This spring conference season Lib Dems filed into the auditorium to hear a motion that would amend this piece of the constitution, to remove all references to self-ID and non-binary people:
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.
And this spring conference, a weary bunch of Liberals – tired of the constant, fundamental attacks on our values from a determined and illiberal minority – moved to ignore it entirely, a vote that passed with such a staggering majority that you could weigh the result.
The message was clear: “go away”. And now it’s time for those critical of gender identity – in the footsteps of those critical of sexual identity – to leave the Liberal Democrats.
The writing is on the door – there is no space for bigotry in this party. And while our byzantine machinery has allowed this motion to reach the conference floor, no representative auditorium will pass it.
Of course they wouldn’t – they’re Liberals.
I must turn to those operators of our machinery. Why did this reach the floor? There will be good, Liberally minded, process-driven reasons – but those must now be re-evaluated in light of this blemish on our good character. Trans friends and colleagues (again) sat powerless to wait and see if (this time) they will get one past us. Hoping that a majority will (again) show up to defend their rights. Burning with the knowledge that we often (but not always) stick to our values – and tired, tired of the constant badgering of bigots, emboldened by a machine that’s shown a dedication to process, but not always the values that underpin them.
Watching our party, so united on this issue, let this transphobic nonsense reach the floor – it demeans us, and it makes us less effective. Liberals need to debate Liberal policy amongst Liberals, not be dragged into the mud by people that imitate our words, but don’t share our values.
I am buoyed by this same conference ratifying our new code of conduct, which – to the incredulity of some – demands members live up to the values enshrined in our constitution. This is a step in the right direction, and I applaud it, and we must not stop until every article and point protecting bigots from expulsion is removed.
Turning back – to those who worm their way into our processes, and find ways of hacking them to illiberal aims – make no mistake. We will patch those holes. You will make our ship watertight.
You have united the party against you, more so than any single issue in living memory – moreso even than Brexit! There is no place for you here.
It’s time to leave.
* James Belchamber is a member from Birmingham. He runs the justLiberals Discord, a social space for Liberals inside and outside of the party.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sausage company launches free rural bus service
Friends of Balgay event on Saturday! #dundeewestend
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
Merlene Emerson
Michael BG
Joseph Bourke
Matthew Radmore
Roland
61 Comments
Well said. To the transphobes, of whose antics everyone is thoroughly sick, and in the words of Mr Charles, “hit the road, Jack, and don’t you come back no more no more no more no more.”
Apparently they are whining about “trans supremacy” on the Musk site, as if that was an actual thing that actually existed.
The mind boggles. Can’t they go and get a hobby that isn’t so utterly destructive to trans people.
Absolutely this. They’re not wanted, they’re not welcome, they’re on the side of evil and against everything remotely decent. The only thing I’d disagree with here is the use of “gender critical”. That’s their euphemistic term for themselves, and using it shows them a respect they don’t deserve, in much the same way as using “human biodiversity advocate” rather than “white supremacist” does. They are not critical of gender — they want to impose rigid and unchangeable gender roles on everyone, and don’t care who that imposition hurts or kills.
As I see thing FCC included the motion on the agenda because conference is the sovereign body of our party. Conference then had the power to amend the agenda and did so.
Thank you for this! 100% agree.
It’s such a distraction, it’s tiring to see women attacking the LGBT instead of the patriarchal society.
#Notinmyname
It’s about time these bigoted people were shown the door. The Liberal Democrats have a clear policy that trans men are men, trans women are women and non binary identities exist.
I can safely say that of the three illuminations that I witnessed which were provided by self-described gender-critical people at this Conference, the first was baffling at worst, while the latter two were easily the vilest things I can remember hearing from a Conference podium. The latter two also generated easily the worst audience reactions I can remember witnessing in the hall. The reaction of the Conference was extremely heartening, particularly the overwhelming vote in favour of moving to next business on F15.
Personally, I’d rather spend time at Conference determining policy and strategy to help us win elections, rather than indulging a tiny and deservedly unpopular faction that is manifestly hostile to our party’s most important central value: that of helping people to be at their best.
Completely agree. We are a liberal party, and we shouldn’t allow people to proliferate deeply illiberal ideas like transphobia within our party.
30 pee Lee is on record saying that the Tories plan to fight the next election on anti – immigrant, transphobia & anti”woke” (whatever they think that is) culture war terrain. Well, they can hardly talk about economic competence. And they still haven’t delivered my unicorn 🙁
I express no view on whether this small (tiny, actually) minority of anti-trans members should choose to stay in the party. However, the conference this weekend (following a pattern of votes in state party and federal party conferences) makes two things clear:
1. Lib Dem values are values which support and include the rights of the trans and non-binary people in our party and in our society. These values are clear in our constitution and are the settled will of our membership.
2. The membership does not wish to keep revisiting this issue time after time after time. As well as causing stress to trans and non-binary folk in our midst (not to mention their families and friends), this debate is distracting us from key issues we care about – particularly fighting the terrible governments that are serving our people so badly in London and Edinburgh.
Excellent, pithy, entirely correct article
Or just be liberal and tolerant towards them, even when they are wrong.
@Richard O’Neill, We have a choice of being “liberal and tolerant” towards the bigots, or being actually liberal and tolerant towards the innocent people they’re targeting. One side of the “argument” allies with actual Nazis, with the Republican Party in the US, with everyone we as liberals are meant to be fighting against, and does so with the intention of destroying the lives of a small, harmless, minority. The other side is trans people saying “please just leave us alone and stop trying to hurt us”.
Quite aside from the utter injustice of refusing to take a side in such an obvious case of right and wrong, there’s also the practical matter that the transphobes, *every single conference* since at least 2019, have repeatedly wasted the time of conference with their disruptive antics, wasted the time and energy of the online moderators for the online conferences we’ve had, tied up the complaints process with frivolous complaints, *also* tied up the complaints process with justifiable complaints against them, and cost the party untold resources — not to mention good activists lost due to burnout from dealing with their hatred — in their attempts to impose their hateful views where they’re not wanted.
Tolerating them *does not work* as a practical matter, as well as being acquiescence in evil. They need to go.
My naive view is that we should work hard to ensure that transphobic ideas don’t gain credence within the party. Ideas can be problems, but people can change.
A lot of active transphobes are pretty far down the rabbit hole. They’ve started seeing everything through that lense. They believe trans people are inherently “threatening to women”, and even worse. But people can be deradicalised. Personally, I think deradicalisation is probably going to be more effective than purging. I believe this of Nazis, I believe it of Islamists, I believe it of Stalinists, and so I believe it of transphobes.
Of course, the LDs have the moral right to set terms of membership, and excluding people for their beliefs is essential in a political party. But I think building a bridge – with the aim that these people should cross it, rather than us meeting in the middle – is probably going to be more productive than exclusion. Sometimes disciplinary action including expulsion is necessary. But not only would I rather get someone to change their one bad view than see them leave entirely, I also don’t want “LDs hate women” nonsense hanging around – and the media right now will believe any transphobic lie if framed a certain way.
As I say, this is probably naive and idealistic. I’d just rather these people change their views and stayed, than kept their views and left.
I’d say that was a test of liberalism. Strongly disagree with any discrimination. Yet the idea of punishing people for having the “wrong opinion” has long been used as an anti-liberal mechanism to advance reactionary views. If liberals don’t believe and stand up for tolerance who will?
Richard,
I think that the problem is not “wrong opinions” but more of “wrong values”. As liberals, we freely acknowledge that there will be disagreements on policy. The question is, if your values as demonstrated diverge far enough from those espoused by any particular political party, is there a place for you in it?
And, looking at it from the other side, how much divergence from the generally acknowledged perspective of its membership can be accepted?
“But I think building a bridge – with the aim that these people should cross it, rather than us meeting in the middle – is probably going to be more productive than exclusion.”
The problem is that this isn’t a choice between inclusion and exclusion. It’s a choice between including transphobes and excluding trans people — and the number of trans members who’ve left the party in the last few years because of its inaction on the transphobes within the party is a moral stain that will never leave the party — or excluding transphobes and including trans people.
There is no way for the party to be safe for trans people as long as transphobes are welcomed, just as there’d be no way for it to be safe for Jewish people if we were OK with antisemitism, or for Black people if we were OK with white supremacists.
Andrew, maybe this is a false distinction, but to me there is a distinction between being hateful and being dangerous.
If you’re being dangerous, the yes you should not be tolerated. At the least, we would need some evidence that the behaviour has stopped.
But if you’re saying “I’m concerned about about immigration/abuse of the system/erosion of the nuclear family”, then I don’t actually think that’s a safety concern. 33% of the UK is antisemitic, but most of that is ignorance, a much smaller number are committed extremists.
I’m multiply disabled. There are certainly people in the party who think I shouldn’t exist. Equally, I am sure that some of my opinions are hateful in ways I haven’t considered.
I think people have to be allowed to be wrong, and given chances to change their views. Our response should be measured – and there should always be a road back.
I completely agree with Mark Valadares.
As the grandfather of a trans man, I am appalled that we even consider allowing so called ‘gender critical’ people to continue as members. John Stuart Mill’s no harm principle is the one to follow, namely that we can agree that everyone can express an opinion or behave in any way they want as long as they do no harm to others. So called ‘Gender Critical’ people do untold damage to trans people and are not Liberals.
I for one don’t want them anywhere near the party I have worked for for almost 60 years. They must go and go now, whatever their position in the party
James, thank you for saying what I havevthought for some time but have not had the guts to say.
The Lib Dems is no place for the GC Cult. Our fundamental values are clear, Ed spelt it out from the platform, as a Party we are pro-trans rights as well as women’s rights and there is no contradiction.
“there should always be a road back.”
There should. And I want to build a road back for the many great trans members who’ve quit in disgust at the party’s institutional transphobia. As for a road back for the bigots… well, you can’t come back until you’ve left…
I am tired of the words liberalism and feminism being used as a weapon. Don’t let these negative fringes and their voices use messages of division drive a non liberal value into the mainstream. I only travelled to York to ensure that I was there to support all humans in a potential debate.
Dont let a trans and non binary exclusionary ideology infect our party any more. Let’s disengage with these toxic and ongoing interactions and put our voice and membership power to good use.
Remember – we are a liberal family – our core values, our freedoms and our liberalism bind us, Remember your privilege – I was proud to have been in the room, I know tensions ran high, from the opening of the day until the end. I am immensely grateful to every single human in the room who understood the message being pushed from a small fragment of negativity, We are the political home for everyone. It’s time we moved forwards and now it’s time for more equity for ALL.
Thank you to every single member who used their voting card for equality yesterday. But let’s not forget for those with these gender critical views, they do not represent us, they are not liberal views or values.
I agree entirely with the thrust of the article. There is no place in our Party for people who don’t agree with our fundamental values. Transphobia is as unacceptable as racism. The complaints system is sadly not working as it should to remove people who express transphobic views.
On the technical point of how this made its way onto the agenda, Federal Conference Committee has the power to decide which policy and business motions are included on the agenda however the standing orders state that all validly submitted constitutional amendments have to be included: the FCC has no power to reject them. Gareth acknowledged this in his speech.
Of course standing orders allow any member to move next business and the vastly overwhelming majority of Conference supported this in this case. Conference ultimately has the power to decide what it debates and what is unworthy of debate in the Liberal Democrats. It exercised that power.
Andrew makes the pertinent point: it is not possible to be inclusive to both transphobes and trans people. If you want to be inclusive to trans people you must exclude transphobes. If you are inclusive to transphobes you have actively chosen to exclude trans people, no matter how much “why can’t we all get along” handwringing you do.
Some of the commenters above could do with familiarising themselves with Popper
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It’s a bit disappointing to see that several people, including sadly our good friend Gareth, normally a fount of wisdom on these matters, are mistaken in their understanding of our fundamental values – which are not equality, inclusion and diversity but are in fact “liberty, equality and community”. Even more importantly, no single one of these three fundamental values are individually absolute, because “we seek to balance the fundamental values …” and that is because we know full well that in different circumstances community values can outweigh the value of liberty, liberty can outweigh equality or equality can outweigh community or any of these the other way around as well.
Liberal Democracy is never easy, and when it comes to seeking “to balance the three fundamental values” in some areas it can get particularly thorny. However, can anyone of us honestly say we are paragons of virtue in every aspect of Liberal Democracy or do we all struggle to achieve the necessary balance so we actually can “build and safeguard a fair, free and open society,” because with membership down by nearly 50% in three years, and the country in the state it is in, we certainly need more people in the party, not less.
I’m proud that members at conference have so clearly confirmed the true values of the party.
The leadership must now take direction from conference and improve the disciplinary processes so that we can effectively protect our members & supporters from bigotry and intolerance.
And for those advocating exclusionary ideology — you don’t have the support of the membership. You will never have the support of the membership. If you can’t come to terms with that & accept the settled will of the party, please leave with whatever dignity you have left.
David Evans – I don’t venture on here much, but your definition of ‘equality and community’ clearly differs to mine.
Conference made its view very clear indeed, and the number of dissenting voices was quite tiny. The Party has other issues to address to rebuild membership (on which subject, bye for now).
In the early 1970s, in my sixth form, I was one of the few students who embraced a guy who ‘came out’ and considered transitioning. In the mid 1970s, on the streets of Edinburgh, I (the sole ‘hetero’ among us) protected my gay workmates from thugs in bars. In the early 1980s,, I worked closely with one of our Party’s few ‘out’ trans members and saw how poorly they were treated by quite a number of Party members. I also spent twenty years as a full time caseworker helping trans individuals.
Why am I so concerned at the direction and nature of the present discourse within the Liberal Democrats?
Doubtless, there are still a number of transphobes in the Party, including (as with virtually every issue) some who wear ‘trans’ credentials on their sleeves, just as there are SOME anti-semites among anti-Zionists and SOME Muslim-haters among those who perpetually raise discriminatory concerns about terrorism-threats.
Tarring all with the same brush was never any part of any Liberal philosophy. We all have the same lump of jelly connected by billions of microtubules in our skulls. We are all capable of understanding other positions – even, sometimes, adopting them. When we disagree, we should talk, not throw metaphorical chunks of concrete at each other.
Perhaps the best course for someone whose first reaction to dissent is to show others the door is to themselves walk through it? Or, better still, walk to the threshold with those with whom they presently disagree – and talk.
As one far too much whose of lifetime was steeped in conference procedure, I fully recognise the utility and power of a ‘next business’ motion carried without debate. Sometimes this is done for proper expediency. At other times, it is done because of collective embarrassment or timidity. Sometimes a bit of both. Of course, without debate, no one gets to know which is the predominant motivator.
Hello Jennie,
Popper was in favour of a very considerable degree of tolerance for the intolerant. He says this, “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”
I believe that that is the position in the LDs. By reason and argument the day is won and will be won. We should be celebrating the strength of our party and maintaining tolerance for dissenting minorities.
BTW as you’re probably aware, Popper’s thoughts were the fruit of reflection on the threat from totalitarian and potentially violent fascist or communist political parties. Tolerance has to end where there is a threat to the existence of a liberal state. This is clearly NOT the case with our party.
I am sick and tired of hearing dehumanising language. What these people are doing is hostile – GC members have targeted me before. I’ve been misgendered in federal meetings. I am too scared to come to conference.
If they said these things at work, they’d be sanctioned. It beggars belief that while action would be taken if they did this to any other minority that it’s acceptable for my community to still be targeted.
I deserve basic respect as a human being. Their actions and speech seem entirely contrary to everything we stand for. It’s not “debate”. This is taking a toll on my health; if you think I should step back or leave, then you’re part of the problem.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences.
We all have the right to opinions and respect. What is not alright is those who behave this way, bring the party into disrepute and target vulnerable minorities.
Hi Gareth,
Thanks for the response, it is much appreciated. I can see you are keeping well.
However, I’m not disputing with you in any way the definition of “Equality and Community.”
What I am pointing out is that, unfortunately you misstated the party’s three fundamental values in your speech to conference when you said ” … this party’s constitutional commitment from our Preamble to fundamental values of equality, inclusion and diversity.”
What the preamble states is “The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
Diversity and inclusion are very important, but as far as the Preamble is concerned, and I place great store on it. I’m sure you remember it when were discussing the disaster that was Nick’s leadership in coalition I said “How do you build and safeguard a fair, free and open society when you are losing councillors, MEPs and very soon MPs hand over fist?”
To me balancing those three values are absolutely key to Liberal Democracy, while inclusion and diversity are not quite so, as I am sure no Lib Dem would want any of the ideas of a Braverman or a ReesMogg as examples of inclusion or diversity in our party!
All the best,
David
Chris Moore: having been reported to the police for “threatening behaviour” by transphobes (I told them to leave me alone and blocked them on a social media site), and actually had death threats from them, and yes the one sending the death threats was (or claimed to be) a party member, I think they have definitely been at the point of dangerous for some time. And I’m not even trans, I’m just trans supportive.
We’ve had the argument. We’ve had the argument relentlessly for at least ten years. They don’t accept they’ve lost despite repeatedly losing and having their facile talking points comprehensively debunked. They just keep repeating the same factually incorrect and hateful talking points.
How long do you expect trans members and their supporters to keep having to put up with this targeted harassment?
I repeat: you cannot have a party which welcomes both transphobes and trans people. If you’re welcoming transphobes you have actively chosen to exclude trans people. If you want to do that, that’s absolutely fine, and perfectly your right. But at least have the guts to admit that’s what you’re doing.
Two quick final points from me to clarify what I have already said.
The first is that “tolerating people who currently hold transphobic beliefs or values” is not, cannot be, the end of the discussion. If those people are going to remain in the party, then we need to focus on winning them around. That is hard work. I don’t blame anyone who thinks that work is not worthwhile. I do think it is the only way to reduce the levels of transphobia in this country.
The second is that some people have spent large amounts of time trying to hijack the party machinery to promote their hateful views. My view is that this does start to reach the point where changing minds is an unviable strategy.
As an analogy, there are plenty of Lib Dems who are anti-immigration, and therefore xenophobic. Being quietly xenophobic is one thing, trying to remove pro-immigrant policies is another.
It is a tenet of modern Liberalism that diversity, individuality and individual development are beneficial overall to the whole of society. A net utility. This is the context for our principled support and defence of minority groups, of which trans is just one. Without individuals trying out different ways to conduct their lives, others will be deprived of the benefits.
For an example we could consider the life of George Sands (hardly known as Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin de Francueil), of whom Victor Hugo is said to have commented that George Sand cannot determine whether she is male or female… and that it is not my place to decide whether she is my sister or my brother. Apart from being an important literary figure, George Sands is known for wearing male clothes at a time when a police edict from 1799 stipulated that any woman wishing to wear pants had to seek special permission from the police. Women today would scarcely give a second thought to gender issues when choosing to wear trousers, nor that likely to acknowledge gratitude to the women of the past who paved the way for them.
When we defend minorities, I think we should more often explain the Liberal principles that provide the foundation for our position.
Hi Jennie,
anyone who sends death threats to you is a criminal and should be dealt with accordingly. And expelled from the party.
That is totally different from people advancing their views. The reality is that the small minority we are talking about will not prevail.
You raised Karl Popper: I was responding to that.
Popper’s paradox of tolerance says a liberal state must defend itself against the threat of elimination by intolerant political actors (i.e. Nazis in Weimar Germany.) It’s not applicable to the situation in the LDs, where he would advocate argument.
It’s not a question of “welcoming”, as in giving a warm welcome. It’s a question of tolerance. No one said tolerance was agreeable or easy.
I am heartened that apparently people want to “focus on winning round” people who literally want women like me removed from society, and eventually, life.
You know what they say about what you have if 9 people sit down at a table with 1 nazi: 10 nazis.
@TomB ” If those people are going to remain in the party, then we need to focus on winning them around. That is hard work. I don’t blame anyone who thinks that work is not worthwhile. I do think it is the only way to reduce the levels of transphobia in this country.”
You’re talking to people who have been *doing* that work for ten years or more, many of whom have had their health destroyed by the impossibility of winning these people around. Your way has been tried and it *did not work*. It doesn’t work. It’s been tried and failed, and all that it’s done is embolden the transphobes while driving trans people out of the party as they decide, quite reasonably, that the party cares more about playing nice with bigots than it does about their safety.
@Chris Moore
That a liberal society should tolerate illiberal views implies no duty on a liberal party to offer membership to illiberal people.
Let’s be clear. Transphobes are not Liberals, they are intolerant bigots. A Liberal accepts that some people are different from them even if they are uncomfortable about it. They also express their views in a non- threatening way and don’t threaten the party with court action if they don’t get their own way.
Unfortunately, not enough party members know the full extent of the actions of the transphobes. Not only do they wish to demonise trans people, but they expect the absolute right of free speech to do it. Free speech has been qualified for some time with certain hateful language deemed unlawful. The sooner hateful speech about trans people is made illegal the better.
The hateful GC people are not welcome and need to be shown the door.
I think that the most useful description of the world is that biological sex is determined by the functionality of the genes, specifically SRY, an individual inherits. Gender identification may be consistent with this, or different. That view is of course subject to change as more research is undertaken. This is based on my being a long out of date molecular geneticist and a bit of recent reading to see what the status of the science is.
It seems to me this is perfectly consistent with liberal values. The most important thing is that trans people are valuable human beings, and like everyone else, are entitled to live their lives in the most fulfilling way they can, free from bullying in particular, and pressure to conform in general. That is what liberals are here to enable, and I will play my part in that.
Thank you Andrew Melmoth <3
It seems that this nasty little gang of illiberal people are hiding behind their nasty little illiberal belief being classified as a “protected characteristic”.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
However, do remember that very many dogmatic and illiberal beliefs are going to be similarly “protected”
by the same ruling, simply because they fail to be *quite* as extreme as Nazism or totalitarianism.
It is a really rather gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation to claim that *all* such philosophical beliefs must now be accommodated within *every* political party, including an avowedly liberal party, otherwise we are breaching Equality Law.
Political parties are free associations, ones which are defined by the exclusion of certain philosophical beliefs and by the inclusion of others. That’s their very nature as instruments for political action. We can’t and shouldn’t ever shy away from that.
Tristan: You’ll be glad to know that more research has indeed been undertaken, and that sex is MUCH more of a spectrum than was previously thought. There are lots of papers out there to read to bring yourself up to speed. Many people identified female at birth, who think of themselves as cis women, do not have the XX phenotype; many people identified male at birth who think of themselves as cis men do not have XY. And that’s without mentioning intersex people, who are often misidentified as one sex or the other because a medical professional took a glance at their bits when they were born and made a judgement call.
In terms of biology, most trans women are actually much more “female” than me with my abnormally high testosterone count and my one half remaining ovary, because they have optimally balanced hormones. This affects huge numbers of biological markers including skin, hair, muscle, bones, etc etc.
It really is a fascinating area of science, and if the medical and pharmaceutical professions could get to grips with it it would be amazing for testing the differential effects of medications – trans women have the female response to certain painkillers rather than male, anecdotally – but given that most medications are only tested on cis men (not even on cis women, because the menstrual cycle might make things unpredictable, never mind that being an interesting area for study in and of itself…) I fear we have a while to wait for that.
It’s true, Mick, that as I’m not a party insider, I have scant awareness of the internal ructions around the few gender critical party activists.
But there’s a wider issue: are Christian liberals welcome in the party? Many will hold gender critical views, yet will be in favour of transexual people having every right that any other human being has. I can think of my sister, for example, who has been a party member on and off. Should we be throwing out all Christians starting with our esteemed ex-leader?
I just don’t think it’s the way to go
Being a Christian doesn’t equal being a bigot. There are many good Christian liberals who don’t hold transphobic views, including several in this comment thread who I know personally to be religious and are arguing that bigots should not be welcomed.
Chris Moore. I am an active Christian, as a Quaker. The difference is that, unlike GC people, I’m not trying to force my beliefs on the party. Most of the other Christians I know are not GC. Indeed, quite the opposite. I do not advocate showing people the door lightly, but this group of people are nasty intolerant bigots who continue to peddle hatred and further their arguments with lies and half truths. They are not Liberals
@Chris Moore – The key thing is whether those hypothetical Christian Liberals who hold those views attempt to use the party’s platforms and procedures to air those views and see them reflected in the party’s policies and stances. If they didn’t do that, there is far less of an issue than there has been with what we saw in York.
A right to hold a belief is very different to a right to impose that belief on others – the issue at stake is, given the repeatedly stated, expressed, endorsed and ratified view of the party (ie. that trans men are men, trans women are women, and non-binary people are non-binary and valid), whether the people who disagree are better off staying or leaving, given that their views and the way they are trying to impose them are proving so enormously unpopular within the party.
Mr Moore,
You are entitled to believe what you want.
But if you start agitating to remove our ability to exist in society, if you start participating in harassment and stalking mobs online and offline, if you start terrorising trans people and our friends, as many of those who hold transphobic (“gender critical” is a sad little euphemism used by people who won’t be honest about what they think) beliefs do, then you should fully expect the majority of people, who are decent tolerant people content to live their lives in a way that minds their own business and not eradicate anyone for being harmlessly different, to have a problem with it.
But I suspect you knew that. This is not about “belief”, and never has been. It’s about _behaviour_.
@ Chris Moore,
Wanting every human being to have the same rights as every other human being seems to me to be a central belief of liberalism.
Sarah, and Cass, I just want to say that I am so very sorry that you have experienced such terrible, bullying behaviour from a small but toxic group within the party. I am so sorry that you have felt excluded and intimidated, and that you, Cass, have felt afraid to attend Conference. It is tragic that some trans people have felt driven to leave the Party. It is the Party’s loss, for you have so much to give.
The group who have treated you in this way is small, but I am so sorry if the rest of us have not always spoken out as we should. I do hope that after this vote, you will realise that you are welcomed, valued and cherished within the Party. As others have said eloquently, we have a choice, between keeping you in the party, or keeping the transphobic bullies. Of course we choose you, which means that the transphobic bullies have no place in the party.
Of course I know that you are no threat at all to my rights, or to the rights of any woman – why on earth would you be? But the transphobes are certainly a threat to my rights, as well as to yours. Any erosion of the rights of any member of the human family, is a threat to the rights of us all
Tristan Ward: re:
“Wanting every human being to have the same rights as every other human being seems to me to be a central belief of liberalism.”
Indeed it is and modern Liberalism (social Liberalism if you like) argues that the same rights for all, including the same rights for developing each individual’s potential, is beneficial overall to everyone in society.
Incidentally on Karl Popper the real paradox was Popper’s intolerant and rather prickly personality.
@JohN grout
“that trans men are men, trans women are women”
I simply can’t see how it automatically follows, that if you do not think this , that you cannot be liberal or indeed a member of the Lib Dems. That surely should not be a test of liberalism. As Sarah Moore says – it is about behaviour. In this kind of context, the test must surely be the belief that trans people and bisexual people are humans first and just as entitled to “life, liberty and the pursuit of of happiness – to coin a phrase -as anyone else. Our job as liberals is to help ensure everyone has as good a crack at this as possible.
Or to pick up the religious theme, that trans and bisexual people, just as much as anyone else, are made in God’s image.
And as we know, behavior demonstrates belief.
@ Jennie,
Thanks for your response Jennie; and you are of course right about X and Y chromosomes, and the state of medical research generally.
My current understanding of how the genetics works is based on this Nature paper from 2015 where the relevant gene in placental mammals (“SRY”) is described as “the master regulator of sex determination. ” https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mechanisms-of-sex-determination-314/
Clearly there are proteins downstream of the SRY product that will affect sexual phenotype but it does seem clear from this that a functional SRY gene is necessary for functional testes to develop.
That paper is 7 years old now and ancient history in terms of molecular biology. Can you point me at any more recent research? I also suspect that the authors would use more nuanced language in 2023 than they used in 2015.
@ Tristan Ward: That, of course, would cover the large majority of Christian liberals.
@Mick Taylor and John Grout: how on earth can a few GC activists impose their point of view on the party? That hasn’t happened and won’t happen.
@Sarah Brown: anyone whose behaviour is criminal should be reported to the police and expelled from the party.
@Fraser Graham: “The Liberal Democrats have a clear policy that trans men are men, trans women are women and non binary identities exist.”
Are you sure about that? Because when I looked around 4 months ago the policy in this area was anything but clear.
Maybe you were looking somewhere different to where I was.
What does it actually mean to say that “trans men are men and trans women are women”?
Either it means precisely what it says or it is gesture politics – a glib phrase that is merely meant to indicate our support for trans men and women. I have this difficulty that I do like people to mean precisely what they say, which is why I spoke in a Council meeting in late 2022 on a Labour motion which included the above phrase.
I voiced concern that if you really mean (for example) that trans women are women, have you thought through the implications as regards such things as elite sports, safe spaces and imprisonment. Around half the Lib Dem Group on Sefton MBC abstained on the motion, including myself, and half supported it.
In the light of the massive U-turn that the Scottish Government recently engaged in over which prison Isla Bryson should be sent to –
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon
I can’t help thinking what an inept bunch of politicians the SNP must be. I don’t think I’m that brilliant at politics, but the Isla Bryson case was totally predicable to me.
“I voiced concern that if you really mean (for example) that trans women are women, have you thought through the implications as regards such things as elite sports, safe spaces and imprisonment.”
Yes, it’s quite simple – you do a case-by-case risk assessment.
A woman with a history of sexual assault against other women is generally not allowed into certain spaces.
A woman who has tried to gain access to a domestic violence shelter where her ex-partner is would be turned away.
Women with high testosterone levels would not be allowed to compete in elite sports… Although the panic about non-existent women at an elite level resulting in the tightening of rules and subsequent exclusion of a cis woman demonstrates the problems with the “discriminate against trans people by applying simplistic binary notions to the issue” approach.
Chris Moore. How on earth do you think the new definition of transphobia that recognised the right of GC people to continue to propagate their view came about?
A prominent Liberal Democrat threatened extensive and expensive court action if he didn’t get what he wanted. Personally, I would have said “See you in Court”, but the FB decided not to do that.
I do not wish to see trans people removed from society or violence towards them. But I remain unconvinced of the case for self-ID on gender as a legal universal right, and I am concerned that it seems that advice from various groups has seen interpretation of the Equality Act get ahead of the law.
I am concerned that games with words from those who want a narrow, sectarian political movement have seen people who are not convinced of the need for this reform, hyperbolically labelled as right-wing, authoritarian and illiberal, which is ignorant of the historic social and cultural diversity of the British liberal left.
There is a need for democratic consensus on the passing of incremental social reform and one is not a ‘bad faith actor’ (as the smear has been put on this site before) for raising the need for the balancing of different rights that need to be held in tension. I have left the party.
(I also could not stomach many people in the party’s appetite for legalisation of the sex trade, further deregulation of pornography, or of hard drugs. I remain a centre-left, devolutionist democrat, and don’t really feel any party speaks for me).
@ Mick Taylor
“John Stuart Mill’s no harm principle is the one to follow, namely that we can agree that everyone can express an opinion or behave in any way they want as long as they do no harm to others. ”
Clearly every liberal must listen to an appeal to JS Mill! What he actually wrote was:
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant…. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.
I do not think Mill would agree that opinions (as opposed to actions) may be supressed merely because they do harm to others. Here’s why:
In Chapter 2 of On Liberty, Mill says “unmeasured vituperation, enforced on the side of prevailing opinion, deters people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express them”.
We all agree that unmeasured vituperation is intolerable and illiberal, but by making this distinction doesn’t Mill implicitly allows an opinion that is hurtful to some or even a majority, provided it is not unmeasured vituperation.
When you’re trying to convince someone to change their mind on a major topic, what you say often isn’t as important as the way you say it.
If someone feels like you’re attacking them, disrespecting them, or talking down to them, they will shut down and ignore even the most logical and right arguments on principle. Although, I don’t see many logical arguments in this.