Lib Dem conference big vote on supporting women's rights tomorrow

[fromorbit]

Vote tomorrow at the conference with major implications

Lib Dem conference ‘descends into culture wars’ with trans vote
Party wrong to debate pro-trans proposals that will ‘be weaponised against us’, say campaigners

Published 20 September 2026 6:45pm BST
The Liberal Democrats have been accused of “taking a sledgehammer to women’s rights” by debating proposals for more “inclusive” rules on single-sex spaces.
The party will vote on Monday on a proposal to scrap new guidance banning transgender women, who are born male, from female toilets and changing rooms at its annual conference.
The plans are set out in an emergency motion selected by Lib Dem members, which will also force the party to take a firm stance on whether “trans women are women”.
Liberal Voice for Women, a Lib Dem group campaigning for sex-based rights, warned the policy would be pushed through by a conference “stacked with activists” and force the party “back into the culture wars”.
The backlash threatens to embroil the Lib Dem conference in a transgender row for a second year running, despite Sir Ed Davey insisting on Saturday that he led “the most united party in British politics”.
https://archive.is/s25Xm

'require all future appointments of the EHRC Chair to be subject to a confirmatory vote by the Women and Equalities Committee to ensure the Chair commands cross-party confidence.'

The WESC is stuffed with TRAs. Conveniently.

statutory amendments.

This is the crux, I guess. Amending the EA.

The EA is looking shakier than ever.

From the full policy:

'Conference believes:

Trans women are women, trans men are men, and everyone deserves to live in safety and with dignity.
The rights of women and of trans people are not in competition; both are essential to a fair society.
The Code of Practice is discriminatory and unworkable, and places an undue burden on service providers.'

Jesus wept.

A dedicated Parliamentary Review Committee: establish a cross-party parliamentary committee to review how the law protects trans people's rights, taking evidence from impacted communities to propose statutory amendments.

If they want to change legislation, shouldn't they have don't this after Haldane? The SC ruling only affects a minority of people who identify as trans.

Parliamentary vote on EHRC appointments: require all future appointments of the EHRC Chair to be subject to a confirmatory vote by the Women and Equalities Committee to ensure the Chair commands cross-party confidence.

They do realise that the make up of Parliament might change, don't they?

I suppose they aren't less incompetent than Reform or the Greens or the SNP, but it's a close thing.

I can't see how they can achieve any of their intentions without removing sex discrimination from equality law.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I can't see how they would be able to do that.

Obviously Australia does seem to have done this, but not while everyone was looking.

Honestly Marie I don't even think they're smart enough to be saying it as a tactic. I think they're just up their own fundament on being on the 'RSOH'

they just don't see women as ppl

my council is a Lib Dem led alliance likely to lose ti reform in the next local election & this kind of nonsense is exactly why they'll lose

Car parking charges seem to be a blind spot with councils. Our nearby satellite town imposed parking charges. The car park used tobe full at the week-end and well filled even on week days. Now it's empty and local businesses are struggling. The obsession seems less to do with money than with discouraging car use. That it cripples local businesses doesn't seem to register.

It's also a form of negging, because it implies that people can't judge the sex of a gender non-conforming person, and that their only hope is to be included as the opposite sex.

Joanna Williams in the Times "Trans-right vote proves Lib Dems have lost way"

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3d6493f1-a544-4973-8766-984d0848643b?shareToken=358d261164fd0723f1dd25c0c12f3e93&ver=article

Oh they missed "and non binary identities are valid"

Lose ten points

Hey, I do understand your concern, but I'm being literal. Often, you don't know if someone is trans and we have never checked genitals before allowing access to women's spaces. So, given we never did that: we must not actually care if they are there (i.e. we don't think about it or feel concern). Personally, I don't care at all if only transwomen use the space but there is no way at all to know they're genuine. Hence: gateway. Also.. prefer they sit down to urinate.. hate sharing public toilets with anyone who stands up to urinate. Women aren't supposed to have to worry about that in women's toilets.

As someone who has been put in a terrifying position on multiple occasions because no one questioned an actual man entering a women-only area, with no security or monitoring; it freaks me out that actual men won't be challenged because people aren't brave enough to enforce policy. Issue fines to staff who don't. Same as checking ID.

My fear is that this is being pushed to justify cameras in private spaces. Or to justify facial recognition in or around these spaces. We're on track for this. We need to push back.

To answer your question: an obvious transwoman is when it's clearly a man. We know what men look like, let's agree on that! Wearing a dress and a wig doesn't always work to make you look female.

Sorry, my comment was also considering Reform's intentions of apparently removing all equality law. Not sure how accurate or possible that stance is.

To answer your question: an obvious transwoman is when it's clearly a man. We know what men look like, let's agree on that! Wearing a dress and a wig doesn't always work to make you look female.

Sorry but it's not clear at all. How do we tell which men are trans and which men are just wearing a wig and a dress?

So what does this mean for sports, prisons and refuges?

So, given we never did that: we must not actually care if they are there (i.e. we don't think about it or feel concern).

Because women never “checked genitals” means they never cared whether men were in their single sex spaces?

Are you bonkers?

Oh, just someone who genuinely suffers from the dysphoria of not feeling comfortable in their male or female body. I support them doing whatever they need in order to feel more comfortable within themselves. But the line has to be drawn where an absurd situation arises. Like making it impossible to monitor / prevent actual men (or anyone with a penis and intent to misuse it) from being alone with women in some areas where security isn't available. Or where women are particularly vulnerable in the presence of people with penises. By the way: that includes transwomen. They also don't wanna be around when those types of men are present. Imagine the reaction they'd get..

Maybe change the word 'men' to 'people with penises'. Then tattoo everyone with a QR code for access to their relevant spaces. I mean.. we're heading there, aren't we 😐😂😒

The Libs/Lib Dems have a long history of episodic insanity. In the 60s it was for a while policy to nationalise all the land in the country. So be it. We're going through another period of sublime self indulgence.

I voted Lib/Lib Dem from 1979 until I resigned from the party in 2018 over the idiotic, grandstanding policy on Brexit and May's "Brexit in name only". I regret this now, as it means I can't resign over all this.

Here is Bernice shooting bow and arrow.

'I did think of naming a prominent terf for each arrow'

I'm still not understanding you, really. Are you suggesting that 'transwomen' are men without penises?

Maybe change the word 'men' to 'people with penises'. Then tattoo everyone with a QR code for access to their relevant spaces. I mean.. we're heading there, aren't we

No - the ECtHR has found that treatment that might affect fertility cannot be a mandatory part of gender recognition because it would interfere with Article 8 of the human rights convention.

There is therefore no way to link ‘gender affirmation’ treatment to gender recognition, regardless of whether you think it makes a difference.

You seem to not understanding the current situation.

To say "we have never checked genitals before" is to not deal with the political reality of the aggressive attack by TRAs on women's sex based rights.

We never checked before because we didn't need to. Because most people lived and understood the reality of sex.

And I suspect that in the past the odd transexual who had gone through surgery, even if the didn't "pass" probably wouldn't have been challenged.

But thanks to the queer inspired attack on the norm, we now have a situation that is nothing to do with gender dysphoria but to do with at one end people whose lifestyle is all about identities and nothing to do with dysphoria let alone surgery, and aggressive men who whether they still have a penis are about pushing the boundaries of women having the right to demand their rights.

So if you are thinking women are being a bit over the top, it is only in response to the overt attempt to undermine women's sex based rights.

So what the Lib Dems are doing in their virtue signalling is, almost worse than claiming they would change the EA, is to perpetuate the damaging lies that you can change sex.

Gender re-assignment is already covered by the EA.

But attempts to say the word sex in the EA is open to re-interpretation is an attack on women's rights. And it shows that when sex was firts included in the EA nobody thought the law had to confirm that sex is biological which shows just how far, across society, the TRAs have undermined the word.

And as the Judge said, sex in the EA is the only one that is discriminated against within the law if it is said the TW are the same as actual women.

(Just to add as often said on other threads, the EA does not cover those who "identify". GR only refers to those who have undergone re-assignment surgery or are on the pathway. So if the law was changed it would only cover the approximately 10,000 with a GRC ie the "legal women" and not the trendy identities which is who this vote is aimed at. )

Me too.

Everyone knows what sex they actually are (even those diagnosed with a DSD).

I am going to make a radical suggestion - how about people obey the law? How about we trust them to be decent? How about the societal pressure to behave correctly (the social contract) begins to support men who identify as trans being safe in male single-sex spaces?

So, male people (including all male people who identify as trans) use male single-sex spaces. If they are uncomfortable with this, they can use unisex spaces.

Female people (including all female people who identify as trans) use female single-sex spaces. If they are uncomfortable with this, they can use unisex spaces.

The Lib Dems get huge amounts of funding from the makers of puberty blockers.
They encourage the grooming of children in schools and the consequential sterilisation and mutilation of children.
They believe men can change into women.
Do they seriously think we should trust them to run the country?
I used to vote for them. Decades ago. Never again.

@Awkwardisfunny how do you know if someone is genuinely suffering from dysphoria, when there's currently no way of testing the truth of what someone claims is going on in their head?

This (below🤞) is Tiffany Scott, a Scottish sex offender, he was being prepared for transport to a women's prison as the Isla Bryson scandal erupted and put an end to it. In case you missed it Isla Bryson is a double rapist who was already in a women's prison, albeit briefly. Scott is now dead, but Bryson will be released sooner or later. The rapist is still claiming to be a woman and may be genuinely dysphoric. I still wouldn't want him using women's toilets or changing rooms.