Trans rights are human rights, trans men are men, trans women are women and nothing will ever change this.
It is becoming clear, however, that a minority of our citizens and even representatives in our parliament, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists – or “TERFs” – do not feel the same way, choosing to see trans people as threats, and choose to attack and undermine them simply for existing, which I cannot help but regard as foolish and wrong. Trans women are women and trans men are men; how can they be threats when all they’re doing is living their lives, no different from you and me?
TERFs refuse to acknowledge that trans people are who they say they are, and in doing so undermine the feminist movement – the cause they claim to defend – but in reality are adding to the oppression and discrimination faced under the patriarchy. It is a reminder of how far we’ve strayed from the “civilised society” – tolerance, openness, inclusivity, the strengthening of individual rights and the abolishment of illiberal laws that prohibit people from living their lives to the fullest extent – the idea that liberal icon Roy Jenkins championed as Home Secretary under then-Labour Party leader Harold Wilson. If it weren’t for him, Britain would not have decriminalised homosexuality, removed theatre censorship, legalised abortions, banned racial discrimination in work, to name but a few of Jenkins’ accomplishments.
But more importantly than what he achieved, is the ideology he brought to the role of Home Secretary: social libertarianism. While many will read that, and think of the likes of Friedrich Hayek, free markets were not the aim of Jenkins’ reforms. But instead, so long as a person brings no harm to themselves or others and follows the rule of law, then who are we to say their identity is invalid? TERFs disagree with this sentiment, actively limiting women’s rights and supporting the strengthening of the patriarchy through harsher policing and state intervention in the lives of individuals.
A common act of oppression from TERFS is the infantilisation of transmasculine people, often demoting their whole identity to “a lesbian in denial”, an entirely false sentiment as a lesbian is a woman-loving woman, and a trans man is a man. TERFs justify their distorted perspectives, treating trans men as confused children and trans women as monsters, defying logic and facts, and for what? To keep their own, incorrect worldview intact, despite the repercussions it has on others? For people that regard themselves as feminists, they can often be found on the side of “men’s rights activists” and “anti-feminists” in many of these arguments; a fact TERFs often ignore, to further their cause. For far too long, TERFs have simply been seen as “women’s rights activists”, but this is far from the truth.
It is for the reasons I have stated above, a Jenkinsite approach is needed. We pride ourselves as being a liberal democracy, yet we seem to stray further and further from liberalism with each passing day, with institutions like the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) urging the government to delay its proposed ban on trans conversion therapy, and our media demonising the entire trans community for the actions of horrible individuals. It is wholly unacceptable, and does nothing but fuel the fires of intolerance and put lives in danger. While one person simply wants to live their life in peace, another has taken it upon themselves to prevent that from ever happening.
Bearing all this in mind, the challenge ahead of us is shifting society away from the grip of extreme social conservatism, and towards social libertarianism, the values expressed by Roy Jenkins that embody the “civilised society”. How do we get there, where do we start? It must begin with allies stepping up, doing more than simply posting nice infographics on Instagram, and actively amplifying trans voices. Contact your local MP and call for the outright ban of conversion therapy in the UK, support trans-owned businesses, and support charities like Stonewall and Mermaids. Our politicians need to make trans healthcare accessible via the NHS, and ensure transphobia is classed as a crime.
There is some solace to be taken in the meantime as, while loud, TERFs are a minority, constantly being pushed back by progressive voices. It is important to remember, no matter the propaganda and lies, truth prevails; trans rights are human rights, trans women are women and trans men are men.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
theakes
32 Comments
I think you will find the issue, Jack, is ‘self-identification’. And safe spaces for women.
I don’t think it is very liberal or tolerant to rubbish women’s genuine fears with shrill language like ‘oppression’ and labels like ‘Terfs’.
Put simply: if a woman comes out of a changing room shower, clad only in a towel, she isn’t going to feel safe if there is a naked person standing there who looks to a be a fully formed man. Genuine trans people, as you say, pose no specific threat. But in that circumstance, how do you tell if they ARE genuine?
Spot on Jack. We desperately need a Liberal Home Secretary instead of someone trying to prove they are even tougher than their predecessors and not just on trans issues but on immigration, refugees and their families.
And although I am personally pretty squeamish about the trans process, I support trans people to the hilt in having the same recognition and rights as everyone else. What Liberal could do otherwise?
I agree with party policy on this. Happy to sign up to the principle that Trans Rights are Human Rights.
However, I have to say I’m really dismayed by the tone of the debate on this issue at times. I don’t like the term ‘TERF,’ and can’t accept that people like Cassie should be demonised in that way.
I suppose my position is based on these 4 principles:
1. I want trans people to have all the rights they deserve. Long overdue.
2. I also want women’s rights to be protected, and for women to *feel* their hard-won rights are not being undermined.
3. If there’s an area of practical contradiction in achieving 1 and 2 (e.g. bathrooms), I don’t think it should be impossible for progressive people of goodwill to resolve.
4. I trust that all true Liberals in this are motivated from a good place, and I want the debate to be characterised by tolerance and kindness towards each other.
That’s where I am. And FWIW, I think it’s pretty much where Roy Jenkins would be.
If it matters, I’m a 50-year old gay male.
Last month, the Court of Session ruled that the Scottish government did not have the power to expand the definition of a woman beyond that set out in the 2010 Equalities Act. It ruled that by “incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of a woman, the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics.”
I have to agree with Cassie that I also do not like the use of the word TERF. I understand how important it is to protect the rights of vulnerable groups and of course that is what the Lib Dem’s should be doing and there are obviously areas of current policy that need to be improved for trans people. I was looking at some of the objections to self-ID as we have been reassured that it will have no impact on single-sex exceptions. I did read that an NHS trust in Scotland confirmed that women would not be able to ask for female only healthcare though, as it was important not to invade the privacy of a trans woman by asking to see a GRC (and of course a trans woman with a GRC has Female as their legal sex on their birth certificate). So I think there are a few of these complex areas like this that it would be good to see the Lib Dem’s tackle so we can get to a compassionate solution for all
If the stumbling block here is material (loos, communal changing rooms, hospital wards) rather than philosophical, as I hope is the case, then perhaps it’s time to upgrade all such facilities and make them all unisex and single occupancy. If feelings of respect and safety come into the mix, all the more reason to ensure dignified facilities for all (men included!)
Thank you, Jack, for writing about this issue, but I think TonyH is right that it doesn’t help the debate if you demonise those who raise legitimate concerns.
A bigger issue than slightly embarrassing changing room encounters is that hundreds of children are being encouraged to take irreversible puberty blockers and other medical treatments before they are old enough to know how it will affect their lives. It is not known how many of these children are simply attracted to their own sex, and would have been better off accepting homosexuality, rather than trying to deny it.
Cassie, if the concern is regarding cis men abusing the system, why is there such a backlash against trans people just trying to live their lives?
As I understand it nobody is asking for the law regarding changing rooms to be changed, that it is currently a matter of common law, and as such, any judge will be able to make a sensible judgement should such a case arise.
But in any case let’s have policy driven by the real needs of real trans people and by all means stay alert to any risks that might entail without throwing them all under the bus.
Cassie “Put simply: if a woman comes out of a changing room shower, clad only in a towel, she isn’t going to feel safe if there is a naked person standing there who looks to a be a fully formed man.”
Rubbish. My local leisure centre/ swimming pool has “village” changing and showers (ie cubicle changing facilities for both sexes in one large area). And I have showers and come out wearing just a towel; I don’t feel the least bit disturbed to see men and women walking about outside the showers. Neither do most of the other women as far as I can tell. I would, of course, be extremely disturbed to be assaulted, which is what I suspect is your real concern. Let’s not make life impossible for people because of made up fears.
Jack
I relate to the views, you express, though do have some concerns, but your description of Jenkins and that era, before mine, but one I understand, is not really fullsome or for want of a better word, accurate, in my view.
Roy Jenkins was never, in practice, a proponent of social libertarianism. He was a mix of social democrat and social liberal. In his private realm he was more social libertarian, but not in govt. He was very flexible, brought in the Prevention Of Terrorism Act because of the Northern Ireland terrorism. He also was not the main proposer of much of the progressive legislation, though very supportive, he, Wilson, preferred private members and consciece the way forward, thus most of those Bills originated with back bency mps, like David Steel, Leo Abse etc.
I admire Jenkins more than most of that era. We must say what we feel, based on the full story.
Within any group there are going to be people with different core motivations and I do think there are people being named TERFs who aren’t, or weren’t at the start, against trans people but instead are fearful of people acting in bad faith and abusing much needed rights of trans people to put women (usually) at greater risk.
If this was a post about covid the question could easily be “how do you tell people claiming a hidden disability are genuine?” One needs some evidence to claim benefits or support from employers but not to get on a bus and we don’t expects people with hidden disabilities to police others claiming this.
I think there is potentially common ground to be found between this section of the TERF community, those with genuine fears of sexualised abuse, and trans people – those accepting “genuine trans people” probably want those people to have evidence (presumably medical evidence) as proof so to weed out those acting in bad faith and trans people want easy and quick access to health professionals rather than waiting for years. But this leads to many more questions.
There are also people who will always be against trans people and there is no common ground to be found. This section are typically the loudest and working hardest to get those slightly sympathetic to join their ranks, but they are losing with the next generation generally open and ready to support the trans community.
Jack, your article makes some contentious points, but I find it literally impossible to disagree with anything you say.
What Tony H said.
I can’t answer your question, Joe. I have no idea about the backlash, the people behind it, their motivation, or anything else.
I am just one woman, who found the tone of Jack’s post too strong and designed to shut down any other view. Words like ‘oppression’ do not help debate. Nor do the social media pile-ons we have all seen elsewhere in connection with this topic.
As for ‘TERF”: is it a term some women choose to apply to themselves? Or is it applied by people as a pejorative, to shut down anyone who says ‘but…’?
Jenny, your leisure centre may have lots of space/changing cubicles: doesn’t mean all such facilities do. And just because you don’t feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it’s right for you to rubbish other women’s fears.
It was just an example, though. Trying to say that while the rights of trans people are absolutely important, that doesn’t mean self-identification isn’t a contentious topic. Nor is it a black/white one if the rights of one vulnerable group do or could impact adversely on those of another.
In any debate, there are people you will never bring round. But if you want ‘ordinary people’ to come round, you won’t win them over by dismissing their concerns, or with talk about ‘supporting the patriarchy’ if they point out something that they are unsure about.
Tone down the rhetoric, Jack, and you may get more people onboard what at heart is a very worthy campaign.
What rights are transgender individuals missing now that they are born with in the U.K.?
Sex is a protected characteristic as is transitioned or transitioning transgenderism.
Women also have exemptions/exceptions which apply specifically to their (evidence based) need which is about their well-being and safety.
It’s really interesting that males whether identifying or allies seem to believe bullying of females is appropriate. It is also strange that women’s voices of concern and experience are deemed valueless and treated as a secondary concern by the same males. This isn’t about excluding but about imposing.
You know, what is missing in some of the comments here and elsewhere is kindness. Trans people go through some of the most profound challenges that anyone can face in their personal lives; they don’t choose to do so, but feel compelled. They then face everything from curiosity to ridicule and rejection, whilst dealing with their own swirling emotions.
How can anyone treat someone going through all that with anything but compassion? That is a simple human response, but it is also a liberal one. As the Preamble says “We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals”
Some of the rhetoric here reminds me of the days when homosexual acts between men were illegal, or at least socially unacceptable – I do go back that far. Questions were seriously asked about whether a gay man should be allowed to teach boys, because he might want to ‘interfere’ with them (ie a safe spaces for boys argument). Today we can all see the fallacy in that argument, and recognise the distress it must have given to so many gay men at the time. I know, I was teaching in a teacher training college and a number of my students came out as gay and struggled with the rhetoric surrounding them. Sadly today trans people are facing the same prejudice and lack of compassion.
Mary: no one is saying genuine trans people pose a risk in safe spaces. The concern is that if anyone can self-identify, that could be exploited by predators.
The idea that anyone mentioning that concern must somehow be prejudiced against trans people is both wrong and quite frankly offensive.
I feel the expression TERF to be hateful and unproductive to sensible debate about rights for transgender people.
I’m with Cassie, TonyH and others in regretting the tone of the OP and its swift dismissal of anyone with concern as TERF or allied to them. As Liberals we learn to agree to disagree sometimes, and to resolve our differences by calm argument. I note that Jack describes himself as a very new Welsh Liberal Democrat member. Perhaps that’s the reason that he is not “reading the room” very well. Those of us who have been around a little longer (about 40 years in my case) realise that antagonising those with differing points of view from your own is unlikely to end positively.
Meanwhile, we have this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/
So the danger to women from bogus transwomen, while it is slight, is clearly not zero. If stating this is not allowed, then what is?
Cassie – “no one is saying genuine trans people pose a risk in safe spaces.” Unfortunately, even if you’re not saying that others are, hence my comparison with the early days of equality for gay men.
Indecent exposure is a crime, as are many other forms of sexual assault. The law already deals with these. But we don’t need any further bureaucracy to protect women from predators who falsely claim to be trans (a vanishingly small number, I imagine) or to punish those who exploit others. We can’t eliminate crime entirely, but in a liberal society we only restrict freedoms if it is strictly necessary to prevent harm. We could reduce or discourage crime by putting people under a curfew every night, or by forcing them to dress in a specific way, or by restricting access to education, or by handing out draconian punishments. But we prefer to have free society where people can do as they like, but where there are consequences if they harm others.
Chris Bertram – no-one is saying that anything is risk-free. At this very moment I am at risk of being burgled, serious assault and murder, even though I am sitting comfortably at home. And if I go outside I am at risk of being hit by a car, falling over and breaking my leg, or catching Covid. We live with risk all the time, and we change our behaviour depending on how we perceive the level of risk. The whole liberty v harm debate is always about the balance of risks. It would illiberal to restrict people’s freedom to the extent that crime is completely eliminated. It would also be illiberal to have no restrictions or penalties either. Liberals try to find the sweet spot where liberty is maximised and harm minimised. Obviously there can always be debate around where that spot is but it should always lean towards liberty.
By definition, Trans is about Across. When I first encountered Trans people, I met people from a much wider spectrum than is presented by TG activists.
It is not necessary to think about removing your genitals to have trans feelings. It doesn’t make you gay or weird. A bit different perhaps.
Lots of transgender people live a happy life dressing up privately or with mates. Way back if you remember, when being a gay person suddenly became tolerable, it was almost acceptable to wear a frock.
Living in the world as a transgendered person, the whole life, is like living as a secret agent. “You must have worked with Jo if you were there in 2012.” Make stuff up.
Linking to Chris Bertram’s previous link:
“The attack took place a year ago and the woman reported it but when officers contacted the hospital, which has not been named, they were told “that there was no male in the hospital, therefore the rape could not have happened”. ”
Which is a bit weird because the current Rape and Sexual Offences Act pretty much nails all previously known sex crimes. If anyone is bothered.
“self – identification is a contentious topic ” certainly. A number of cis- women with “gender critical” views have certainly made it so in an attempt to push back against trans rights. It’s interesting that the debate is always about how cis-women are argued to be at risk from pretended trans-women, as if men have not been able to walk into many female only spaces ad-lib anyway.
The current situation is that it’s possible to change one’s passport & driving licence gender marker with a letter from one’s doctor or consultant which includes language like “they intend the change to be permanent” . Self-id is a proposed change in the requirements for a gender recognition certificate (GRC) which is currently a bit of a rigmarole – but it still wouldn’t be the case that one could just decide to change gender on a whim.
(seeing as we’re talking about trans, let’s not prejudicially talk about “women” and “trans-women” as different )
I’ll say more (and hope that the comment is accepted):
I support the rights of women, including their right to a safe space.
I think the blanket claim that “trans women are women”, combined with self-certification, is a debatable view (one that most of the world would find frankly baffling) and not a statement of undeniable fact. I’m genuinely willing to be convinced, but articles like this are about declaring different points of view simply unacceptable and refusing to accept the validity of any debate.
The only right of trans people that is being questioned – not flat out denied, but questioned – in this debate is the right of people who are anatomically male to access on equal terms spaces that have been reserved (for mostly good reasons) to women. Saying “well, everywhere should be unisex then” is all very well, but makes one question whether people who believe that were opposed to all forms of sex segregation before, or only now when it’s causing a categorisation headache?
I think the reference to those who believe sex (not to be conflated with gender) is immutable as TERFS if a slur (see Miller judgement which confirms this) . It does not advance the debate. I don’t agree with the view of the writer yet I manage not to call anyone names. The tone of this conversation reflects really badly on the Liberal Democrats as a party. I am also not clear what rights the writer feels trans people do not have. Many people want sex based rights of women (females) to be protected. Calling us names isn’t going to change that.
World Toilet Day is an official United Nations international observance day on 19 November. Dr Clara Greed, a professor of urban planning was quoted in a BBC news article some time ago arguing that the lack pf public facilities for women in Victorian times was intented as a way of controlling their movements and keeping them out of public spaces. The subsequent rise of the suffragette movement as well as the increasing popularity of department stores and cafes was a game changer. We have come a long way since then, but in Africa, according to Unesco, one in 10 girls does not attend school during their periods. Women value their public bathrooms in a way that few men understand. When my wife and daughters tell me that they are concerned about people with male bodies, however well intentioned, entering their safe spaces, I listen. They are typical of many women voters. We need to find a way of meeting the needs of trans people without causing women to be fearful of using their own bathrooms. As a party, it is our job to find a solution without name calling and intolerance of women’s reasonable feelngs.
@Jenny Barnes – even the most fully transitioned transwoman retains elements of her original male sex, and lacks elements of the female sex. So it is at least arguable that retaining a category distinction is necessary for that reason (and of course the converse applies to transmen, though this is less often discussed). Failure to acknowledge this, to insist in the face of medical evidence that “transwomen are women” is costing us votes among people for whom this is important, people who would otherwise be on our side on a whole range of other issues. And it’s costing us loyal members. My own brother, a party member for nigh on 40 years, left when the party started making this a hill to die on. I’m still here, hoping to restore Liberal values of tolerance. Let the Greens tear themselves apart over gender issues. We’ve got much more important matters to deal with, but labelling people who question the truth of “transwomen are women” as TERFs or trans-haters is, in the end, not in the slightest a Liberal attitude.
@chris Bertram “ it is at least arguable that retaining a category distinction is necessary”
The language of “ Cis-women” and “trans-women” clearly gives that distinction – what’s your point? Nobody is suggesting that all women are identical, and that there are no differences between cis and trans women.
As to losing members – do you care about losing libdem trans members? Because not supporting trans inclusion “because we have much more important things to deal with” is a good way to do that.
Now, how is this “safe spaces for cis-women” supposed to work?
Are trans people supposed to conveniently vanish?
Are all trans people to be excluded from gender segregated spaces? Would cause a certain amount of peeing at the side of the road and people being treated in corridors in hospitals with gender segregated wards.
Or are we going to go with Assigned gender at birth? So heavily muscled, bearded, trans-men going into the Ladies toilet, and trans-women probably getting assaulted in the Gents?
And how will it be policed? Local councils are having enough difficulty keeping toilets open and cleaned – will they need to provide a security guard to check birth certificates? Or some sort of ID card – could be like a driving licence with a gender marker checked by computer? Oh dear, that could be changed with a letter from one’s doctor.
I suspect that seeing how easily people accuse others of being TERFs, or are too often willing to use other abusive terms, and it appears that some people have taken the right on to themselves to condemn without evidence.
Many people will therefore choose to simply stay quiet, rather than participate in any debate which might demonise anyone. As Phil Beesley comments -“I feel the expression TERF to be hateful and unproductive to sensible debate about rights for transgender people.” and as Victoria adds, “The tone of this conversation reflects really badly on the Liberal Democrats as a party.”
We need to be able to have a healthy debate on any issue, where people want to contribute their views with out fear or abuse. It looks like we have “missed the bus” on this issue.
@jennybarnes
When looking at the question of safe spaces, it is important to remember there is in fact legal protection for single sex safe spaces and single sex services for women. Women defined in law (recent case heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh confirms this) as a female of any age, and by extension that excludes all male bodied individuals. This is a series of protections based, not on emotion, but on very clear evidence of need.
Gender re-assignment is also protected, but clarified very specifically as intending to, transitioning, transitioned in respect of their characteristics.
To accommodate either non-transitioning individuals, or self identifying individuals, removes hard won rights from women. To re-iterate, hard son rights that are based on evidence. Refuge published eye-watering figures for abuse and violence against women and girls in the UK at 1.6m victims.
I’m not sure why women have to carry yet another burden. When did it become the norm to remove much needed protections for large numbers of women?