“The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Liberal Democrats who are pushing back against the ideological capture of the party by transactivists face re-education to correct their beliefs. This is the story of how it is carried out.

In 2020, the disciplinary sub-group of the party’s Federal Board, drafted a ‘Definition of Transphobia’. The sub-group comprised Candy Piercy and two Federal Board colleagues. The Transphobia Definition was envisaged as a device that could be used to ‘educate’ or purge party members who fail to accept the mantra, “Transwomen are women”. Its wording draws heavily on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, with key words substituted as required. This similarity caused raised eyebrows in some quarters.

The sub-group’s new Definition was then approved by the ‘Steering Group’ of the Federal Board, which is chaired by president Mark Pack. It was never discussed by the full board or debated or considered by any other party body – a surprising absence of democracy, some might say. On the 19th September 2020 its adoption was announced to the readers of Liberal Democrat Voice as being ‘key to supporting the Party’s disciplinary processes’, as though it had just been handed down to Moses on the peak of Mount Sinai.

History and philosophy

The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party before it, are rooted in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill, who famously wrote, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Mill was an absolutist on freedom of speech, contending that even the falsest opinions deserve to be broadcast in an open exchange of ideas.

Mill’s On Liberty also presents a compelling argument in defence of the individual’s right to freedom of conscience. He gives open-mindedness validity not as simply an act of charity, but as a tool in obtaining the completeness of truth. Truth requires a variety of perspectives, and these perspectives can be found by listening to others even though one may believe them to be wrong. The individual’s freedom of conscience is given priority over social restrictions and moral imposition by society.

These principles, eloquently expressed by Mill, were incorporated into the Preamble of the Liberal Party Constitution, now transposed into the Liberal Democrat Preamble, as the following extracts illustrate:

“We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.”

“We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes.”

The price of our womanhood is paid in blood, a price men cannot pay

This is a guest post. The author wishes to remain anonymous.

“This is a cracking piece. It should be shared with everyone and shouted from the rooftops.” – RA

It seems to me that at lot of men out there who blandly support trans “rights” to women’s spaces and places, and their “right” to be thought of as women need a lesson in female biology, and what it really means to be a woman.

Trans women are women, apparently, because they feel like one. How can they know what it feels like to be a women if they are not one? Because they feel like one? How many times do we go around this circle?

Let’s look at what the trans lobby call a “full transition”, a state where we are told their body fits with their feelings of womanhood. This conversion is extremely rare. Even if trans “women” take hormones to grow their own breasts, very few also have their penises cut off and inverted and then stuck up into surgically created hole to create what they call a “vagina”. But those that do are considered by the trans community to have achieved full transition.

This is a story about politics and women. Like all mammals and most other creatures, human beings are sexually dimorphic. We come in two types, female and male. Females give birth to offspring; males provide sperm to fertilise their eggs and make reproduction possible. There are other differences. Males are typically larger, stronger and more aggressive. This caused females to be predominantly controlled by males and only in the last hundred years have females approached equal status. They can now vote, own property and theoretically at least, command similar salaries.

Male control has lessened to the point where women often choose who they will marry, or choose not to marry at all. Women may socialise with other women as well as men and are no longer required to have a chaperone. Women can access public, single sex bathroom facilities, for their convenience and safety. This single thing transformed the lives of many women from Victorian times onwards.   

The rise of trans identifying men

In the last decade, in Western societies, there has been an explosion in the number of humans who claim to have been born in the ‘wrong’ body. This psychological condition is called body dysphoria and has many of the characteristics of a religious belief. It is a matter of faith, rather than science, though its adherents would argue otherwise. Until recently it mainly affected middle aged men, but latterly there has also been a steep increase in the number of teenage girls who believe that they are boys. Societies, governments and political parties are struggling to come to terms with this perplexing trend and its implications.

Sleight of hand

Last night the LibDems debated a ‘business’ motion about management of its conference. Ostensibly it was about respecting trans people & their pronouns & bathroom facilities. Of course it wasn’t about that at all. It was a trap intended to render future debate about women’s sex based rights impossible & make it easy to expel feminists & their supporters from the party.

When taken together with last week’s party definition of transphobia with its accompanying discipline policy, it is now a ‘crime’ to believe that trans women are not the same as biological women & unbelievers face compulsory re education or expulsion. Monday’s otherwise uncontentious motion included the phrase, “Trans women are women . . ” which opponents were told was integral to the motion & could not be removed by a separate vote.

This sets the stage for expelling any party member who believes the words of the party’s own constitution’s preamble that state: “we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon . . . sex or sexual orientation”. It will no longer be possible to campaign within the party for women’s sex based rights under the 2010 Equality Act to be balanced & protected vis a vis trans women’s rights, because the party’s considered position is that they are the same.

Trans women are women

In other words, it is no longer possible to differentiate between people with male bodies & people with female bodies, so there can no longer be any sex based rights. Members who say otherwise will be re educated or expelled. This is a terrifying & totalitarian position for a supposedly liberal party to adopt & completely undermines its position as a woman friendly organisation.

Women are potentially under threat from trans women or men who may pose as trans women in sport, prison, changing rooms, rape shelters, etc. Currently exemption protections are provided for in the 2010 Equality Act.

Out of line with moderate trans people

Women, don’t expect the LibDems to defend your sex based rights in future. You have been thrown under a bus by the party. The party’s trans policy has been adopted to accommodate extremists & is not in line with the views of many prominent trans people, including Debbie Hayton and Buck Angel, who accept that they retain the biological sex they started out with.

Continue reading →

The Liberal Democrats and Liberal Party before it have a proud tradition of defending liberty and advocating for social change. Going back over a hundred years, the state pension, social security, the NHS, legal abortion, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the creation of same sex marriage are all associated with this movement and its members.

The party with has always believed that women’s rights are human rights and as recently as this March, LibDem MP Wera Hobhouse introduced a Hate Crime Bill, intended to tackle the ever present problem of misogyny.

Then on the 19th of September, on its platform LibDem Voice, the party published its definition of transphobia. You can read it here: https://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrats-adopt-definition-of-transphobia-65868.html

Perhaps surprisingly, although it was drafted by three women, it contradicts the party’s own constitution on the subject of sexism and it is incompatible with the human rights of women.

Therefore, using it as a starting point, I drafted a definition of misogyny and submitted it to the LibDem Voice platform for publication. As a Liberal and Liberal Democrat since 1966, who has held many local party positions as well as being a LibDem councillor for over five years, I expected an acknowledgment at least, but this was not to be.

So, being denied a party platform, I am posting it here.

Liberal Democrat definition of Misogyny – a proposal

Over the last year it has become clear that the Party needed to explain how it proposes to recognise and defend the sex-based rights of women as defined in the 2010 Equality Act. 

We know that some parts of the mainstream media and online social media have been actively trying to smear the female community and have promoted scare stories designed to frighten people into rolling back women’s rights in general and removing the protections they are allowed under the Gender Recognition Act in particular. We want to support members who want to call out misogynistic behaviour and challenge it both in and outside the party. 

Continue reading →

It was 9.00am. He stepped out into the sun. It was a clear, peaceful autumn day. He could hear traffic, but no sirens. He headed towards the tube station and shops.

Around the corner, the remains of a burned out police car were being lifted onto a flatbed truck. The introduction of martial law and the 9.00pm curfew had caused a few hiccups, but things seemed quiet now.

The tube station was open, though the presence of a police officer cradling a semi-automatic carbine was slightly disconcerting. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” he thought.

He stooped to pick up a copy of the free Metro newspaper. The banner across the top of the page read, “President Cummings’ first TV address from Buckingham Palace – full transcript P.5.

Then lower down, “Johnson ordered to see Trump again,” was the headline. At the foot of the page were pictures of three former politicians. “Traitors seek bail,” accompanied the story.

He paused to read further: “Lawyers acting for the disgraced former Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair and ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve will today appeal for them to be released on bail while awaiting trial for treason, following their failed October coup when the UK was still a member of the EU.”

Continue reading →

Over three years ago I was contacted by Professor David Anderson, a retired endocrinologist who lives in Umbria.  His Italian home is a short drive from Perugia.  He had an idea for a book.  Was I interested in getting involved?

We had first met in 2012 in Seattle at a gathering of supporters of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were framed for the murder of English student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy in 2007.  They were eventually released in 2011 after four years in prison.

Continue reading →