“The Definition of Transphobia is necessary to protect trans Lib Dems from suffering harassment by other members.”
Harassment of fellow members is already addressed in disciplinary terms by the Code of Conduct. If the Code of Conduct is fit for purpose then it already contains all the provisions necessary to prevent all forms of harassment.
The fact that there is a Definition of Transphobia but no corresponding definition of, for example, sexism, ageism, racism, etc is by definition inequitable and likely to lead to increased hostility and resentment on the basis that groups within the party are being treated differently for no apparent reason. Those who work in the public sector, including councillors, are required to “foster good relations” between protected groups under the EqA. The party would do well to consider adopting this principle, especially as it currently finds itself at grave risk of discriminating against gender critical members.
“The Definition of Transphobia is necessary to ensure the party doesn’t stray from its current policies about trans rights.”
The Definition of Transphobia references to various policy positions regarding, for example, gender recognition, single sex spaces, “trans healthcare” (which would include children’s access to hormone blocking treatments), etc is extreme overreach by the Disciplinary Sub-Group and the Federal Board. It means that these policies are “locked-in” forever more. As long as the DoT remains in place it will not be possible to properly debate these topics. It is illiberal and in conflict with our purpose to try to use disciplinary measures to fix policy.
It also presents a huge political risk to the party, especially as approaches to understanding and meeting the needs of gender distressed children evolves apace. We risk isolating ourselves and getting left behind in an important and rapidly evolving policy area.
“The party could ignore the legal advice. It’s just an opinion after all.”
We would like to ask whether the ability to continue suppressing speech within the party via the DoT is worth the potential legal and reputational costs? Has the risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis been undertaken? What does the party gain from discriminating against gender critical members that makes the continuation of this practice so important?
“The fact that ‘gender identity’ is mentioned in the Preamble must mean believing in it is a core Lib Dem value”.
The Preamble says, "we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon [...] gender identity [...]"
Activists are interpreting this to mean that a lack of belief in "gender identity" would demonstrate incompatibility with Lib Dem membership. But the Preamble also says "we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon [...] sex [...]".
The "gender debate" can be characterised by two sets of contrasting beliefs: on the one hand, gender critical people who believe Sex matters more than gender identity. On the other hand are those who believe gender identity matters more than sex.
So (to follow the logic of the claim that the characteristics in that list refer to and define our “values”) the belief that sex matters must be considered as much a "core Lib Dem value" as the belief that gender identity matters. Should the party be disciplining all its trans activists for arguing that sex and single sex spaces don’t matter much?
“Forstater doesn’t protect the expression of gender critical beliefs, only the holding of them.”
This is entirely untrue.
Forstater v EAT confirmed gender critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Forstater v CGD confirmed it was lawful to express them.
Political debate on the subject of women’s sex-based rights and protections is precisely the thing that Forstater protected. Given the precedent, it is incredibly unlikely to be lawful for the party to systematically restrict such speech.
“The Makereth case means misgendering always constitutes harassment.”
Both Fostater and Makereth made clear that the question of whether any particular conduct is considered harassment will continue to depend on the individual scenario. Whether it is lawful to have a policy that requires people to avoid particular language will also depend on the context for this restriction.
The Makereth case concerned the claimant’s unwillingness to use preferred pronouns for trans people at work. The Lib Dems might want to consider having a policy that restricted which pronouns party members could use to refer to others as a means of avoiding harassment of trans people (although we might also consider whether we actually have this problem in our party?), however the Definition of Transphobia goes much further than this, saying that to say “transwomen are male” would in itself constitute “misgendering”.
Debating policy is a key function of political parties. It would clearly be impossible to properly debate questions of the viability, desirability or ethics of trans inclusion in different areas of life without referring to the sex of the group concerned. If transwomen were female there would be nothing to discuss in terms of the fairness of their inclusion in women’s sports. There would be no need to consider the increased risk of sexual assault or the risk of pregnancy arising from the inclusion of transwomen in women’s prisons. These are all questions Lib Dem politicians will need to have answers to. Saying “transwomen are women” will not be considered a satisfactory answer, especially as public awareness of the debate evolves.
Ed Davey has recognised the conflict of rights that exists. Last May, he said the GRA in its current form contains “safeguards to prevent abuse”. In saying this he clearly acknowledged the existence of safeguarding implications arising from legal sex change. When asked about transwomen in women’s sports, Ed replied that he had concerns about fairness and stressed the need for a level playing field. He knows that the inclusion of males in women’s sports presents a challenge to fairness. If transwomen were women his comment would have made no sense, as transwomen would be de facto included in women’s sports without the need for special policies or considerations.
Should Ed be removed from the party for transphobia?
“The Equality Act does not apply to political parties.”
Two top Equalities lawyers believe otherwise. Who will we choose to believe? Them or Lib Dem trans activists?
The EHRC guide for political parties is here.
“Being gender critical is the same as being racist.”
This is plainly untrue. The Grainger test for beliefs to be protected is as follows:
1. The belief must be genuinely held
2. The belief must not simply be an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
3. The belief must concern a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
4. The belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
5. The belief must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not be in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
“Gender critical people want to erase trans people from public life.”
Many party members and voters would be surprised to hear that the end result of their ordinary belief that there are only two sexes, that humans can’t change sex and that sex sometimes matters more than gender identity would be the removal of trans people from public life.
This kind of hyperbole is absurd, helps no-one and makes the party look ridiculous.
The fact is the vast majority of “gender critical” people are in full support of provisions in the EqA which prevent discrimination against trans people under Gender Reassignment. No-one should lose their job or be refused a service because they are trans. Equally, no-one should suffer detriment by a political party because they are gender critical.
Our responses to the surprising arguments for
retaining the unlawful Definition of Transphobia