Write for us!
In February 2025, Liberal Voice for Women settled its legal case with the Liberal Democrats, securing equal treatment for members who believe that biological sex is real and matters – often described as “gender critical” or “sex-realist” views. The settlement meant that we could finally book conference stands, organise fringe meetings, and in theory, participate in party life on the same basis as other members.
Rather than improving our legitimacy though, this led to a simmering resentment amongst radical trans activists in the party who said we had “legally forced” the party to acquiesce to our requests. This was deemed both coercive and indicative of “shadowy right-wing” funding. Accordingly, such actions were seen as providing yet more evidence of our “bad behaviour”. “Why couldn’t those pesky women just accept being discriminated against and harassed”, was the overall message from our detractors. Indeed, many radical trans activists believe such mistreatment is what we deserve – despite our very ordinary and mainstream views that are widely judged to be “worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
Discrimination from the top
To compound matters the former party president pre-emptively delegitimised our victory by saying from the conference podium that he regretted that the party could no longer ban us from having a conference stand and implied that we did not share LibDem values. Hence, although we were delighted to finally settle our case, the undercurrent of moral condemnation that we had dared to go to law – rather than managing to somehow win over a party leadership that would never agree to meet with us and ignored our letters – fuelled the fire amongst activists that our beliefs in biological reality were still unacceptable and should really not be allowed in the party.
Accusations continued to be made that we were a tiny minority in the party and we were constantly told to leave. It didn’t matter that many of us had been with the Lib Dems for decades, members were now expected to bend the knee to the newfangled gender ideology or stay silent. Abusive names – ‘bigot’ ‘fascists’ and worse – continued to be bandied around in internal Facebook groups against those of us speaking up for single-sex spaces.
The strange world of Facebook
The overwhelming opinion in these Facebook forums and in conference debates on the topic is that we do indeed hold the minority view. Most Facebook groups contain around 1,000 people with a dozen or so activists arguing against us and the rest just looking on. At conference, the sex/gender debates may have a maximum of a few hundred people in the hall. Were the views of these members broadly representative of the 60,000 or so party members? We suspected not, based on conversations we had in our local parties but the thing is…we just didn’t know.
So, the same month we settled with the party, we commissioned a YouGov poll to find out. We were apprehensive, because we might have been proved wrong and then we would have had to decide whether or not to publish the results. Our feeling was that we would have to come clean, because if we didn’t, word would get out about the survey anyway, from its participants.
Hence, with some trepidation we undertook the survey into members’ views about single-sex spaces, the medicalisation of children, self-ID and the spousal exit clause*. This was timed to tie in with the F9 conference debate in March of the same year. Would our survey give a different result to the inevitable vote in the conference hall?
Vindicated by the majority
The answer is yes. It did. The survey clearly showed the majority of members do not agree with medicalising children with puberty blockers (53%) or opposite-sex hormones (55%) if they have gender distress. Members also thought it should not be made easier to get a gender recognition certificate (75%) and that the spousal exit clause should remain (63%).
Although the F9 vote at Conference went against us, we finally had evidence that this wasn’t reflective of wider opinion in the Party. We published the results on leaflets for Spring Conference and had brilliant conversations with conference-goers. Many young people came to tell us they secretly agreed with us, which was telling.
At Autumn Conference 2025, we published the results on single-sex spaces and sports. Overwhelmingly, members thought it was unsafe (56%) and unfair (67%) to allow biological males who identify as women into women’s sports. On single-sex spaces, once members were informed that most trans women do not have genital surgery (only about 5% have such surgery, most trans women are fully intact males), members also supported single-sex spaces such as changing rooms (53%) and toilets (46% vs 39%).
For those living in a bubble, the truth can be uncomfortable
At first the trans activists refused to believe the survey. Some suggested that without formal membership numbers, respondents might have just “self-identified” as Lib Dems. The irony of this argument from those who were themselves promoting self-ID, seemed lost on them. Some questioned whether the survey was genuine – we pointed out that results relating to F9 had been published by YouGov who had verified the data for journalists (see article here and here).
Finally, a trans activist engaged with the survey last week via Lib Dem Voice but implied we were not being honest about what the survey reveals, particularly as we reference answers about trans women who haven’t had genital surgery. In truth, given that 95% of biological males who identify as women are intact, this must be the most appropriate data to reference.
“He who only knows his own side of the case, knows little of that” – Mill
Lib Dem Voice has allowed no right of reply in its comments, to set the record straight, so its readership, who are unlikely to engage with the actual results, will be left in the dark and thus the traducing of Liberal Voice for Women by that platform, continues unchecked.
But if the majority of members agree with us, why are they unwilling to speak up? We all know silence is not agreement, but the Lib Dems now have a culture that has become so censorious on this topic, with public cancellation and accusations of bigotry for those who challenge the ideology, many people decide it’s too expensive. This doesn’t mean they have changed their minds; they simply stop talking. The observers on Facebook forums have become conformists out of self-preservation, they nod along to keep the peace or quietly step back from participating in such debates altogether.
Different opinions can now be heard
Liberal Voice for Women has done the heavy lifting to help the debate to take place, especially since we successfully advocated for changing the party’s Code of Conduct to ensure that the expression of gender-critical views was (in theory) no longer punished by misuse of the complaints system.
We have fought for, and won, the legal right to receive equal treatment within this party. Our members, both women and men, regularly go toe-to-toe with activists in internal forums now that we can no longer be removed simply for expressing gender critical views. This has opened up space for debate that was impossible just a few years ago. It is far safer to speak out today than it has ever been.
But Liberal Voice for Women cannot do this alone
As long as the silent majority remains silent, our party will continue to be shaped by a small but vocal minority whose views are too often mistaken for a consensus. Data alone changes nothing. If members who support single-sex spaces remain reluctant to speak for fear of abuse or ostracism, others will continue to claim to speak on their behalf, and the party’s leadership will continue to hear a distorted picture of what members actually think.
That should concern every liberal, regardless of where they stand on these issues. Liberalism is not about enforcing orthodoxy or demanding conformity. It has always been about testing ideas through open debate, challenging assumptions, and allowing evidence to prevail over dogma. A genuinely liberal party should not fear disagreement; it should welcome it. It is through the free exchange of ideas that better policies are forged and weaker arguments exposed.
Have the courage of your convictions
So, this is a call to participate – to show moral courage and to reclaim the party. Speak up in your local parties. Challenge assumptions. Refuse to be intimidated into silence. Yes, it can feel daunting at first, but Liberal Voice for Women is here to support those who want to restore a culture of open debate.
Above all, insist that our party lives up to the liberal values it claims to champion. The survey shows that there is a silent majority. The question now is whether they are prepared to make their voices heard.
P.S. If anyone would like to start speaking up by signing our open letter supporting the recent EHRC Code of Practice (which includes guidance to service providers on single-sex spaces), we’d welcome your support.
* Definition of the Spousal Exit Clause
The “spousal exit clause” is a provision within the UK’s Gender Recognition Act. It specifically addresses the rights of spouses when one partner seeks to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
Key Features
- Annulment Option: The clause allows a spouse to annul their marriage if their partner applies for a GRC without their consent. This is crucial for individuals who may not be able to divorce due to religious or cultural constraints.
- Protection for Spouses: It serves to protect spouses, particularly those who may be trapped in a marriage that has fundamentally changed due to their partner’s transition. This is especially relevant for women who may face social ostracism or abuse if they cannot exit the marriage.
- Not a Veto: Importantly, this provision does not act as a veto on the transitioning spouse’s ability to change their gender legally. It simply provides an option for the non-transitioning spouse to decide whether they wish to continue the marriage.
Contextual Importance
The spousal exit clause is designed to ensure that both partners in a marriage have a say in the future of their relationship when significant changes occur. It acknowledges the complexities surrounding marriage and gender identity, aiming to balance the rights of both parties involved.
Information from womansplace.org and the UK Parliament
