Editor’s Note: This is the speech Adrian would have given had they been called in the heavily over-subscribed debate on the Free to be who you are policy paper in Harrogate
Firstly a big thank you to our mover Christine Jardine MP for spending the time in talking at length with so many of us to bring together a wide-ranging motion which covers many topics which for those of us who are at the core of campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights are extremely pleased to have one concise paper to refer to.
I want to speak particularly to lines 112-113 – about recognising non binary identities.
In our general election manifesto in 2024, we specifically highlighted the neglected legal area of recognising and putting into law through the equality act – explicitly the recognition of non binary identities. I also may add that this didn’t cause us any harm to a record haul of 72 MPS so for those in the room who believe there are only two genders…. I’m sorry but we’ve already stood on and won on a position that is diametrically opposed to that view.
Secondly, Around the world, many nations have already recognised non binary identities – including the likes of Germany, Spain, Malta, New Zealand, Argentina to name just a few etc which is one of the key reasons that the UK has slipped from being 1st in ILGA lgbtq+ rankings in 2015 (after the coalition brought in Same Sex Marriage (led by Baroness Featherstone) to 17th in the most recent 2024 list because we have fallen back and regressed on trans and non binary protections in particular.
As a non binary individual, though staunchly retaining my same-sex attraction the laws are vague, and there have already been cases which have affirmed non binary rights within the gender reassignment protected characteristic – however those are being challenged and we need a much firmer recognition in law to protect my gender position – thankfully here at Conference, I have the option of Mx and they/them pronouns but that as many of you will know in the DEI field is being withdrawn due to excessive interference from governments – particularly in the US.
Furthermore, as a non binary active sports competitor, I have championed ways in my sports to make inclusion paramount – including powerlifting which was the first lgbtq+ sport that fully recognised non binary category (Mx) as a way of making powerlifting a fully inclusive sport – sport is a difficult issue with the balance of inclusion and fairness but sport must be available to everyone whether your cisgender, transgender or non binary and instead of sports bodies making discriminatory blanket bans especially on trans women – we need to find ways to include trans and non binary people in sport and that starts with ensuring their identities are formally recognised by the law – which will then hopefully prevent regressive sports governing bodies and regressive leading sports commentators in supporting gender critical views which though protected in terms of belief in the equality act (something we need to campaign to remove) – do not trump or outweigh “gender reassignment” protection – where people have the human right to change gender – or as in my case change to a halfway (non-binary position which needs to be explicitly stated and protected in law.
We know there is always a journey to ensure protection of minorities but that is a paramount value of this party, and a reason why I joined the party nearly 20 years ago today with my first conference! Yes here in Harrogate! I’m very proud that our party has consistently been at the forefront of LGBTQ+ rights and as we say we’ve always been there for LGBTQ community and we always will be so please also vote to keep lines 111-113 and support amendments 2 and 3, and also 1 if the correct wording is passed and vote for the motion as a whole.
* Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett is an elected member of the Federal International Relations Committee, Federal Council Member and an Hon VP of LGBT+Lib Dems
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Mike Peters
Simon R
Steve Trevethan
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
24 Comments
Surely non binary inclusion and respect should be a given in Lib Dem circles. Everyone who winds up in – or voting for – the Lib Dems has to have experienced their own “really are these two the only options because darn neither of them really works for me” thought process at least once already.
Forgive me disagreeing with your call to remove ‘belief’ as a Protected Characteristic.
I regard the right for people to have their own belief systems, and not to be discriminated against on the basis of those beliefs, as an absolute cornerstone of our democracy. We do not need to agree with people’s beliefs but we must absolutely uphold their right to hold them. That should apply irrespective of whether that belief concerns religion/atheism, political views, or questions around single-sex spaces/sex categories in sport.
I expect the Liberal Democrats to be at the forefront of the fight for all the Protected Characteristics currently recognised in the Equality Act and to be arguing to expand, rather than reduce, the list.
@ Adrian
Hello Adrian
Am I right to understand that you want to make it criminal for people to express – in any circumstances whatsoever and however carefully those beliefs are expressed- certain beliefs? If so that’s a very dangerous road to tread.
Tristan
If protection for philosophical belief was removed from the Equality Act you could be fired from a job for writing this article. That would seem a rather poor change to the law – are you sure its what you want ?
Removing protected beliefs that you happen to disagree with is a very dangerous road to take and is definitely not liberal. History is littered with wars and pogroms that began with disagreements over the right to hold a belief.
Nobody can stop anyone else believing anything. I think the issue with the Equality Act is that people are using it to force organisations to give them a platform to express their beliefs, even if those beliefs are at odds with that organisation’s. It’s like me going down to Marks and Spencer’s and trying to force a dress that I’d designed into their shop window. And make no mistake, a dress that I had designed would be hideous and not something that they would wish to have associated with their brand.
You are free to hold whatever beliefs you like.
You are even free to join a political party with some of whose fundamental beliefs you profoundly disagree. You may find this uncomfortable – but it is your choice.
What you are not free to do it to bully and harass others (individually or collectively) who do not share your beliefs.
I don’t for one moment believe that the writers of the Equality Act had in mind that it should be used in the way it has been in recent years, to force organisations to give a platform to those who are both fundamentally at odds with their core values and intent on using their platform to bully an embattled minority. In fact, I think they’d be horrified.
“protected belief” is currently being used to twist the equality act into doing the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.
where multiple protected characteristics are apparently in conflict with each other (eg. where it concerns a “protected belief” that a subset of queer people shouldn’t have access to appropriate medical treatment) surely the priority should be to protect the one that isn’t a choice.
Some good comments about equality and beliefs, but freedom of expression is also an issue and there are a few people even within this party who want to silence or even expel those who dare to disagree with the majority party view on some issues like the one in this article. That is illiberal. Good free debate conducted in the right spirit of respect for difference, can bring about better understanding.
@Jude: That’s a false comparison. The fact that gender-critical views are protected doesn’t stop you from accessing medical treatment. It simply means that I can’t get discriminated against (fired from my job, discriminated against etc.) purely because I have and express my gender-critical beliefs. The fact that there is at least one well known case where someone did get harassed and lost their job purely because of their gender critical belief shows why that protection is necessary.
Now of course IF my genuine belief is that you shouldn’t have access to some medical treatment and your genuine belief is that you should have access to it, then that is something to be debated – which is a part of democracy. As long as I’m merely expressing my views and I’m not seeking to unlawfully prevent you from accessing that treatment, then there is a disagreement between us, but no reason to deny either of us the ability to express our beliefs without fear.
@Simon,
it’s not a “false equivalence” when those who hold genital obsessive views are actively working to deny trans people appropriate medical treatment and to exclude trans people from public life.
it is perfectly reasonable to exclude people who express certain beliefs (pertaining to the human rights of others) from employment of participation in certain organisations. that would include services directly related to that group (eg. your beliefs should disqualify you from a job in a GIC, as an atheist it is appropriate that I can’t get a job as a rabbi). political parties are exactly the sort of organisation that need to be able to exclude those who fundamentally disagree with the party’s ideals and values.
of course, I don’t believe you should be unemployable and destitute just because you are misinformed, but I do support clarification around the limits of free speech. I don’t even mind if you join an appropriate political party. I hear Reform UK are recruiting…
Rather than totally removing belief as a protected characteristic, the much more sensible and logical thing would be to have an explicit exception for political parties and organisations. It is mad that a political party cannot decide it’s membership based on political belief and nullifies the entire purpose of parties and politics.
I think much of this comes across as rather vague. When you talk about the right to change gender, what exactly is it, from a legislative point of view, that needs to change? It is right that you are allowed to identify as you wish, and refer to yourself as you wish, and it is right that you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of your gender identity. The law already supports all of this.
Regarding sports, I have long been of the view that the men’s category should be rebranded as ‘open’, which strikes me as the most inclusive way of phrasing it; the women’s category must be reserved for biological females only in order to protect fair competition. Again, I’m not sure on what legal changes you suggest should be made?
I mean these questions in good faith and with an open mind, which I hope is how it’s come across.
@jude “where it concerns a “protected belief” that a subset of queer people shouldn’t have access to appropriate medical treatment”
that would not be a protected belief.
@Jude: I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by ‘genital obsessive views’ but would point out that basically no-one is trying to exclude trans people from public life. That seems to me a total mischaracterisation of what people like me whose views err towards gender-critical, are arguing for. I want everyone to have the same rights/etc. no matter what their sexual identity.
As for Reform: On the big issues of the day, Reform cozy up to Putin and Trump, deny climate change, have a totally unrealistic manifesto that reads like a ‘what my mate thought up down the pub’ wish list, and seem to be full of the kind of right-wing conspiracy theorists that you’d never want anywhere near Government. Next to all that we’re disagreeing about a fairly niche issue that typically doesn’t even feature at all on polls of what things the public are most concerned about (“How do I pay my rent/mortgage?” is generally a far bigger thing in most people’s minds!). I’m guessing your comment about joining Reform was meant as a joke, but I would beware of a mindset that elevates this issue and makes it something that you see as determining whether someone is welcome in the LibDems: That way lies the road to complete electoral irrelevance.
“political parties are exactly the sort of organisation that need to be able to exclude those who fundamentally disagree with the party’s ideals and values.”
How does this square with:
“We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely” (from the preamble to the Party Constitution) and
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” (Article 10.1 of the ECHR)?
The party would be riven by fundamental contradiction and hypocrisy if it expelled people merely for holding an opinion.
Margaret (26 March 11.47) puts it very well. The mischief (for a properly tolerant liberal) is not the opinion – it’s the extent to which expression of that opinion makes people uncomfortable or worse.
Obviously physical abuse and bullying are wrong and justify expulsion from a political party or university sooner or later. But active promotion of an opinion in a careful and respectful way must, in a university, or in a political party that exists (inter alia) to “defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely” always be permitted and indeed welcomed (for all the reasons set out in Areopagitica and On Liberty).
It might eb useful to consider the differences between:
Consider the differences between:
“working to deny trans people appropriate medical treatment because they are trans” (not acceptable) and
” working to deny trans people appropriate medical treatment so the resources can be put to another (better?) use (acceptable); and
“working to deny trans people medical treatment because that medial treatment does harm” (acceptable and possibly even laudable).
@Tristan Ward. Yes, of course as liberals we should be defending free speech in society at large. However the Lib Dems are not “society at large” but a membership organisation which people join because they agree with our values. We are right to exclude people whose views oppose ours. Of course, the detail lies in deciding where to draw the line!
@Mary Reid
Mary – My point is that a core value of liberalism is defence and promotion of free speech. I simply cannot see how a party with this value at its heart can justify excluding people who exercise that right if is exercised in a careful and appropriate way.
Mary, If the Party expels someone for exercising the right to free speech, exercised in a careful and respectful way, the party is not defending the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely. It is doing the exact opposite.
Tristan
@ Mary Reid
“Lib Dems are not “society at large” but a membership organisation which people join because they agree with our values.”
Our values and priorities are set out in the Pre-amble to the party constitution and include:
“We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely”.
How can it be right to exclude from the party who are actively living those values and priorities, provided of course they are doing so in a careful and respectful way?
Mary/Caron. People have lost their jobs and liveslohoods because they expressed gender critical views and it’ has cost some institutions a lot of money (University of Sussex this week being one example)..
The party has already lost legal battles for failing to align to the Equality Act. Why can’t we just accept the Act for what it is and stop trying to censor opinions..something which isn’t fitting for a “liberal” party. Most people have legitimate concerns about women’s safe spaces and fair competition in sports being impacted and should be free to do so within the party.
Mary Reid….”Of course, the detail lies in deciding where to draw the line!”…
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?