Bird's views are repellent but it's pretty easy to see how that tweet is not appropriate. Frankly it's probably the inclusion of the gun that made this a suspending matter.
In what way repellant? As far as I can tell, Natalie Bird believes humans can't change sex, a view that isn't controversial among the electorate, and is scientific fact.
She has been targeted, vilified and harassed and the party has had to compensate her. Plus and ALDC, together with the weird, legally illiterate 'definition of transphobia' have done the Lib Dems a lot of damage with the public. This is another stupid, unnecessary blemish on our - hardly stellar - record.
Ill preface this with me asking questions largely out of unintentional ignorance.
Is there an example of a person changing sex, genetically, hormonally and physically without outside intervention?
Whilst I do understand there are foetal development issues that can cause genetic defects causing persons who could be defined as "inter-sexed" (if thats the correct term).
Is there an example of a person changing sex, genetically, hormonally and physically without outside intervention?
Yes. Individuals with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5-ARD) are born as typical females but at puberty begin developing XY chromosomes and prototypically male characteristics.
And yes, "intersex" is the correct term for anyone born outside of the male-female bimodal clusters.
I dont believe thats the strongest of cases as it's a very rare genetic condition....with a higher chance of this occurring during interbreeding or populations with close genetic similarities.
Those born with XY chromosomes do have male reproductive parts. Testes etc, however are un-developed due to the condition.
This is not an example of a person changing sex, genetically, hormonally or physically.
Not sure I understand your point, for the last 2000+ years misogyny and treating women like 2nd class citizens was the consensus, now it's generally a far-right view.
He posted an image of an anime girl pointing a gun at the reader 😭 I fully agree with the message and find it pretty funny, but at the same time it's pretty obvious why sitting councillors* shouldn't be posting an image like that on their main account
Don't care, if firing a transphobe for expressing a transphobic view violates Equality Act 2010 then firing a pro-trans counsellor for expressing pro-trans views also violates Equality Act 2010. You don't get to have it both ways. I hope he sues your party.
They aren't "firing a pro-trans councillor for expressing pro-trans views", they're suspending him for tweeting a threat of violence.
I mean, personally I think Graham Linehan should be fired straight into the sun, but I'm not a councillor and no elected official, of any party, should tweet threatening images.
(Also, a "counsellor" and a "councillor" are quite different things.)
We lost the lawsuit, we had to pay Natalie Bird compensation. It is also fact (it's an absurdity and terrible ruling but is fact) that since Maya Forstater UK courts have said "gender critical" (transphobic) views are legally protected under the EA2010
This isn't the same scenario as it isn't for the view, it's for the inclusion of the gun which I don't think it's shocking
Professional politicians should probably realise posting an image with a gun isn't a good idea on their main account.
I don't disagree with the sentiment at all in his post, but it's also a very stupid thing to include a gun in your post
40
u/stewcelliott Social Liberal 4d ago
Bird's views are repellent but it's pretty easy to see how that tweet is not appropriate. Frankly it's probably the inclusion of the gun that made this a suspending matter.