Lib Dem internal elections .... women only posts ....

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.libdems.org.uk/internal-elections

At fucking last. Buried in among alllllll that prevarication and careful phrasing and balancing is the key point:

'The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.'

'Women' means women. Not men calling themselves women.

Well done, LibDems.

'Following the Supreme Court decision in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent), the Federal Party has asked the EHRC for guidance about how to approach positive action in internal elections.
In advance of receiving this guidance, given the timing of our internal elections, the Federal Party has taken legal advice about the interpretation of rules 2.5 and 2.6 in the constitution, insofar as they apply to groups with protected characteristics. It is important to say that the constitution asserts the primacy of the Equality Act 2010 in interpreting any rules, and gives authority to the Returning Officer to make reasonable interpretations of the rules in situations where there appears to be a conflict between the constitution and the Equality Act 2010.
Our legal advice is that the Party needs to follow three basic principles:

1. Positive action is permitted up to the point at which a group that shares a protected characteristic is appropriately represented in the Party’s governance. The relevant benchmark for a political party representing the country as a whole is the proportion of people in the country who share that characteristic: i.e. if 10% of the population share the characteristic, then the Party can take positive action until 10% of its governance also shares that characteristic.
2. The Party must treat each protected characteristic as a separate category for the purposes of assessing the relevant benchmark, and mechanisms to take positive action. For the avoidance of doubt, the advice is that the party must treat groups with the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment as separate groups.
3. It is reasonable to ‘round up’ to whole numbers in taking positive action. So for a group who share a protected characteristic with a low prevalence in the population as a whole, it is reasonable to specify that one place on a larger committee is reserved for that group.

In practice this means that two clauses of the constitution need to be reinterpreted by the Returning Officer to make them compliant with the Equality Act 2010, in the context of the Supreme Court judgement. In doing so, the Returning Officer needs to be reasonable and follow as closely as possible the apparent intention of the original drafting. Taking clause 2.5 first, with relevant parts underlined : 2.5 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall self-identify as men or non-binary people, and self-identify as women or non-binary people respectively The apparent intention behind this clause is for the party to take positive action for both the protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Reassignment. However it merges benchmarks for these groups, which the Party is legally required to treat separately. In terms of Sex, the Party’s legal advice is that it is reasonable to treat the rule as saying: 2.5 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall be men and women respectively. The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.'

Who are the supportive parliamentarians? Surely Baroness Ludford isn’t entirely on her own?

https://bsky.app/profile/mariecgoldman.bsky.social/post/3m4iqnn5zfk24

Libdem spokesperson for Women and Equalities has urged government to speed things up wrt EA guidance.

'I'm disappointed to hear that the EHRC final guidance after the Supreme Court ruling could be delayed up to a year. This is simply not good enough. We urgently need clarity. The Government must bring the final guidance forward as quickly as possible.'

So a bunch of misogynist blokes, with their usual measured and reasonable approach, are saying she's genociding trans people ...

A selection of responses to her mild post:

'Very disappointing to see a Lib Dem pushing for the social eradication of trans people'

'Fuck you.'

'Seems like your hatred of trans people is fuling your rush.'

'Amend the equality act to be explicit that sex means gender in accordance with the standing human rights principles, the well documented intentions of the creators of this act and the many precedent cases in the UK body of law. Or do you want trans extermination?'

'You are really desperate to screw trans people over, what did we ever do to you?'

'go away sadistic bigot.'

'Fuck you, cunt'

May trans activists continue boldly in their campaign to win hearts and minds.

Apart from anything else it's really dumb.

Don't these TRAs have enough savvy to produce a shonky bar chart that says "winning here!"?

Maybe the LD's will see the thin end of the wedge now that they aren't playing along to the tune of the trans mob and realise they've had a Trojan horse of misogynists taking over from the inside?
We can but hope.

Wow! Good for Marie Goldman - she’s brave.

Fancy doing something so terrible as to call for some updated EHRC guidance!!

Someone in the Lib Dem leadership should take notice that this is the response they get from the TQ+ community when they make a very milquetoast statement of "maybe it would be a good idea to have guidance that's lawful, and the government should bring it forward instead of sitting on it."

I'd hope they would notice. Then again, Mark Pack is an expert on opinion polling, and he's still in the world of "if you hold this poll upside down and squint then TRA policies are actually popular"

She's getting heat on Facebook, too, if anyone wants to show support.

Mad, really, as her statemnet is framed in terms of helping trans people.

Only complete capitulation will do, and even that's not enough.

I actually think it's really important to use 'cis' here (as much as i hate it), because any other word and they'd be finding ways to squeeze themselves into the category - like that nurse that argued he was a biological woman because he was a woman and he was biological.

By using their own language against them they can't find a way to argue themselves into it.

Perhaps I muisunderstood your post then, which seemed to be complaining that "no trans groups had been consulted" - as if this would have made a difference to the ruling, and that people with the protected category of 'gender re-assignment' had had their rights removed by the ruling. They haven't! What has happened is that the protections afforded to those with the protected category of 'Sex' have been re-asserted and clarified.

Pretty sure that post was a sarky dig at the likes of Maugham, White, McCloud, Whittle, & their fellow chaff throwers, who all know fine well that the SC considers only legal arguments, not the life stories of trans randos.

I was quoting one of the notably stupider comments on the linked article.

No. We can stop referring to males with a trans identity as any kind of woman instead. If language is so important, let’s be factual and accurate. They are men with a trans identity.

Exactly.

Which all brings it back round to what nonsense this all is....

They want their quota to include a certain kind of woman only.

It's not open to all women apparently, only those that are "cis". Quotas can't legally just pick one protected characteristic and then exclude within it. That's potentially unlawful.

They may as well be saying it's a women-only position as long as you're also [pick one from the following gay/straight/black/white/
old/young/Christian/Muslim/atheist etc.]

Edited to add that it's potentially unlawful. They've definitely created themselves a legal muddle but IANAL so can't say exactly where they stand on the law here when they bring in a second protected characteristic in the way that they indirectly have.

Ah! I see.

Yes, it is important for language to reflect reality. I only ever use the terms 'people/men/women who have adopted a trans identity' these days.....it is accurate and truthful and describes the process.

It is important not to adopt the terms of the ideology as if these terms have existence or meaning outside of that ideology. They don't!

You don 't even need to use 'their' own language to show the meaningless of the whole business. You just need to use clear, accurate everyday language. Terms such as 'cis' and gender identity' are formed entirely within an ideological structure. Their purpose is to blur the boundaries and create uncertainty.

You just need to use clear, accurate everyday language. Terms such as 'cis' and gender identity' are formed entirely within an ideological structure. Their purpose is to blur the boundaries and create uncertainty.

Being generous, their purpose is to have a frame of reference so that people who share a belief that everyone has a gender identity can speak about this to each other. Similar to how the church has words like baptism, christening, communion and so on. However, to non-believers "cis" doesn't have any significance whatsoever. If someone wants to call me cis, fine. It means as much to me (as an atheist) as if a Christian were to tell me I would be "unsaved" on the "day of reckoning". I'm not going to challenge their belief - I fully accept that Christians believe that only those who accept god will be saved at the time of the second coming etc.

However, you can't impose the language of a belief into a selection process for public office. It excludes both non-believers (I don't meet the criteria as "cis" because I don't believe in gender identity) and believers who are trans-identifying women (i.e. females who identify as men).

So yes, ultimately the use of this language here is creating a muddle. It certainly doesn't belong in public bodies, given they should be adhering to the Nolan Principles regarding objectivity.

Edited for typo.

Lib Voice for Women have another great thread on the ongoing controversy:
https://nitter.net/LibVoice4Women/status/1986139169593110871

It seems that various TAs are leaving the Lib Dems over this. So the chance of ending sexism inside the Lib dems is growing.

What is annoying is how it is delaying calling out other parties, as LV states. The infighting is like Labour with Corbyn all over again.

Well done for focussing on the law though, no point trying to run the country if the party can't even comply with the laws!

Excellent letter from FWS to Lib Dems re positive action quotas, there’s a link to it on Lib Voices for Women hopefully here if I copied the link correctly https://liberalvoiceforwomen.org/blog/fws-write-to-libdems

Absolutely excellent!

Proportional representation is what I kept asking for of the BBC when I completed their "what could we do better" questionnaire. Then they gave us Riot Women with a man in a dress forced in, so I think we can see that request fell on deaf ears. These large firms, be it NHS, BBC or LD who have an overpopulation of trans compared to the national average do seem to be the ones struggling with the very clear law and guidance and getting legal tangles because of it. Almost as if they are the most shouty? What a surprise.

“The life stories of trans randos” superb turn of phrase that’s given me a huge laugh. Well done Mumsnetters, why is it none of the TRAs can admit to understanding this steaming pile of poo even when it’s in their own interests?