Up is not down
The Liberal Democrats have been ordered to pay £14,000 to a former parliamentary candidate who says she was driven out of the party and barred from standing as an MP over her gender-critical views.
Natalie Bird was removed as a prospective parliamentary candidate for Wakefield after she wore a top bearing the slogan “Woman: Adult Human Female” to a party meeting.
It’s like removing people as prospective parliamentary candidates for wearing tops that say “Rain is wet” or “Fire burns” or “Lions are not frogs” or “Jumping off a tall building is dangerous” or an infinite number of other obvious factual assertions.
Ms Bird had been critical of the party’s policies online but Judge Jane Evans-Gordon said “there was no evidence Ms Bird’s views ever crossed the line and became transphobic or abusive”.
What line? Who installed the line? By what right? On what grounds? Why is there any kind of “line” at all when it comes to saying what a woman is??
And why aren’t people sniffing out misogynistic abuse? What about all the people who clearly detest women and hold us in contempt and say so every chance they get? Why is that just business as usual while there is hypervigilance about some imaginary “line” demarking transphobic and not transphobic?
Ms Bird wore the T-shirt bearing the words “Woman: Adult Human Female” in the days after she was nominated as the Lib Dem candidate for Wakefield in December 2018.
Soon afterwards she received a letter suspending her membership and notifying her there would be a formal disciplinary hearing against her for breaching the party’s code of conduct.
So very “liberal”.
There is a line.
It is established by biology, and recognised by those who came before us.
It is under the authority of scientific investigation and discovery.
One one side are males, the others females.
It also baked into the DNA, since all life forms seem to know which is which when it comes to mating. Sure, there are gays and lesbians, but they also prove the line exists, knowing as they do, the sex with which they prefer to get jiggly.
Is it misogyny when a gay man rebuffs advances from a female? No, it is an expression of personal preference. Nor is it misandry when a Lesbian rejects a male suitor. Sadly, we know which of the two rebuffed are more likely to become aggressive in their pursuit. :-(. Which very neatly shows there is another line, and it is a line that Men Behaving As Women are far more likely to cross.
Obviously the right result. But I’m a little worried that the judge ruled that Ms Bird’s views were not transphobic, as that implies they might have been transphobic, and that presupposes that “transphobia” is a term with legal validity, which I don’t think it does or should have.
Well quite. That’s what I meant by “What line? Who installed the line? By what right? On what grounds? Why is there any kind of “line” at all when it comes to saying what a woman is??”
There is no such “line” – it’s an invention just as the ideology is an invention.