Update on Our Recent Letter

Last Friday we sent our letter to Mark Pack urging him to revoke the Definition of Transphobia and also to commission a review of the treatment of gender critical party members based on our concerns outlined here. The letter we coordinated has been signed by 170 individuals. The vast majority of signatories are party members but some are former members who were driven out of the party by its hostility towards their ordinary belief in the binary and immutable nature of biological sex. Some of them also submitted personal testimonies which we will publish soon.

The letter has been signed by members of significant note, including Dorothy Thornhill, whose Review of the 2019 election Mark and other candidates in the Federal Elections are keen to claim to have implemented. Other signatories include Sarah Ludford, Tim Clement-Jones, Barbara Janke, Johnny Oates, Norman Baker plus a number of council leaders, councillors and local party Officers.

None of the people who have signed the letter have, as far as we are aware, any interest in discriminating against trans people or creating a hostile environment for them. They are, however, interested in fair treatment of all members and concerned that the party should operate within the law. We await Mark’s reply with interest. Meanwhile, we are leaving the form open so people can continue to add their names and send us their testimonies until our request is met.

This is the second open letter we have sent to party leadership in the last two months. The first, sent with 150 public signatures from party members, is here. There is a growing movement of people within the party who are unhappy with the ongoing discrimination against gender critical members and the tremendous waste of resources and energy spent on their obsessive persecution.

The acquisition of two sets of legal advice which confirm the party’s Definition of Transphobia is unlikely to withstand legal challenge presents a huge opportunity for the party to review its approach to issues of internal free speech and adopt a much simpler, fairer, safer and less damaging approach to disciplinary issues within the party.

We have been stunned by the numbers of Lib Dems in senior positions who are still arguing that despite the clear advice, the current policy should be maintained. This is utterly reckless on their part. We have responded to some of their most specious arguments here. 

Our advice to the Federal Board, which will be deciding the future of the Definition on Monday would be to take this opportunity to reassert leadership, deradicalise, and prioritise the party’s reputation and financial well-being over ideology and the appeasing of bullies.

Let us focus on our purpose as an organisation, on the work of John Stuart and Harriet Taylor Mill, and on the laws which protect everyone from unfair treatment.