Write for us!
Last week saw another interview with Ed Davey telling a Lib Dem trans activist that he had been listening to trans people in the Party after the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of woman in the Equality Act. Yet another illustration of the leadership jumping straight to placation mode when something upsets the trans lobby…
Part of a pattern
The 2022 changes to the unlawful Lib Dem Definition of Transphobia are another case in point. The Party held a special meeting with trans people just prior to amending the Definition. Several were invited to the House of Commons to ensure that Ed Davey understood their needs. Despite this, the party leadership were still vilified for their attempt to reconcile the Definition with the law and a third set of legal advice was demanded and commissioned at the Party’s expense to consider further revisions to the Definition.
Another example emerges in 2024 when – after much legal wrangling – Liberal Voice for Women were finally permitted to have a stand at Autumn conference. This led to a protest featuring parliamentarians – including a former Party leader and former President – holding a giant trans flag outside the Brighton conference centre. Lib Dem President Mark Pack took to the stage to say how much he regretted the decision to permit women who understand biological sex to host a stand at Conference. A briefing held at the conference’s outset cautioned parliamentarians against being photographed with us in a move clearly designed to avoid upsetting the trans lobby and reduce the chance of us being able to speak with MPs.
Similarly, after the internal election quotas debacle in 2025 – where legal advice confirmed that self-ID of sex in party quotas was unlawful – there was much grovelling to the trans lobby. Meetings were held with Lib Dems LGBT+, trans activists who bragged that they had made their position clear to leadership and even shouted at the CEO. The Party were told they must do better.
Abasement is required
So, in many ways the latest interview with Ed is entirely unsurprising. This is what our Party does when the trans lobby is upset. Activists get a high-profile meeting, where leadership listen to them in a conciliatory fashion, possibly accompanied by a gesture of appeasement such as a motion or a letter.
These gestures bake in the status quo within the Party, elevating trans people to a special caste whose needs supersede all others. Most voters will never hear about such matters. They are not mentioned on election leaflets and the Party works hard to avoid the issue in broadcast media, preferring to dismiss it as a ‘toxic culture war’ before moving on to talk about sewage and the NHS.
Women are second class party members
For all Ed’s demonstrations of listening to trans people, he has not once agreed to meet with women who are concerned about single-sex spaces. And this problem doesn’t stop with Ed. A number of Lib Dem constituents have told me that their letters on this issue are ignored and their requests for meetings are refused. If they hear anything back, it is often that this is a policy issue so it’s not a priority. This contrasts with the fact that trans constituents are routinely allowed meetings with our MPs and given every opportunity to make their case.
So last week as I sat listening to brave women in Parliament pour out their stories to parliamentarians about the ordeals they have faced in single-sex spaces, and how they were dismissed by managers and decision-makers, it struck me that these strong, resilient women have had to go through awful experiences – often when at their most vulnerable – and were not afforded anywhere near the same level of access to those in power as biological males who identify as women. Dismissed and gaslit these women were left with no choice but to turn to the law. Bringing lawfare often exposed them to prurient interest in exactly what happened to justify why their experience should be considered a breach of their privacy and dignity.
Many women of course do not want the media intrusion or financial burden of a court case. They never complain and may simply self-exclude. Women weigh up the many risks – loss of friendships, loss of job or career prospects, character assassination. It’s a tough path to tread. Anyone watching the Sandie Peggie case, where she had to explain her experience of a menstrual flood, or the Darlington Nurses case where Karen Danson felt obligated to reveal that she had been sexually abused by her father, will know just how tough, how undignified, how intrusive this process can be.
There is no equivalence
Women should not have to put themselves through this. There is a complete imbalance about the sympathy and access to power afforded males who express distress about not being able to go into female toilets or changing rooms and the treatment of women who have been affected by being denied single-sex spaces and services. The Darlington nurses were told to ‘broaden their mindset’ when they objected to changing in front of a male. Miranda Newsom was told that the leisure centre was ‘inclusive’; as if Miranda had a moral failing for not wanting to get changed in front of a man. Simply stating a single-sex space is necessary for women’s privacy and dignity doesn’t seem to be enough for decision-makers, in stark contrast to the understanding and compassion extended to trans people.
Misogyny is always with us
This all leads to several questions. Why are the doors of MPs remaining firmly shut to women who want to discuss their sex-based rights? Why are women being dismissively told they are participating in a ‘right wing culture war’ for asserting their rights? Why are privacy and dignity arguments not accepted without question as legitimate for women who require single-sex spaces, but are accepted without question for males who want access to female spaces?
It is easy to say it is due to societal misogyny – due to the messages absorbed that women should not put their own needs first. Perhaps that’s right. Although when the Supreme Court had all the arguments laid out before it, the Justices came to the clear conclusion that sex mattered and paper certificates did not overrule the need for women to have single-sex spaces. So, is part of it that women are not being afforded the access they need to put their own case across?
Given the fact Lib Dem leadership (and many MPs) are only willing to meet with the trans lobby and not with women advocating for single-sex spaces, they are making it impossible for women to advocate for their own rights. The general public, Lib Dem voters and grassroots members all agree that women should have single-sex spaces and sports. But with no ability to speak to Lib Dem leadership, they may as well cast pearls before swine.
This leaves the Lib Dems stuck in a cycle of reactive appeasement; whilst women’s “lawfare” successfully creates and asserts legal rights, the leadership engages only with the resulting outcry from the trans lobby. Women remain excluded from the conversation even as our actions set the cycle in motion.
As the one-sided pandering and equally one-sided dismissal continues, it leads me to wonder if Lib Dem leadership will ever listen to women on this issue. Bringing me to my final question…do the Lib Dem leadership think women even matter?
