Last week we’ve shared 6 threads rebutting the letter Cass sent to MPs & highlighting the inconsistencies between the letter vs the Cass Review. The takeaway is a cold look at the Review findings does not lead to the conclusion a clinical trial of blockers is needed 🧵 The 1st thread highlights the shift from saying “Lack of consensus across the clinical community" on using blockers along with highlighting several risks to saying there was a strong consensus that puberty blockers were “safe and effective treatment”

https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/2076039108057506293?s=20

In our penultimate thread on Bn Cass' letter to MPs we examine the claim that the data linkage study to look at the outcomes of 9000 children treated at GIDS "will not give data about the impact of puberty blockers taken many years earlier." What did the Review say? 🧵 The Cass Review begins by laying out the objectives for the data linkage study. To describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of children and to assess their intermediate outcomes using NHS data.

Thread today looks at how Bn Cass positions risks of the trial in her letter to MPs. Starting with bone health. She acknowledges strongest evidence is about bone health, but long-term fracture-risk unknown. The Review found multiple studies showing bone density is compromised 🧵 Because her letter claims children may not progress onto opposite-sex hormones (even though studies show 97% of kids on blockers do) the risks on sexual function and fertility presented do not fully capture the harms. She also uses activist language 'biological puberty'

Today's post on the Cass letter to MPs looks at the justification Bn Cass is giving for puberty blocker (Pathways) trial. It is not just collecting evidence of benefit and safety. Her letter discusses children accessing unregulated treatments and harm if not on trial🧵 She says "we have to take responsibility for the fact that we have given unevidenced messages" indicating she feels personal responsibility for what clinicians are finding in children with GD. She seems to acknowledge it may be an acute risk for specific cohort 'promised' drugs

Today we look at the reasons Cass gave MPs/peers for doing the trial on puberty blockers. She discusses understanding how best to mitigate distress (note trial only tests one intervention - blockers) and decision-making (which blockers can disrupt). What else does she say? 🧵 Well in section 4 she goes on to imply that blockers may 'buy time to think'. We rebutted this claim in our thread yesterday (see below)

https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/2076345577030197266?s=20

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

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:

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

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. 🧵 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

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. 🧵 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.

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. 👉🧵 Some examples or the use of these terms in the wild of the @LibDems. 'Othered' / 'othering' from Lib Dem Voice articles:

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 🧵 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.

Another day ending in Y so another LDV article about the quotas. Onyx says "Most of this party fundamentally disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling." Onyx provides no evidence for this. Indeed our polling shows majority of LD members support single-sex spaces & sports See 👉 🧵 Onyx goes onto say "I’ve seen the emails and messages this week from members resigning over it, and I understand their pain." Not recognising the numbers who've left or considered leaving over the Party's extreme stance on this issue. For example 1,100 signatories to this!

The @LGBTLD petition to the quotas change is worth reading. Charley, the Chair, wanted the @LibDems to get rid of all diversity quotas. This means quotas that help address genuine under-representation of:
🔸Women
🔸Ethnic minorities
🔸People living with a disability.
in LDs 🧵 Again just as we had with the Forstater decision ("LDs not an employer so ruling doesn't apply" nonsense) note this line "as a non-governmental private members’ organisation, the Lib Dems are not bound by quota provisions designed for public-sector decision-making bodies." See👉

Powerful speech from one of our Lib Dems @Bobby_Dean - bravely speaking about his and his wife's traumatic miscarriage in the hope of helping others. Bobby has raised a number of important issues this year relevant to women and violence against women and girls. 1/4

https://twitter.com/Bobby_Dean/status/1981311543653388334

In February Bobby spoke about the Online Safety Act. He spoke about the issues with pornography and violence. Importantly he highlighted "teenage girls are the group most likely to be victims of domestic abuse. That is attributed in part to the rise of misogynistic content." 2/4

This week at least two motions came to Lib Dem run councils regarding Supreme Court ruling. One motion to St Albans District Council - the motion was ultimately referred to a different committee but you can hear the LD Cllr propose the motion here 🧵:

https://x.com/WRNHerts_Cambs/status/1946258690404983142

Clearly a very emotional speech discussing her motivation as a mother of a trans woman. Prior to this speech our Chair @hollowood_zoe had asked a question regarding the motion. The reply indicated the council did its best to uphold the law.

One year into the new Parliament we looked to see how many spoken contributions in Hansard for the word ‘women’ from @libdems women MPs there were. *Totals were hand curated as occasionally the MP was talking about ‘trans women’ rather than actual women. 🧵 This is an exercise we did last parliament. Overall LD female MPs are speaking more about women than previously. On average in last parliament LD female MPs mentioned ‘women’ 7.6 times in Hansard per year – this year it was 8.5 times on average per MP.

https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1875255457092399279

People have been shocked at MP Ben Maguire's outbursts this week. Firstly implying that @jk_rowling had only spoken out for women for "attention" and secondly saying @ForWomenScot has a "fascist agenda". Clearly unacceptable however not unusual behaviour within @LibDems - 🧵 In 2022, unlawful Defn of Transphobia was changed to say "Holding and expressing gender critical views, whether in internal debates or publicly, is protected by law under the Equality Act, Article 9 ECHR and Article 10 ECHR and is permitted." So English Party passed this motion

Today in HoC LD Women and Equalities spokesperson took aim at the Equality Act & Supreme Court ruling - questioning "whether we need fresh legislation in this country to deal with all the issues in the Equalities [sic] Act which have been raised by the...Supreme Court Ruling?'🧵 @cajardineMP also said issues were raised by EHRC 'interim guidance.' Leaving aside W&E spx referred to the Equality Act as the 'Equalities Act' and referred to the interim update as 'guidance' (despite being told it wasn't guidance by Bn Falkner last week') this is v. worrying

Interesting article by human rights lawyer & academic, revealing it was discussion of the spousal exit clause that provoked him to say “Trans rights don’t trump everything else!” Discussion in the @libdems party of spousal exit clause is v. different 🧵 telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/2… Last week during a Westminster Hall debate about gender self-ID two Lib Dem MPs spoke against the non-transitioning spouse (typically a women) having the right to consent to a fundamental change to their marriage contract @VikkiSlade72 & @cajardineMP

After this year's Spring Conference, where Lib Dems voted on a motion backing self-ID the @Telegraph ran an article highlighting that Lib Dem members did not agree with self-ID. Lib Dem voters feel the same as shown in various YouGov polls. 🧵 However @LibDems sources told the journalist @DominicPenna that our characterisation of the motion at conference was wrong - that the Lib Dems had sensible policies and did not back self-ID. But yesterday in the Westminster Hall debate @cajardineMP stated we backed self-ID...