Write for us!
Censorship is central to the mission of LibDemVoice, the long established “independent” party platform. Its moderators guard their single interpretation of the party’s vision with passion. Opinions that question their beliefs and views from members who suffer from independent thought do not sully their website. This has become such a problem that many members no longer read its articles and those who do rarely attempt to respond, because they know that their contributions will end up in the bin.
It was John Stuart Mill who famously wrote:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It used to be said that if twenty liberals meet, there will be twenty opinions. In recent years, malign forces in the party have shut down debate and rejoiced in a new conformity. It is time to bring this to an end. In this round-up we publish some of the responses to a recent LibDemVoice article, that have been rejected by the platform. Find out what you might have otherwise missed.
The LibDemVoice take on the Equality Act
LibDemVoice has recently published an article in response to the EHRC Code of Practice on how to apply the Equality Act, laid in Parliament last week. The code (aka ‘guidance’), amongst other things, will help service providers, from leisure centres to rape crisis centres, apply the Supreme Court ruling from 2025 that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. This means women’s changing rooms should now be women-only for example.
The LibDemVoice article contends that the EHRC guidance went beyond the Supreme Court ruling and will create an institutional incentive to exclude trans people. The comments published by LibDemVoice largely agree with this interpretation and some even call for the Equality Act to be amended to remove the protection afforded to sex and replace it with gender identity.
Several party members tried to post comments in response to this article and hopes were unexpectedly raised when a couple of mild to neutral ones breached the barricades. But of course, any that went so far as to acknowledge biological reality or raise the issue of excluding members of the opposite sex from single-sex spaces were rejected.
As a small contribution to internal party democracy and confirmation that the Liberal Democrats are a broad enough church to encompass a range of views, many of which are not acceptable to the editors of LibDemVoice, here are some of the comments that didn’t make it through its Pravda moderation scheme:
Judith Bailey:
“@Mick Taylor. The 2010 Equality Act was not intended to create new rights, but to bring together existing protections against discrimination already enshrined in a multitude of different Acts and regulations into a single document. The very first of those Acts was the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, which was needed to address the discrimination to whom women (the less advantaged of the two human sexes) were subject in virtually every area of life. The protection of women’s single sex spaces, where they were needed to protect their safety, privacy and dignity, was enshrined in that Act from the very beginning, as was the importance of single sex sports, for safety and fairness. If the 2010 Act had been intended to sweep away the very concept of women as a sex class, and to replace them by the nebulous concept of “gender identity” (when “gender” apparently has anything from 2 to 222 different meanings to the true believers) that would have been a very big deal indeed. The EA2010 was always intended to reproduce the existing rights and protections for women, and the Supreme Court judgment confirmed that that had been done, on the basis of women as a biological class, and that the Act could not reasonably be interpreted in any other way. Only misrepresentations by activists claimed that the opposite was the case. Having worked (as a Civil Servant) on both the 1975 and the 2010 Acts, I can assure you that you’re mistaken about this.”
Zoe Hollowood:
“@Mick Taylor makes an important point about trans men. It would be interesting to hear what he thinks about the recently reported case of a trans man (i.e. a biological female who identifies as a man) being raped on a psychiatric ward within an hour of being placed on it. Where does Mick think this trans man should have been placed? He says that if the act was based on gender identity rather than sex then “Your suggestion would achieve what the Act was supposed to have meant.” So presumably Mick thinks it is correct this trans man was placed on the men’s ward?”
Simon Robinson:
“I cannot agree with this article. The EHRC Code is not at all an attack on trans rights. Nothing in it prevents trans people from peaceably going about their private lives. Indeed, the Code (rightly) makes it clear that discrimination, harassment and victimisation are unacceptable. But the law is (rightly) that single sex spaces are single sex. Men do not have the right to invade women’s spaces, no matter how those men might self-identify. The fact that, if you are a (biological) man, you would be expected to use the facilities that are provided for (biological) men is completely reasonable, and is also an essential protection for those many women who need single sex spaces. I find it astonishing that anyone who claims to be a liberal can be so dismissive of so many women’s need for the safety of those single sex spaces.”
Toby Keynes:
“I’m afraid Tanya completely misreads the Supreme Court ruling.
It definitively determined than any single-sex facilities MUST be restricted based on sex, not on gender-id. This is a blanket rule; there’s no room for an organisation to say “we’ll allow a few male clients who identify as women into the women’s facilities, because that’s reasonable and proportionate”. The only exceptions would be the obvious ones: very young, accompanied children; cleaners (after checking that nobody’s in there, and putting a sign outside).
The EHRC hasn’t adopted an “extreme” interpretation of this, because the ruling was perfectly clear.
“An organisation that has made a principled, considered decision to include trans women in its women’s spaces now faces potential legal liability for doing so” – because they’ve made a very deliberate decision to break the law.
The Supreme Court also went out of its way to make clear that organisations may only restrict access to a service or facility based on a protected characteristic (such as sex) if it’s reasonable and proportionate to do so; a very obvious example is communal showers or changing facilities, where there’s little or no privacy; or where there’s a legal requirement for them to do so (under employment law).
They also need to take reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure provision for people who may not feel able to use a single-sex facility, just as they should for disabled people. This won’t always be possible, particularly for a small business or premises. The EHRC has gone to great lengths to make all this clear.
However, non-juvenile males cannot use women’s facilities, and non-juvenile females cannot use men’s facilities. I’m afraid the fundamental problem is that this is precisely what Tanya wants to be able to do.”
Martin Eggleston:
“@MickTaylor
*The Supreme Court doesn’t make law, it interprets it. Parliament makes laws and can change the law to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court and should do so.
MPs and others can accept the interpretation by the Supreme Court to be what the law currently means, but can and should take steps to amend that law to mean what the promoters of the Equality Act meant it to say.*”
The issue here Mick is that there are only two possible versions of the law – a) that sex is immutable and people born male will die male, or b) the sex of every individual can change at any point during their lifetime
Given that Option b) leads to the effective removal of single sex spaces, opportunities like all-women shortlists, female sports at grassroots and elite level, and the repudiation of same-sex attraction, you can see that b) is both misogynist and homophobic. So, while a) might feel illiberal it is based on truth and biology.
We do ourselves no favours by not addressing this.”
Yonni Wilson:
“Is the amended EHRC Code of Practice an attack on trans rights?”
In a word, “No”.
Trans rights are encompassed within our legislation and as the Supreme Court ruling confirmed, those remain and are undiluted.
To be crystal clear – the Equality Act 2010, when referring to ‘women/female’ & ‘men/male’ refers to biological sex.
Trans people, with or without a GRC, were never entitled to breach the opposite sex’s single-sex spaces & services.
As a woman (& lesbian) in her 60s I fully expect my single-sex rights to be maintained & upheld, as our legislation demands.
If additional gender-neutral facilities are needed, then they must be provided to accommodate trans, non-binary, gender-fluid & those people identifying as any other gender.
Women’s dignity & safety had wrongly & unlawfully been compromised & ‘made conditional on others’ (men’s) comfort’ – the Supreme Court ruling confirmed that & the EHRC Code of Practice is guidance for service providers to comply with the law.
Liberals & voters in general understand these simple concepts.
Our party leadership must now firmly lead in complying with UK law, then we can move forward in developing meaningful policies that our ‘politically homeless’ electorate can vote for.
Alternatively, continue battling against settled law & women’s rights & protections – as you roll out the red carpet into No.10 for Farage.
All we are saying, is give diversity a chance
LibDemVoice deprives its readers of these arguments and insight, not because any are abusive, but because they directly challenge some of the assertions and the oppressive ideology expressed in the article and the comments. These include disagreeing with the assertion that gender identity should trump biological sex. Such comments do not align with the narrative LibDemVoice wants to maintain and project as a settled view to its readership.
To reprise John Stuart Mill, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” Well, our liberal origins do not seem to concern LibDemVoice where viewpoint diversity is discouraged and debate is constrained.
Hence welcome to Liberal Voices, where different opinions are allowed. *
*Including those the editorial team don’t agree with.
