Britain needs more trans people in public life, including the Commons

He said that laws protecting transpeople have been around for 17 years and we shouldn't go back on that

Interesting that he is admitting that the debate now includes this. The window is shifting. The issues with the GRA are being recognised. The thought that you could change it is now out there.

Oh, I'm sure they would!

If trans women are women, though, why do we also need trans MPs - surely if our experiences are exactly the same we just to fulfil the female 50% quota? Could this mean, perhaps, that trans women aren't women after all?!

As for 'trans representation' in parliament, sure, whatever.

The reasons for the lack of representation of women, BAME and disabled people are structural. If there is a similar structural block for, say a person like Pips Bunce, Helen Belcher or Eddie Izzard becoming an MP, I'd love to know what it might be. People not voting for you doesn't qualify, btw.

Although I would disagree with earlier posters saying that transmen are not trying to remove women's rights. Some of the most vociferous proponents of the anti-woman aspects of 'trans rights' are transmen/trans masc etc. Stephen Whittle has been on FWR waving away safeguarding for residential trips by suggesting handing out condoms, Freddy McConnell is constantly pushing to undermine women being called mothers and shills for the pro-surrogacy movement, and I've had numerous conversations with self identified trans masc people in church settings who promote overt homophobia and sexism.

I think it's fair to expect a representative amount of MPs to be trans, in the same way that it would be fair to expect around 50% of MPs to be female (in an ideal world). There are 650 MPs, and between 200,000 and 500,000 trans people in the UK according to this:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

A proportional number of trans MPs, if we take a conservative estimate of the number of trans people as 200,000, (seeing as we don't know how many included in that estimate are above the age of 18) would be: 200,000/68,000,000 * 650 = 1.9.
So 2 MPs for trans people would be the equivalent of hitting 50% representation for women. Any more than 2, and they would be over-represented.
The question is though, as trans can mean so many different things, what type of trans person would be elected into those positions. For example, can we really consider that a middle-aged AGP trans identifying male could represent well the interests of a young trans man? Trans is a meaningless term, because it includes such a wide variety of different profiles in terms of sex, age, and the type of 'identification'. Do we have quotas for religious groups, because it seems to make more sense to me to treat this as a religious belief rather than a specific identity as is race or sex.

I wonder if, for too many men, the idea that women can say "No" is a polite social fiction. If they hear it, too often the response is, "I did ask nicely" - followed by doing what they wanted anyway

I think that's spot on actually. It's been heavily on display on this thread with the presumption that as long as someone is careful, they can transgress a boundary. It's really very telling, tbh.
No is always the start of a negotiation for certain people.

I do wonder if this bizarre idea that males can earn the right to access women's rights and spaces is part of why certain people despise the women who say no.

I wonder if, for too many men, the idea that women can say "No" is a polite social fiction. If they hear it, too often the response is, "I did ask nicely" - followed by doing what they wanted anyway.

I do wonder if this bizarre idea that males can earn the right to access women's rights and spaces is part of why certain people despise the women who say no.
Because by not acquiescing to a demand, and putting their own needs first, women are not behaving in a sufficiently 'female' way, and therefore have not 'earned' the right to a female space.

You can't have rights just by virtue of being a female. Unless you're born a male and really want them, of course.

Was just about to switch the radio off and they were rounding off this discussion and talking about what a minefield it was for politicians and that although Johnson has said don't get involved, it is very unlikely that will last. Difficult also for the media to grapple with trans rights. Also more talk about Joe Biden who within a couple of days of taking office centred trans rights. Therefore Labour are saying, well if they have centred it, why can't we!

In this round up one of the things they didn't mention was women!

Employment Silk, Sean Jones' thread:

twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1400384517123215361?s=20

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4261093-European-Court-of-Justice-decision-on-Equal-Pay

Yay! A highly privileged white man has finally got a position where he can start to influence things. Cambridge-educated, former master of the hunt, is going to bring so much more understanding of oppression and intersectionality than anyone else might have done.

Tolerance and kindness are required.

This is all well and good. Unless it actually means 'women need to surrender their rights', which is neither tolerant nor kind.

The 'rolling back rights' concern is mentioned a lot, however also important to remember that things like the right to send small children up chimneys or to exercise a right to marital rape were rolled back, to much protest, but because they unacceptably infringed on the rights of others.

That's all very well but women have had rights longer than that and there seems to be no issue about backtracking on any of those.

Well said Ova hadn't made the link

He said that laws protecting transpeople have been around for 17 years and we shouldn't go back on that

That's all very well but women have had rights longer than that and there seems to be no issue about backtracking on any of those.

@Miskirsky
Of course, HRT and surgery won't change my chromosonal makeup, but biological sex is not binary and not just chromosonal.

In all but a staggeringly tiny percentage of cases, yes it is, and even those are sorted into male or female differences. Almost no trans identifying people have these disorders.

Your arguments, as always, are built on sand.

missed something out. It appears Boris Johnson is looking to what Joe Biden is doing regarding LGBT rights, the word supercharge was used. Most of the talk was LGB but when he mentioned Biden, I had a shock moment.

They've just finished. Mostly Lord H talked about LGBT rights but the emphasis was on LGB and it was good to listen to the strides that have been made. He was then asked about transrights and women and he said that the law had been finely balanced. He talked about the angry debate and strong disagreement. Transpeople needed support in healthcare and kindness and that they are getting caught up in this. Tenor of debate hasn't helped transpeople. Law has been struck and there are no plans to change. The GRA can legally change their identity intersting but he was careful to not use the word sex . He said that laws protecting transpeople have been around for 17 years and we shouldn't go back on that (this sounds like there is a lot of debate about backstepping). In a culture war, LGBT will get hurt. Tolerance and kindness are required.

A conversation about Stonewall that they are needed for prescriptive debate> some departments have withdrawn and Lord H said this was for specific reasons (I suggest mate that the Law is one of them). Don't agree with Stonewall on everything but should continue to have dialogue (that also sounded like a recognition that thngs have got a bit out of hand - my interpretation).

Tom Newton-Dunn then mentioned about women pushing back and Labour losing women's votes.

Hope I haven't cross posted but hey ho. Off now to do some house stuff which involves looking at cobwebs

No i don’t think we need more trans people in public life pushing their misogynistic ideology, excluding women’s issues, attacking lesbians. Anyone should be able to access the possibility of being elected on th3 basis of reasonable policies and ideas. Not much evidence at present of electability.

Times Radio. He's about to interview Lord Herbert,

highame
Where was the interview?

I have yet to see a TW promote anything that benefits women. Its a movement that removes women's rights to spaces and words to define themselves as a sex group.
And so authoritarian. I will not be forced to believe that a male is a female. This is such a powerful group

Robert Jenrick just interviewed and Tom Newton-DUnn asked hm about Liz Truss's 'women do have vaginas' so I should think his interview with Lord Herbert will be interesting.

Jennrick tried to duck the question but not that much, he said that self-id needed great care and especially in schools, prisons, toilets, sport because of personal protection. He wanted trans people to have a happy life but have to be aware of impact on other people. The consequences need to be thought through. I think this is a clear indication that a lightbulb moment has happened and there is recognition of the conflicts of trans and women's rights. He didn't duck this last bit so I hope they are becoming more relaxed about women's rights, after seeing all the responses and uproar to Prisons.

Sorry, hope I'm not interrupting but if I don't get things down, they're gone

What I have read from recent posts here on this thread has been

Excellent summary, Hellofabore - and on the issue about nine year girl in the USA to have a naked male slide into jacuzzi beside her in a single sex space - I couldn't read the piece in the Times yesterday about the Children of God cult and what those children endured and their exposure to permissiveness and no sexual boundaries from such an early age.

All that coverage of Rivers Phoenix death and I don't recall anyone mentioning that he'd been brought up in that setting, nor that he'd been raped at the age of 4.

I doubt it. They never do (apart from to pat is us the heads - we silly geese - and tell us not to be so mean).