debate. Noone else got to speak.

Liberal Voice for Women (@LibVoice4Women) on X

Our attempt to ensure women's representation in the @LibDems shut down once again. #LDConf voted to cancel our motion #F4 which would have made our Constitution fair and lawful. The MPs left the room - to their shame. Craven? Brilliant and passionate...

https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1969330162844995934

borntobequiet · 20/09/2025 10:45

That’s extraordinary. A mainstream political party doesn’t allow a vote to ensure it complies with the law of the land.
These people are idiots. I so hope the media picks this up and runs hard with it. Nick Wallis is probably interested.

RareGoalsVerge · 20/09/2025 11:07

This is extraordinary.
Their current policies are illegal. It is legal for them to have rules to ensure a balance of male and female on committees. It is only legal for specific vacancies to be therefore reserved for male or female candidates on the basis of sex. The next step is surely to sue.

Helleofabore · 20/09/2025 11:08

More sunlight is needed!

borntobequiet · 20/09/2025 11:12

The next step is surely to sue

I would love to see them taken to court for this, and would support any crowdfunder.

ArabellaSaurus · 20/09/2025 11:26

fromorbit · 20/09/2025 10:37

They win this time. Liberal Women will keep fighting till they win. It is only a matter of time. It is going to become an annual event till women are allowed to exist.

Liberal Voice for Women
https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1969330162844995934

14m
Our attempt to ensure women's representation in the LibDems
shut down once again.
LDConf voted to cancel our motion F4 which would have made our Constitution fair and lawful.
The MPs left the room - to their shame. Craven?
Brilliant and passionate speech by hollowood_zoe

To be clear - Zoe was allowed to speak for two minutes on why we should be allowed to debate the motion. Someone else was allowed the same time arguing to shut down the debate. Noone else got to speak.

Edited

Well done, Zoe.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/09/2025 12:09

This leaving the room in disgust when anything remotely pro women’s sex based rights is mentioned appears to be the new cross party #nodebate tactic - see Bristol council and the Greens.

borntobequiet · 20/09/2025 12:28

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/09/2025 12:09

This leaving the room in disgust when anything remotely pro women’s sex based rights is mentioned appears to be the new cross party #nodebate tactic - see Bristol council and the Greens.

The optics are so bad - it’s amazing they don’t realise this. Or perhaps not so amazing…

lcakethereforeIam · 20/09/2025 12:30

My MP is LD. Didn't vote for him. Did they all leave the room?

BundleBoogie · 20/09/2025 13:53

It’s astounding. Are they actually stating their intention to continue with unlawful and discriminatory policies?

Ed Davey comes across as an absolute buffoon who clearly has zero regard for the rights of women.

borntobequiet · 20/09/2025 13:57

I used to be a committed Liberal, then Lib Dem. I am so so pissed off with them.

I joined because the (then) Liberals were the only party with coherent policies on the environment, Europe and electoral reform. Yes, there were some slightly odd elements, especially at the local level, but it was a grown up party with its head screwed on, not like now.

BundleBoogie · 20/09/2025 14:49

I can’t fathom how they can’t see the unbelievable unfairness if their policies. The ‘LGBTQETC’ contingent have their own quotas.

The T also want in on women’s quotas. How can any sane person not see the issue here?

I think it goes with it saying that people so utterly brainwashed are not fit to run the country.

Winterwonders24 · 20/09/2025 14:53

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/09/2025 12:09

This leaving the room in disgust when anything remotely pro women’s sex based rights is mentioned appears to be the new cross party #nodebate tactic - see Bristol council and the Greens.

Its also utterly controlling; it's always fascinating how much TRA's behaviour align with domestic abusers behaviour

SweetPenelope · 20/09/2025 14:58

I voted for the local Lib Dem candidate, because he told me at the door that he thinks gender ideology is "madness" and that it could be fought from the inside. I have no idea how much fighting he's doing.

hallouminatus · 20/09/2025 16:27

borntobequiet · 19/09/2025 09:48

I used to be an active LD and had a lot of time for Tim Farron, thought he was very unfairly treated. I understand why he was being careful in that interview, but what he came up with in the end seemed sensible. However I think he was optimistic about the outcome. LDs are have always been prone to ideologically driven rifts, and this one could finish them off, or at least seriously weaken them. It really is an issue of extreme political toxicity.

what he came up with in the end seemed sensible
What he came up with at the end of the interview was the idea that committees could have a certain number of places reserved for women, and also a certain number of places reserved for people who identify as trans. I wonder what proportion of a committee's membership would it seem sensible and proportionate to reserve for each of those categories. I suspect he's not given it much thought.

Alwaysoneoddsock · 20/09/2025 17:01

If I believe in women’s rights - who do I vote for?

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 20/09/2025 17:52

I'm appalled at this, what we need is a law that says that elected officials cannot walk out of the room just because they don't like what's been discussed. Although considering this party isn't paying attention to the law as far as the Equality Act is concerned I don't suppose they'd pay attention to that one either. 🤬

IwantToRetire · 20/09/2025 17:58

borntobequiet · 20/09/2025 12:28

The optics are so bad - it’s amazing they don’t realise this. Or perhaps not so amazing…

I cant quite believe that they would behave like that in public.

Like those Greens in Bristol.

But then they were obviously okay with blatantly supressing a vote.

You would have thought if they are so confident of what the policy should be, they would put it to the vote to have their trans priority affirmed by members.

But what they done implies they dont have the confidence they would win the vote.

OP posts:
timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 20/09/2025 18:06

Why they think they have a place in politics when they just remove themselves from debates they find ideologically difficult, is beyond me.

This isnt that difficult in the grand scheme of things.

I admire Zoe for persisting.

Rightsraptor · 20/09/2025 18:10

hallouminatus · 20/09/2025 16:27

what he came up with in the end seemed sensible
What he came up with at the end of the interview was the idea that committees could have a certain number of places reserved for women, and also a certain number of places reserved for people who identify as trans. I wonder what proportion of a committee's membership would it seem sensible and proportionate to reserve for each of those categories. I suspect he's not given it much thought.

I note that nobody ever reserves a certain number of places for men. But, as they're the default human, why would they?

GallantKumquat · 20/09/2025 18:25

RedToothBrush · 19/09/2025 08:11

I actually feel for Tim Farron. He's almost certainly GC and thinks it's bollocks on a personal level. However he was targeted previously over his religious beliefs and he was effectively forced to set down as leader. Despite his own personal views maybe being different on a number of subjects he has always behaved like a liberal and encouraged debate and represented the line that has been built by consensus. He is in a bind to challenge (which I actually think he has privately).

Back story. Back in 2017 in the aftermath of the 2017 election, a faction of the LIb Dem took it upon themselves to oust him because of his Christian values and the fact he personally regarded homosexuality as sinful. If you look at his voting record and his conduct he certainly didn't reflect his own beliefs.

But I do believe there's more to the story and the bonkers LGBT+ Lib Dems had a witch hunt against him.

The MP announced his resignation as party leader on Wednesday, saying he had become “the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in”.

“The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader”, he added.

His resignation came just hours after that of the party's openly gay Home Affairs spokesman, Lord Brian Paddick, citing "concerns about the leader's views on various issues".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-resigns-liberal-democrat-gay-rights-lgbt-chris-cooke-tension-lord-paddick-a7796321.html

Now Brian Paddock is an interesting character at this point. He's openly gay and was being heavily influenced by the LGBT+ Lib Dems at the time.

Now the Radical Association were just getting to a point of significant influence at the time. They were effectively the LDs answer to Momentum and seen as 'the future of the party's and were heavily dominated by a clique - that largely centred on the LGBT+ LDs and their mates.

Hey look at this from the above article about Tim Farron

Former head of the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, Chris Cooke, made unsubstantiated complaints to the party about Farron's personal conduct when "drunk", and admitted that he "made up a story to cause trouble" following his suspension over Twitter comments directed at Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

The student nurse tweeted that the Broxtowe MP he hoped she would not “escape the noose” over her expenses claims after it was revealed she was one of several Conservative MPs embroiled in the scandal over the party’s expense claims during the 2015 election

She screen-grabbed the tweet and her local constituency party complained to the local Lib Dems.

He later tweeted his Twitter account and friends said he had not meant to threaten her – he was just expressing a hope she would be arrested or lose her seat.

Mr Cooke, from Bramcote in Nottingham, admitted that he had sent an email to party bosses with a complaint about Mr Farron's personal conduct while “drunk” and has since retracted.

He told the Mail on Sunday: “I felt betrayed by the party and was drunk at the time.

“It is an email I regretted sending and have retracted.

“I was just p*ed off with my suspension over a non-issue and made up a story to cause trouble.”

The contents of the complaint have not been revealed but senior Lib Dems told the Mail that, although they knew them to be untrue, it compounded their alarm about Mr Farron’s inability to breakthrough during the election campaign which they blamed on the ongoing row over his religion.

Hmmm. Doesnt this all hit a bit of a nerve, when repeated back in September 2025 and the context of certain vexatious TRAs and rising concerns about the rhetoric of killing politicians?

AND

“Many people thought Farron was not only a liability in terms of his anti-gay views but not liberal or Left-wing enough”, he said. “‘There was a section of the party that were simply out to get him."

By any means necessary. It was a witch-hunt.

Let's go back to Paddick.

Paddick, a former Police officer at the MET, subsequently got heavily involved early on with the row over GC voices in the party and bullying in the party which was going on at the end of 2017/ start of 2018. He was very much involved at the time of Natalie Bird's election as co-chair of the Radical Association and subsequent treatment within the party. He apparently tried to smooth things over between 'both sides' but I don't actually believe much of this. He was far too heavily sat on and influenced by the LGBT+ Lid Dems in the end. My feeling was he was a useful idiot for TRAs because he could be manipulated by the whole 'its just like being gay' stuff and trying to be down with the kids he didn't ask the right questions at the right time.

I must admit to thinking, I wonder what he thinks of everything now in the context of all the subsequent developments. He left the LDs in 2023 to take on a non partisan roll but still sits in the Lords.

This is basically all about the Radical Association and the LGBT+ Lib Dems who at the time were all mates and all pretty much full on TRA and their dominance in the party and the degree of influence they had. At the time members of the LGBT+ LD pretty much had members on most of the LD federal groups which manage the party. These were almost all men and those who weren't were trans / non-binary (one notable exception to this). It always struck me, that they were the people with the most time on their hands to volunteer to the party - women with children just didn't have a chance. They had a strangle hold on it. Farron, ironically, was pointing out at the time that the LDs had a 'stale, pale and male' problem. Which this absolutely echoed.

I don't believe Farron was targeted purely because of his views on homosexuality. It was just easier to openly oust him on this basis rather than on the wider TWAW thing. In hindsight, he probably wasn't MRA enough either. He just wasn't authoritarian enough for them, they couldn't control him as he wasn't 'one of theirs' and he was seen as an issue precisely because he was liberal and tried to enable debate within the party. It wasn't just how he came across in 2017 to the electorate. The LD were always going to get squeezed out because of the dynamics of that particular election and them making themselves a single issue party who were looking increasingly detached from the electorate and increasing inflexible and undemocratic.

It's interesting that Natalie Bird's harassment came not long after Farron's departure and just as we entered the height of no debate. There were many LDs who believed in leaving the EU or thought that the LDs were becoming too 'liberal identity' - you all must believe the tick box of right think - who left the party at that time after a massive upsurge in members in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.

So if you understand this, you understand perhaps why Farron has towed the line. If I'm honest, I'm surprised he ever stayed in the party after the way he was treated. Most others would have walked in his shoes.

I am more forgiving of him than most I think as a result, because I think he's already been a victim of the anti liberal bullshit in the party and was actively targeted by the LGBT+ Lib Dems, including at least one who actively told straight up lies about him to cause shit. And admitted to it.

Sadly, there's no rule in politics that you get to spout bollocks on a topic and move on. It usually works that way because it's boring to press a topic on a technicality. But Morgan detected comedy gold and wouldn't relent.

RoastOrMash · 20/09/2025 18:28

Anyone know if Zoe’s speech at conference was recorded and if so a link for it?
Would like to write to my Lib Dem MP about their unlawful policy and following the SC judgement
Thx

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 20/09/2025 18:37

I just saw their fearless leader on YouTube, he's saying he'll stop the boats, he's going all out to the win the men's vote from Reform, but doesn't give a damn about the women's vote obviously. 🤬

ErrolTheDragon · 20/09/2025 20:39

Rightsraptor · 20/09/2025 18:10

I note that nobody ever reserves a certain number of places for men. But, as they're the default human, why would they?

I thought the libdems policy - if it is returned to being properly by sex of course, it’s meaningless otherwise - does reserve at least 40% for men, exactly the same as it does for women? Isn’t it meant to simply ensure that the ratio either way can’t be higher than 60:40?