Liberal Voice for Women Profile picture
Jun 24 14 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Delighted @angusmacdlibdem spoke up as a @LibDems MP for child safeguarding yesterday on the puberty blocker trial. “I believe that as Members of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, especially children.” 🧵
The front bench LD statement read by @AlisonEBennett. She didn't allow any interventions. She said “We will listen to the experts and the clinicians” but sometimes external scrutiny's required – medical scandals exist – from infected blood to thalidomide
Then @cajardineMP talked about “children who have a genuine fear of what puberty will bring” but of course the answer to that is not to chemically prevent the natural process of children becoming adults but to support them with talking therapies.
In addition Christine said “Too many young people are committing suicide” however thank goodness for @Rebecca_SPaul who spoke about the need to be responsible and Prof Appleby’s work into just this that found no such evidence. Image
Our chair @hollowood_zoe spoke in Dec against the trial. “Earlier this week I asked a colleague, a medical doctor, what he thought of this proposed trial. His response was blunt. He called it an “unethical experiment on children that’s politically driven.””
Zoe’s speech goes onto address many of the reasons people have reached for to justify this trial including children accessing banned drugs overseas (which who knows this trial may inadvertently increase due to adding seeming ‘legitimacy’ to puberty blockers). Image
Prioritising the data linkage study to provide more evidence about the safety and efficacy FIRST is important to ‘first do no harm’ to children who may otherwise be unnecessarily exposed to irreversible treatments that prevent them developing into healthy adults.
This is still consistent with accepting the Cass Review but with the knowledge that implementing some of the recommendations should be sequenced from a medical ethics and safeguarding standpoint.
The @LibDems have never formally accepted the Cass Review. When asked their answers are often vague. In 2024 they said the Cass Review shouldn’t be used to ‘restrict access to high-quality healthcare’. What they consider high quality healthcare is not spelled out but we know puberty blockers have a very weak evidence base of benefit and emerging evidence of harm. libdems.org.uk/conference/pap…Image
Whilst it is good that it’s normally the Health spokesperson @HelenMorganMP now who addresses these issues (unlike the years when @libdemdaisy was in health and passed it over to Women & Equalities to deal with - Christine Jardine) the Lib Dem line is still confused.
In a 2015 motion that passed Lib Dems said to follow WPATH guidelines and give puberty blockers and opposite-sex hormones. This motion has not being rescinded or superseded despite our best efforts.
In 2025 there was an opportunity to sort this out when Lib Dems passed the ‘Free To Be Who You Are’ motion. However conference accepted an amendment calling for ‘gender affirming care’ and decided not to debate an amendment on Cass.

Whilst the Health team now repeatedly emphasise the need for talking therapies – which is a big step forward – the @libdems are also being briefed that such therapies may in fact be conversion therapy by TransActual (Dir Lib Dem councillor Helen Belcher.) Image
So yesterday marked an important step forward to have a Lib Dem MP willing to call out the issues with this trial and we remain thankful to Angus for being willing to put his head above the parapet. It is unknown whether the Lib Dem front bench will ever be able to say anything meaningful on this due to the internal division of opinion that exists on this topic that they frantically continue to try to paper over.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Liberal Voice for Women

Liberal Voice for Women Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LibVoice4Women

Jun 14
Last Sunday TW Tanya-Jayne engaged with our YouGov survey of members to tell everyone how wrong we were. His beef is LVW saying we hold the majority view - technically majority view means >50% rather than just more ppl agree with us. Let’s look at this 🧵
libdemvoice.org/liberal-voice-…
So where do we have more than 50% of members agreeing with us? Let’s start by looking at medicalisation of children. Here we clearly hold the majority view regarding puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones. Over 50% of members agree children with GD shouldn't receive these drugs: Image
What about ensuring a gender recognition certificate is not made easier to get but requires medical sign-off? And that the non-transitioning spouse can exit the marriage before a gender recognition certificate is obtained? Again, we hold the majority view (>60% here!) Image
Read 9 tweets
May 23
Long time Lib Dem trans activist, Wiltshire councillor & TransActual director Helen Belcher has written in the @BylineTimes today about the EHRC ruling. Worth having a good look at some of what Belcher says [1/n]: bylinetimes.com/2026/05/22/thi…
Blecher discusses the EHRC 'interim guidance' (it wasn't guidance, it was an update) and implies it was wrong due to being taken down around time of Good Law Project case. Nowhere does the article say the EHRC won that High Court case and that the interim update was lawful 2/n Image
Belcher bemoans the lack of 'meaningful' consultation with trans people (anyone could respond to the consultation - does Belcher want preferential treatment?) and says draft guidance 'rejected' Additions were made but is 'rejection' factually correct to describe what went on?3/n Image
Read 11 tweets
Nov 19, 2025
The @LibDems have been held over a barrel this election by LGBT+ LD ('Plus'). Firstly their treasurer brought 'Move to Next Business' motion. This meant a conf. debate on changing the quota designed to help women's representation ('women's' quota) couldn't be changed at conf. 🧵 Image
Then when @LibDems obtained legal advice agreeing the quotas were not compliant with the Equality Act and so put forward revised guidance for the elections, Plus were furious and used the entire Party machinery to get rid of the guidance. Presidential candidates, appeal panels
They called for all diversity-quotas to be suspended if they couldn't get their way. We pointed out this could also be detrimental for ethnic monitories and those with disabilities but of course 'trans demands trump all' (TDTA) lgbtlibdems.org.uk/civicrm/petiti…Image
Read 14 tweets
Nov 14, 2025
In this second post on the revisionism currently going through the @LibDems is the general acceptance that the quotas do need to change and so now clearly everyone is saying 'why didn't someone do something sooner?' Of course we first tried in 2023 after the first FWS case. 🧵 Image
The above is a fairly typical response from the trans lobby. Already in 2023 it was clear that self-ID couldn't be used as the basis of quotas and allowing non-binary people into both the men's and women's quotas was inherently unfair. But we were told to leave for raising it. Image
That wasn't the only abuse we received for daring to try to make the quotas compliant with the Equality Act. Councillors and Party Officers liked and shared messages likening us to a pubic lice infestation & speculating how much insecticide it would take get rid of us. Image
Read 12 tweets
Nov 13, 2025
One reason @LibDems found it hard to change the quotas is that the trans lobby have convinced them of several 'misdemeanours' of knowing what sex someone is and treating them as such (either through words or policies) or by not performatively agreeing they've changed sex. 👉🧵 Image
Some examples or the use of these terms in the wild of the @LibDems. 'Othered' / 'othering' from Lib Dem Voice articles: Image
'Outed' or 'outing': being used here in articles about the quotas in Lib Dem Voice by both of the presidential candidates. This ignores the Lib Dem election regulations which states that giving info to access quotas may allow people to discern information about candidates: Image
Read 7 tweets
Nov 7, 2025
What this email reveals is the contradictory task of the @LibDems trying to meet demands of LGBT 'Plus' & abide by law. Plus has told the Party for years that misgendering is the worst thing you can do. This means ppl who ID as non-binary are now not included in the 2.5 quota 🧵 Image
Of course people who identify as non-binary do have a biological sex. If the Party & Plus could understand 2.5 is a quota on sex not gender - so they could tick a male or female box - they could still be included. Whilst Plus shout 'misgendering' this is a consequence.
Also term 'cis' is used to avoid misgendering - now means trans ppl excluded from 2.5. The email discusses those with a GRC - some with a GRC have intimated ticking a box that is opposite to their 'acquired gender' goes against statutory declaration to 'live in that gender'
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(