Transgender person elected as Deputy Mayor in Sydney

It's legitimate to have a problem with policies which are detremental to women, or the council claiming 50:50 representation.

But if your claiming someones unfit to stand only because they're trans, IMO it's a bold look which crosses the line from gender critical to anti trans, rather than pro-woman and it absolutely will be snatched up as representative of 'what GCs think'

I recognise that for someone to be 'trans' there is often a denial of a fundamental biological truth (hence some posters saying 'they're liars') - but that's not universal and the question is the same as any other politician - how much will the individuals personal view affect their political conduct.

Some of the arguments in this thread are starting to sound like "I have to hire someone for this job but I'll never consider a trans person for it because they are by definition delusional/crazy." Those same arguments used to be made by employers in the past when they refused to hire women (as well as by voters when they refused to support female candidates),

As I said before I will vote for Katiyln Jenner over AOC any day of the week as they knows what a woman is, them being transgender is irrelevant, only their policies matter . And I will consider hiring a trans person for the job if they are the best candidate.

Except you will need to address this man as she and her, and agree that "women like her" belong in women's spaces and sports, and should recieve prizes, scholarships and positions reserved for actual women.
A man who asks that people believe he is a woman is dishonest by definition and will do nothing to support women's sex based rights. That means he is working against the best interests of 50% of the population the 50% most in need of sex segregated spaces and facilities.
I will not give him a chance because when we are "asked" to give up our spaces, sports services and facilities to men who wish they were us, we lose.
It is the "reasonable" imposters that soften our boundaries because people use the exception as the rule. It is coercion and it stinks.

Why post this link? A transgender person has been elected to public office. That's it.

He’s a woman like any other woman in Australia, as is quite obvious from the Giggle/Tickle case. I can’t imagine there will be any situation where you could state otherwise without landing up with accusations of transphobia or even ending up in court. I think the problem lies less with the job role and more with freedom of speech and being able to speak about reality.

That is a fair and interesting point. Terminology certainly matters. I have seen TIM, as in Trans Identified Male, used. I think that’s a whole separate debate though, in terms of whether a person who identifies in this way should be permitted to hold a public position. There would have to be a societal shift away from the current terminology (a good thing, I reckon.)

With regard to a point made by other posters, I agree that recording this man as a woman in the council would have the serious consequence of misrepresenting the male/female balance, which I definitely don’t agree with. But the OP plopped on here with a title and a link, with absolutely no context. No explanation as to why they had posted. Had they given a reason, that could have been debated. Otherwise it’s just someone who is pissed off with a trans person in Australia for reasons unknown. Or perhaps they don’t give a toss either way and just wanted to start a bun fight, which is what usually happens on these threads.

It's vaguely interesting to see how much Sydney City Council is confusing Google's AI. The Mitch/Olly change alone has got it thinking they are two different people.

There was no mandate for a 50:50 sex split, AFAIK.

But a PP noted it is being reported that Sydney now has a 'gender balanced' council. This 'fact' will be taken up by search engines and AI and repeated when its not true.

These 'false facts' based on incorrect sex reporting mask the progress still needed on women's equality by making it look as though it's already been achieved . it hasn't.

I'd have much less of a problem with a trans identified woman (trans man) being elected for this reason, although the question of sexist beliefs remain.

They don't generally pretend to be the opposite sex though.

I agree. I think for me, this is the issue with a person in authority being trans - the sexism is baked in to their personal belief system. Its a feature, not a bug. Their entire belief system is predicated on there being a right way (and therefore a wrong way) to be male and to be female. How can that not affect their policy decisions?

In theory, it should make no difference whether or not the candidate is trans. But its not the same as any other belief and I can't 'respect the person while not sharing their beliefs' - because they'll inevitably expect me to participate in those beliefs / inflict them upon me to a degree. I would feel the same if a public official was a fundamentalist religious person, or a militant animal rights activist - I'd be concerned that their overt beliefs would impact on their policy making in a way that I don't agree with.

That's not to say the other candidates don't have beliefs but if they keep them to themselves, we can't comment on them - we can only comment on what we know. A man might have sexist beliefs. A TW definitely does.

As a pp said upthread, we would be permitted to freely discuss these other aspects of a public official and their potential affect on their policy stance without being accused of hate speech.

Regarding 'discrimination' , it has rather become a dirty word but it just means 'to notice a difference'. I have just ordered a flat white, and in doing so have discriminated against tea! Some forms of discrimination, mainly to do with how people are treated with regards to employment and services are illegal and rightly so. But its not illegal discrimination (yet!) to notice and discuss the difference between elected candidates. Voting is like dating - the ultimate non equal opportunity activity. Anyone should have the right to stand, nobody else has to vote for them.

I don't agree that we should police discussion on this forum in case some hard of thinking people think badly of gender critical people because they can't tell the difference between hate speech and discussion. That's heading towards purity spiral thinking. This is one of the only corners of the Internet where discussions around gender and sex are permitted, more specifically, their impact on women. Long may it continue.

You see, i take question with the very concept of a 'trans person'. Nobody is the opposite sex to that which they are. We are all male or female. I prefer to use the more accurate phrase of 'man/woman/person who has adopted a trans identity.

Using this correct definition in no way trying to position that person as something they are not, or suggest that people can somehow be the other sex to that which they are. It places the emphasis on the assumption of a certain type of social identity (which has become formulated and 'on trend' in the last couple of decades) but which not everyone must pay lip service to.

Identity politics tends to place the emphasis on the social identity of, rather than on the actual character of the person.

Good! And that means there should be no expectation of others using false pronouns - and all that tends to accompany that. If people want to imagine themselves in certain ways then that is up to them; we all do it. That is entirely a private matter - and not a matter for public celebration which seems to be the case here...with people making a big thing out of the fact that he has a trans identity; as if it is some sort of progressive act or symbol.

It will be interesting to see if he chooses not to centre his trans identity in his actions whilst in office.

Most politicians are liars sorry to say, so this person is no exception. Many politicians are also sexist, see them prioritising mens beliefs over womens rights.

However, if the reason he was elected is now being used to say something is 50:50 men and women and he is being counted as a woman, yes, then I do have a problem with the election. That is not fair representation. Is that what happened?

I don't think liars are nice, and they're all liars.

As a Feminist I recognise sexism runs throughout society, often in ways that are so deeply embedded in our everyday norms and expectations that it is hard to recognise the sexism underneath. Fish have no word water and all that.

So no, sexism is absolutely not limited just to those people who express their sexism through a transgender identity.

However after thinking about this very deeply for a long time, I have come to the conclusion it is impossible to conceptualise a transgender identity without sexist ideas about how men and women think, feel and act, and it is impossible to require social accommodation of trans women as "women" without the sexist assumption that the trans identity matters more than female realities and needs. So to that end, I do consider a transgender identity to be clear evidence of sexism.

Of course I also acknowledge it's possible there are exceptions I'm missing and I'm open to listening and assessing individuals. However a trans person would have to express a very unusual and nuanced understanding of the intersection of sex and gender identity to be able to claim a transgender identity without some level of sexist belief, and as yet I have never cone across it.

Odd question really. As I said, I wouldn't vote for anyone I believe to be sexist or racist. Why would anything I said suggest I'd make an exception if the sexist person wasn't transgender?

Do you believe that a man who DOESN’T think he is a woman would necessarily be ‘clear eyed and fair’ with regard to the needs of his female constituents? Or, for that matter, a woman? Not all females put the rights of women front and centre of their thinking. I have been utterly shocked at the attitudes of some women in public office. I guess a person’s track record is the only guarantee. That’s how I usually try to make my decision on who to vote for. But they have to start somewhere in order to prove themselves.

Of course sexist people can, and often do, run for public office. Same as racist people. Depressingly, they also get elected sometimes.

I wouldn't vote for them though, because I don't think sexism or racism are qualities that make for good policy-making.

Tell me you haven't read the thread without telling me you haven't read the thread.

There isn't an issue here. Threads like this just demonstrate that a large element here aren't just GC - but are openly transphobic. (Obviously this will be denied despite being blindingly obvious to anyone who can read).

It's the sexism.

I can't see how a person who believes some ways of thinking, feeling or behaving are only right for one sex, so if you have the "wrong" ones for your actual body you must be the wrong sex somehow,

and who believes that the female half of humanity don't need their own name, history or cultural existence but can be rolled into a single social group within who believe they are/feel whatever it is they assume all women must be or feel and this doesn't impact women at all, or at least the impact on them isn't an important enough reason not to do it,

is going to be capable of being clear-eyed and fair when it comes to the actual needs and challenges of his female population.

No issue with a transgender person doing any role, as long as they’re upfront about it and it doesn’t impinge of other groups rights (ie women). I wonder is he lauded as a ‘female deputy mayor’ and will he be recorded in history as one?

I suppose a difference is that we could freely interrogate all of those differences in policies without being accused of 'hate speech'. Questioning the right of some men to use female-only spaces is in a different category.

This individual raises some interesting questions for the 'TWAW' brigade though. 3 years ago he was 'Mitch Wilson', very much male. 2 years ago, when elected, he was still Mitch although now 'they/them', but very much presenting as male. I don't think anyone just looking at a picture of him would think he was anything other than a man. He is now a 'woman' with a new name. He may not believe TWAW. He may be happy to just be considered a 'transwoman', but if he starts to espouse policy 'as a woman', there are issues. I still would like to understand in what sense the TWAW people believe Olly is a woman.

If anyone were as blatant about their priorities on those things, I would have the same issue with them.

But you could say that about nearly anything a person believes.

Whether it's benefits, taxes, going carbon neutral, healthcare - there will always be winners and losers in all policies.

If someone believes that some men should be able to use female single sex provision, they do not have the best interests of all the people they represent, at heart.