Rebuilding the trust of the Queer Community will be a long road. Yet, it is one we have now begun.
I have written before about how the Party’s reluctance to meaningfully challenge the regressive trend of queer rights in the UK has resulted in a loss of trust from the trans community, pushing many dedicated and experienced activists to join the Green Party. But, as the response from the Party to the EHRC Code of Practice has shown, there is potential to turn around this regressive trend. The Party likes to talk about our outstanding record on standing up for queer rights – from abolishing Section 28 to being the architects of the legalisation of gay marriage – and whilst our momentum has slumped recently, the leadership’s response to the EHRC code shows a welcome turn in the right direction.
With this in mind, I have some suggestions for the Parliamentary Party on how we can play out part in resetting to the pre-2025 status on queer rights, and how we can go further. Britain was once the best in Europe for LGBTQ+ rights, and we can take that place again.
- Our MPs have 4 slots available to them from this Sessions private members bill ballot. One of these must be allocated to a bill that changes the law to make the Equality Act’s definition of sex trans inclusive, as well as removing transphobia (gender critical beliefs) as a protected belief. The UK’s system of gender recognition must also be repaired, de-medicalised, and further empowered to ensure a genuine legal threat exists against those who would endanger trans people by outing them.
- Consensus must be reached on the approach to protecting and supporting transgender children. We know that the suicide rate is rising and is under-reported. We know that the puberty blocker ban is wrong, having been widely discredited by global medical bodies. It’s time for our MPs to take the evidence-based approach, to dismiss the Cass Review for the unscientific shambles which it is, and advocate for a return to affirmative and clinician-led healthcare.
- Trans people belong in Sport. The Code of Practice institutes a hard ban and makes it impossible to run sports competitions where trans people and cis people participate together. This has been frequently deemed as unimportant, when in fact it is the opposite. More noise needs to be made on this, as it is the key area where the evidence is strongest for inclusion. For example, two separate literature reviews, huge in scope, in 2022 and 2026, found insufficient evidence to justify the exclusion of transgender women especially from competition alongside other women.
- LGBTQ+ Healthcare equality needs to be given more attention. Health outcomes for queer people are already bad and will likely get worse. Trans people are already disproportionately likely to be affected by diseases such as metabolic syndrome, diabetes and other forms of disability. Furthermore, the commitment by this government to segregate trans people out of gendered wards means that it is likely that our overstretched hospitals will be often unable to find a bed. Many people will just not go into hospital due to fear of mistreatment. Exclusion from sport and physical activities will further push us from physical activity, worsening outcomes further.
Reclaiming our position as a beacon for LGBTQ+ rights requires bold, evidence-based political courage. We cannot simply look back at the abolition of Section 28 or the delivery of equal marriage as shields against current inaction. By focusing on precise legislative reform, standing firm on healthcare, and rejecting unscientific bans, the Liberal Democrats can offer a genuine alternative to the current regressive consensus. It is time to move past safe rhetoric, adopt this roadmap, and actively earn back the trust of the queer community.
* Tara Foster is a LibDem campaigner from Southampton. She sits on the LGBT+ LibDems Executive as an Ordinary Member and is a prominent member of the Radical Association.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
The Joy of Six 1538
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Peter Chambers
Carl Pierce
Martin Eggleston
Peter Hirst
44 Comments
Yes to all this!
“ changes the law to make the Equality Act’s definition of sex trans inclusive”
No, change the law to remove ‘sex’ as a protected characteristic and replace it with ‘gender’ as a protected characteristic, making clear that ‘gender’ includes gender identity.
Seems a sensible package of measures! The Equality Act amendment is a good idea; even more so as it tries to wedge the door open to legitimising homophobia as well as transphobia under the guise of “protected beliefs”. Tightening that definition in a way that makes it harder to pretend prejudice is principled might require some creative drafting; but surely we have folks up for that challenge? Worth the prize, after all.
If we can’t do the basics of defending liberal values, we should probably consider a party name change to be honest. This is the bare minimum and it’s shameful that members have to ask HQ and the MPs to support basic human rights.
Fully agree with all of this. I’ve seen a few MPs’ Pride Month posts reference Section 28 abolition and Same-Sex Marriage – we need to start talking about this, too. It’s wonderful to see the response in the Commons chamber from our MPs to the Minister’s statement on Monday, and the slew of our MPs signing the Early Day Motion too. These things are noticed and are working – now we need to follow through.
I totally understand this is a key issue for many Lib Dems (and I’m not speaking for Lib Dems myself, I’m an ex-member). But I don’t understand how this ‘vanguard party’ approach to pushing the nation toward a morally defined policy outcome under all circumstances, against all headwinds, without hint of compromise or opt-out for those whose conscience leads them elsewhere, is compatible with its obsession with procedural consensualism and democratic consensualism and capturing the ear of middle-class middle-England. (Which is not to say that middle-class middle-England is inherently conservative, but its not inherently radical either).
(And yes, Labour and Tory don’t care about real democratic consensus and never really have, and bad faith parties do exist who are stoking the culture war for their own nefarious gain, but not everyone who differs from the preferred policy prescription is the enemy of either liberalism or democracy.)
This is bang on. What is the point of a liberal party that won’t stand up for rights, especially when both government and opposition want to make hay out of divisive cowardice and cheap populism. Our MPs did well in the last few days, but I want more.
Wholeheartedly agree. It has been refreshing to hear Liberal Democrat leadership and parliamentarians taking a strong and unapologetic stand that is unequivocally trans- / lgbtq- inclusive & protective.
It is the energy and principled opposition we’ve* been desperate to hear for years – and I would support all of Tara’s suggestions.
(*I am an ally, and LD Member.)
@Matt(Bristol). There are times to stand up against populism, especially where the words and actions of one group severely negatively affect another. You wouldn’t stand up for child abusers but trans bashing is OK? GC views are bigotry, plain and simple and should not be acceptable to Liberals. JS Mill’s harm principle clearly applies. Those of us with close trans relatives see the harm every day. Our MPs are right to stand up for trans rights.
” changes the law to make the Equality Act’s definition of sex trans inclusive”
What exactly does this mean?
If you are asking for the law to say that a trans person “is” “biologically male” or “biologically female” dependent on what they themselves desire, I think that is a bad move , highly unlikely to by supported by biological data, or indeed the community generally. Effectively you are forcing to people to call “grey” “white”.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think a trans man for example is “biologically female” – I think the data supports the idea that such a person is “biologically trans”.
There’s nothing about that status that makes such a person inferior or second rate or not entitled to the protection of the state, or entitled to a fair share of the support that the state and community can provide – because that person is just as human as anyone else and has human rights like everyone else. But I don’t think those rights prevent me describing the world as I see it provided that I express my opinion in a civilised way.
Mick, I am in no way advocating physical or verbal attacks on trans people, I’m advocating for an approach based on democratic persuasion and recognition of those who differ on the issue as citizans and stakeholders in society who have a right to disagree and no one on the issue and lecture and preach to another of another view on the basis of absolutes. We are dealing with how to accomodate a changing view and new perspective on a social matter that is not historically held, is not fully enshrined in legislation that was flawed and ambiguous when passed by Labour in the past, and does not have full democratic backing from the nation as a whole. That’s not populism, that’s realism. Historically, European democratic liberalism had a process for these issues and it was consensualism, not vanguardism.
@Tristan Ward Trans women are women – biological women. So the Equality Act 2010 needs to ensure that all womens rights, including pregnancy and maternity protections must cover everyone who says they are a women, and must not cover anyone who says they are a man. Non-binary people are shamefully forgotten, they must be included as recipients of all male rights and all female rights. Comparators for discrimination can only be other non-binary people
@ Mick Taylor
“GC views are bigotry, plain and simple and should not be acceptable to Liberals”
I would welcome your thoughts on my post at 8.59 above.
@ Matt (Bristol),
You use the word “vanguardism” as though politicians don’t have an obligation to lead, rather than merely following the loudest voices.
As a liberal, I believe that we should permit people to live their lives freely, so long as by their actions they do not cause harm to others. And that principle should apply to all people, not just those whom society deems appropriate. It’s a principle which is either all or nothing, to my mind. A line is drawn in the sand and you defend it as best you can.
And, in truth, if we adopted your viewpoint, we wouldn’t have abortion rights, the vote for women, gay rights and so many other aspects of modern life we now, and should, tend to take for granted.
We probably wouldn’t have old age pensions, or employment rights either, because it required leadership from politicians in the face of hostile media.
But, after a decade of creating a hostile atmosphere against transwomen, the views of the British public can still reasonably be described as “mixed”, a liberal political party taking a stance in favour of freedom hardly seems unreasonable.
Mark, I do think politicians need to lead. But I think in the non-consensual semi-democratic UK polity, ‘leadership’, ‘following the loudest voices in the country/media’ and ‘following the loudest voices in a given party’ get muddled. I’d favour some kind of fusion of Habermasian deliberative rationality with European consensus democracy on all questions of social division. Yes, that’s a) deeply utopian and b) deeply not sexy for anyone from Musk to Starmer to Stonewall. Yes, we might have achieved some policy gains slower. Yes, those activists groups who advocate for the rights of trans people would find it painful. But I don’t think it can be loudly stated its outside the range of options for a party based on social-liberal, democratic and social-democratic thought. And I do think the party selling itself as a consensualist party on some areas and not on others is deeply dissonant.
@Margaret Pollus
“ So the Equality Act 2010 needs to ensure that all womens rights, including pregnancy and maternity protections must cover everyone who says they are a women, and must not cover anyone who says they are a man”
So a trans man who gets pregnant should not get pregnancy and maternity protections?
If members cannot see how homophobic and misogynistic these suggestions are then we are done for electorally.
If an MP wants to go out there and campaign to destroy women’s ability to define themselves as a distinct sex class with particular needs arising from the realities of their sex, then that MP deserves the electoral hammering that will most certainly ensue.
They’ll have to explain to same sex attracted people why they are ‘transphobic’ for wanting a partner of the same sex or the right to gather as eg: a lesbian only group.
They’ll have to explain why it is acceptable to allow children to be chemically castrated and have healthy body parts removed. On what robust medical evidence is this the best treatment for a child?
Then they can explain why they are not authoritarian when they demand absolute social acceptance of extremist demands.
That such objectives are now so freely & openly demanded ought to be making it bloody clear that the party has gotten this woefully wrong.
Maybe we should have been listening to women expressing concern around women’s rights rather than pushing them into the dark & denouncing their warnings.
“As a liberal, I believe that we should permit people to live their lives freely, so long as by their actions they do not cause harm to others”.
Fully understand that Mark. The problem is one set of rights should not take precedent over another. Does a female inmate have a right not to share a prison cell with a trans woman. From work and public changing facilities, are women entitled to single sex spaces. Do not underestimate the how strongly some feel about this.
Mark, I notice other comments have not made it and in truth there is no reason for me to derail this thread. But I genuinely believe there are a significant number of people in this country who do not wish any harm or threat to trans people who cannot reconcile themselves to the national concept of trans /gender identity being seen as equivalent to that of biological sex and cannot see that that concept is inherent in global human culture or a natural right. I don’t know whether future society will judge them as ‘right’. But proclaiming that such people are beyond the pale and cannot be compromised with, as Mick does above, is not depowering the populists and the peddlers of hatred who do want to attack and hurt trans people. It is empowering them. I believe the only way forward on this as it is on on social issues, is rational, persuasive, constant debate and dialogue – of course, based on respect for the lived experience of trans people, but not short-cutting the need for societal consensus and buy-in for the policies and charters that are proclaimed in the name of the people. If the view of the party is that absolute liberalism trumps democratic social consensualism, that’s fine. But it should probably think about why it is trying to pretend it can ride both horses. (And also why it seemed accept the Cass Review, for eg, in the first place).
@ Kira Collins So you think that a trans man should be treated as the biological woman they are and given pregnancy and maternity protections? That sounds very sensible, and is currently provided for in the Equality Act. A trans woman has no need of those protections, which is why replacing sex with gender in legislation is so irresponsible.
Matt ” I believe the only way forward on this as it is on on social issues, is rational, persuasive, constant debate and dialogue – of course, based on respect for the lived experience of trans people, but not short-cutting the need for societal consensus and buy-in for the policies and charters that are proclaimed in the name of the people”
blah blah.
meanwhile, where will trans people be allowed to pee? Trans people will not convenienently stop existing while you debate whether they should be allowed to.
“Maybe we should have been listening to women expressing concern around women’s rights rather than pushing them into the dark & denouncing their warnings.”
But it’s not “women”, is it? Women are overwhelmingly in favour of trans rights. Study after study shows this. It’s a tiny minority of people, who are disproportionately noisy and mostly funded by American money.
As for “biological sex” there is no such thing. There really isn’t. Classification as “male” or “female” is based on a LOT of factors, and lots and lots of people have markers for the “wrong” sex, whether they’re cis or trans. I am cis, have given birth, and yet my testosterone level is higher than most cis women, many cis men, and pretty much all trans women on hormones. I would not be allowed to compete in elite sport. Most cis women who have given birth to a child assigned male will carry some “male” DNA. There are over 30 variations of “sex” chromosomes, not just the two most people know about. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to define “biological sex” in a way which includes all cis women but excludes all trans women. It is not scientifically possible.
The sooner everybody grasps that, the sooner we can start ignoring the tiny minority of people who are weirdly obsessed with what the person in the next stall in the bogs has between their legs and get on with our lives.
I quit the party because of its shameful bowing to pressure from transphobic bigots. If it were to do the things suggested in this post I would rejoin.
Jenny, the whole thread discusses the opinion of LGBT+ Lib Dems that the party should argue for a new piece of legislation redefining and replacing the GRA as insufficient (and indeed too ambiguous) to define the rights the organisation feels should have been given to trans people.
That can’t happen without debate.
I have opinions on the nature of the debate, and you’re entirely within your rights to differ and argue that doesn’t meet the urgency you perceive in the situation. (As Mick is in his rights to call a good chunk of the country bigots, unhelpfully in my view.)
You may reasonably feel anger that the debate that birthed the GRA and then led to the May government’s proposals for its reform, didn’t flower into the fuller result many wanted.
But the Lib Dems have historically purported to be a party of consensus and good process. We all know the GRA – whatever our view on what should have been in it – ultimately doesn’t seem to have been robust enough to create a sustainable consensus. But ‘no debate’ is not good enough as a basis for new law. You cannot shout through process or imagine away the views of large chunks of the country’s citizentry. I thought Lib Dems understood this. I thought it was a part of their ideology, as important to them as the concept of fundamental rights.
Jennie Rigg:
1. Women support trans rights
2. There is no such category as ‘women’
Is this not a contradiction?
@ Jennie and @ Margaret Pollus
“As for “biological sex” there is no such thing”
Can I please point you at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy which is about anisogamy. Anisogamy is a biological term of art that describes the system of sexual reproduction based on the fusing of two gametes where one gamete is larger and (typically) less mobile than the other. Pretty well all multicellular organisms (including humans) use this method of reproduction. In biological terms, we call the sex that produces the larger and less mobile gamete (the egg) female, and the sex that produces the smaller more mobile gamete (the sperm) is male.(*) That’s the scientific difference between “biologically male” and “biologically female”.
Personally I can’t see a way of saying that “there is no such thing as biological sex” without getting rid of the concept of sex completely. It’s far too useful a concept to do that.
(*) There are a few species where individuals produce both male and female gametes, either alternately or at the same time. Such individuals are either alternatively male and female or simultaneously male and female.
Kira Collins makes an important point about trans men being able to get pregnancy protections but this needs to go further. Trans men also need access to women’s sport but Tara makes an important point about trans inclusion for trans women in women’s sport. Perhaps the answer is that both trans men and trans women are included in women’s sport?
@ Jennie,
“As for “biological sex” there is no such thing. ”
You’re quite wrong about this.
You’d be better off saying that there is no precise scientific consensus on what the term means, but there is a broad agreement that the question isn’t as clear cut as used to be supposed.
Sexual dimorphism is a biological fact of both human and other animal existence and this of course complicates the issue from both a scientific and legal perspective. Adding the question of perceived gender identity adds another layer of complexity legally.
I think I might be guilty of a bit of a cop-out but I’m happy to leave the question of who should be classed as a woman to all those who self identify as women! Whenever I’ve stepped across the line I’ve managed to attract criticism from both sides and told that, as a male, I should keep out of it. 🙂
Tristan: ah, so anyone who has had their ovaries removed or gone through menopause is no longer a woman? Thanks for clearing that up.
It’ll blow your mind to discover that there are HUMANS that produce both gametes, or neither. Yes, the majority of people are at one end of the other of the sex spectrum but it IS a spectrum and trying to pretend it isn’t helps nobody, and nor does patronisingly chucking out Wikipedia links to someone who is clearly more familiar with a subject than you are
Seems to me that what most people mean by “biological sex” is “gender assigned at birth” . Gender. So the supreme court ruling makes very little sense.
@Chloe
You said “Fully understand that Mark. The problem is one set of rights should not take precedent over another. Does a female inmate have a right not to share a prison cell with a trans woman. From work and public changing facilities, are women entitled to single sex spaces. Do not underestimate the how strongly some feel about this.”
Do you realize that you say with one breath that one set of rights should not take precedence – and then with the next breath immediately do exactly that?
No-one should be forced to share a space where they are not comfortable. Ever. If spaces are not designed to allow that then that is a problem with the spaces, not with trans inclusion – so lets all campaign together for better design of places where that is a problem! Then everyone wins.
And if you will not accept a redesign then your desire not to be uncomfortable because a trans woman is peeing in one of the other stalls does not trump their need to urinate.
All public spaces are shared spaces, and we have to share them with other members of the public. That’s just part of living in a society.
@Jennie
“anyone who has had their ovaries removed or gone through menopause is no longer a woman”
Obviously this is not correct.
“Yes, the majority of people are at one end of the other of the sex spectrum but it IS a spectrum”
We not very far apart on this. In my previous post I was describing the theory. The real world is of course much messier, as you rightly imply when you talk about variations of sex chromosomes.
“someone who is clearly more familiar with a subject than you are”
I don’t claim to know what it is to be female or trans from personal experience, but I do have a degree in Zoology; and I spent 4 years doing molecular genetics research at the same time as the the SRY gene was identified – in the same building. And as a former farmer I know very well that when you castrate a lamb it stays male but behaves differently from an entire animal.
@Jennie
“It’ll blow your mind to discover that there are HUMANS that produce both gametes, or neither”
I’m not aware of any examples of humans who produce both male and female gametes, certainly not without some medical intervention. If you can show some examples I’d be very interested to hear about them. Like the unusual species mentioned in my anisogamy post, such individuals would be both male and female.
And can I point you also please at my post of 8:59 of 4 June in this thread where I said: “For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think a trans man for example is “biologically female” – I think the data supports the idea that such a person is “biologically trans”.
In 1968, the Labour Government passed the disgraceful, racist Kenya Immigrants Act, to deny to Kenya Asians with British passports the right to come to the UK after being expelled by Idi Amin. The Liberal Party led the opposition to this appalling legislation. We could be said to have been in the vanguard on that occasion and I for one was immensely proud of the party’s actions.
Similarly we should be leading the fight against the small, but very loud, number of bigots who seek to deny trans rights and force stereotyping on them. If individuals wish to live as a different gender to the one they were born in, surely that’s not something Liberals should be against? It’s a matter of free choice and we should support it.
“Sex” and “gender” are used pretty much interchangeably in British Law.
So I rather feel sticking the word “biological” on the front of “male” or “female” is just an appeal to authority falacy, an attempt to say “my version is right because science”.
And it’s pretty obvious that it’s transphobic – it’s trying to say “these women are different, these men are different”.
The Supreme Court said that the meaning of “biological sex” was “obvious”. Which it clearly isn’t. Jennie has given plenty of reasons why already.
“Sex assigned at birth” just means a doctor looked and gave an answer. Possibly a well informed answer by a trained professional. But it’s not a god-given power to read someone’s soul, or know their true inner self. You wouldn’t base a driving test on what a doctor thought on the day you were born – why is access to the toilet so set in stone?
Saying “ah, chromosomes” or “ah, gametes” just isn’t useful. You cannot demand that someone ovulate on demand. You cannot ask someone to take a DNA test at the door to the lav. Even if you could, plenty of women have Y chromosomes floating around for lots of reasons – the main one being, as (again) Jennie pointed out motherhood.
But you *shouldn’t* because it would be a monstrous breach of privacy to do so. Liberals should be against that sort of thing.
@Richard Flowers
“plenty of women have Y chromosomes floating around”
Let’s put some numbers on that. This study (from Denmark published in 2016*) put the number at 6.4 46 XY females per female 100,000 live births. That’s 0.0064%. My guess (though I can’t see this expressly stated in the study) is that “women” in this context are “people whose sex is recorded as female on their birth certificate”.
I entirely agree that at a day to day level talking about gametes may not be useful, for the reasons you give. We all (cis or trans, however we identify and whatever we look like) have to do the best we can on the basis of information readily available on often short interactions between people who are compete strangers against the background of our own personal experience, acquired knowledge and prejudice. We have to maximise knowledge and understanding, minimise prejudice and work out and live with the inevitably necessary (and messy) compromises.
(*) https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/101/12/4532/2765003
Mick, whether the 1968 controversy you bring up is applicable depends on whether we see the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC guidance as a removal of rights or as a clarification of ambiguous law. I know opinions differ on this. (And I accept I personally used to hope the situation post-GRA, pre-2017 Justine Greening proposals might hold as a compromise position).
But if it is a removal of rights analogous to the 60s immigrant debate, surely it is only a removal of rights from those with GRCs who trusted the ‘for all intents and purposes’ formulation, not from a wider trans community. The party wanted to go further. This didn’t happen.
In truth, I accept, the call for the new EHRC guidance to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny (whatever is in it) isn’t unreasonable, and everyone, can see Labour’s decision to pass the role to the EHRC was a failure of responsibility to forge consensus. But Ed Davey initially welcomed both the Supreme Court decision and the decision to pass the redrafting of guidance to the EHRC.
Can anyone explain why, or do we all agree the leadership is changing position depending on who shouts at it and can’t rationalise all its rhetoric into a coherent whole?
(And therefore does that weaken the integrity of the current (new?) position Tara, in the original article, is keen to grip onto and deepen before it slips out of her and LGBT+ LibDems’ hands)?
@Richard Flowers
“Sex assigned at birth” just means a doctor looked and gave an answer. Possibly a well informed answer by a trained professional. But it’s not a god-given power to read someone’s soul, or know their true inner self.”
Absolutely – ‘sex’ is determined by physical characteristics whereas ‘gender identity’ is a person’s sense of themselves. Both are important.
Mick Taylor is correct, and I well remember the late Dr Michael Winstanley (the then Liberal MP for Cheadle) giving the Minister, David Ennals, a torrid time in the Commons debate.
@Tristan Ward
I think it is fairly clear Richard wasn’t referring (only) to women who have an XY karyotype; he clearly references Jennie’s excellent point about many women having some cells “swapped” with offspring during gestation. There are also (for example) instances of chimaerism, or organ transplants to consider. In any case at 6.4 per 100,000 that’s still more than 4000 in the UK alone.
David & Mick, I remember (just) a Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 which arose because Idi Amin, the Ugandan military dictator, chose to expel all the Indian citizens of Uganda (not Kenya). The act affected the rights of many Indians who had settled in African Commonwealth countries.
@ David Evans. The act was passed because of the rapid exodus of British Asians from Kenya, but it also affected the Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin. If you look up information. about the act it specifically mentions Kenya.
The effect of the act was to deny British Passport holders who were not born in the UK from exercising their right to come and live in the UK. It was a completely racist act, because it was aimed at non-white passport holders.
The actions of the Liberal Party in fiercely opposing the bill were a matter of principle and were almost certainly not supported by a majority of the electorate.
My argument is that there are times to stand on principle whatever public opinion says. Supporting the trans community and standing firmly against GC views is right in principle and our parliamentary party should be loud and proud in doing so. The platitudes muttered by the occasional minister, whilst passing the buck to the EHRC, who have in turn produced a wholly unacceptable code of conduct, are shameful. What we need NOW if a bill to change to Equality Act so that it means what we all thought it meant: a Trans Man is a man and a trans woman is a woman. End of.
Mick, campaign for that outcome if you and the party want and can find the MPs to vote for it, but please don’t pretend everyone thought the EA and GRA pre-2017 (when the consultation on amending them and associated guidance begun) endorsed full gender self ID in all circs for all trans people irrespective of GRC or required the nation to collectively or individually believe and say what you say is the ‘end of’ the argument. Otherwise the party would not have been campaigning for reform through that period.
@ Mick Taylor
“what we all thought it meant: a Trans Man is a man and a trans woman is a woman. End of”
The trouble is that lots of people actually don’t agree that a” Trans Man is a man and a trans woman is a woman. End of.” You are trying to force your beliefs on others, and that’s not very liberal, especially when your interpretation of the biological data is scientifically contentious. In any event, proper protection of trans people’s rights does not require this. Proper protection of trans peoples’ rights, for a liberal, requires that they should be able to do what they want provided they do not harm anyone else.
Besides, if we adopt your approach we are handing weapons to Farage and his gang, who would endlessly ask whether “a man can give birth” and whether “a woman can have a penis”. When there is a real risk of Farage becoming Prime Minister, that’s unbelievably foolish politics. Trans people – along with the rest of us who care about equality – have far more to fear if Reform take power – the ECHR and the Equality Act would both be scrapped for example.