It's happened: local Labour Party to debate motion on trans women on shortlists

[AllIWantIsAHippopotamus]

I have just got the agenda an motions for my local Labour Party meeting this week. This is one of the motions:

This branch notes the recent rise in transphobia in the form of debate over how transgender people are 'allowed' to participate in the Labour Party and subsequently, the parliamentary system.
Transgender people have long had to fight for recognition of their basic humanity and rights, a fact realised by Conservative Justine Greening MP , who called for the changes to the Gender Recognition Act - changes allowing transgender people to self-identify - which sparked this round of questioning of transgender rights within the Labour Party.
This branch is furtherappalled by the fact that the Conservative Party will be able to claim to be flag bearers in the fight for equality for LGBTQ+ people, a fight which the Labour Party has been unceasingly invested in for decades, while the Labour Party is diverted by a small group of members discussing which rights people should be allowed.
It is this branch's position that self-identified transgender men and women be recognised as men and women in all areas of life. Transgender women (women) should have access to All Women Shortlists and any positions open to women.

Is it a model motion? If so, what have people done to halt/prevent/debate this? Without being thrown out of the Labour Party?

I have never spoken at a meeting before and I am a relatively new member. Aggghhh! I'm going to have to aren't I?

Well it isn't really a debate is it. It is a 'do what we say' (even if we are just making up/breaking laws as we go)

What area (not specifically if you don’t want to) of the country are you in?

Is this really just a case of them wanting to get ahead of the Conservatives and be seen to be further along the path than them. If so, that seems disingenuous.

And no, this "motion" has no room for debate or alternative views. Someone needs to point out the backlash against this change to the GRC and OP, it probably needs to be you. I'd be terrified too.

Well it isn't really a debate is it. It is a 'do what we say' (even if we are just making up/breaking laws as we go)

This! It’s garbled nonsense at best.

Can you approach it with a "unfortunately the way that the law is worded makes it clear that transwomen without a GRC are not women for the purposes of AWS, and it would be awful to put someone in the position where they were unable to take up a seat because the Labour Party had acted unlawfully in allowing them to be on an AWS"?

So you don't get into locking horns on "transwomen are women" stuff, which is unlikely to end well unless you know you have the room behind you. But you put it out there that the law doesn't allow them to behave in the way that they want

I have messaged you CircleSquare

What surprises me (though perhaps it shouldn't) is the failure to recognise a trans man's right to be counted as a man.

Say for example a local branch is selecting its delegates, they have to fulfil a certain number of roles with women. One of the people who gets voted in is a trans man. Is their right to be considered a man and therefore claim the women's quota has not been filled with their presence, respected by the Labour Party? It doesn't look like it is...

Looks like this motion is going to take the form of a lecture! I like the suggestion of saying that legally a GRC is still needed. There's been no debate at my CLP but they did have a trans woman talking recently, which I didn't go to (I don't go often).

The local party is urban, but largely dominated by old working class white men, I actually feel its a little unfair to get them to vote on something they simply aren't really going to understand.

unfortunately the way that the law is worded makes it clear

Can you quote from the actual law, have a copy in your hand - otherwise it might sound like your interpretation of the law. Also the oldies you mention might be happier hearing the actual law, no one can argue with that.

(I'm not a member of the labour party) but surely the important thing is to condemn transphobia and point to the possible unintended possible implications for women & girls in self-id legislation. Currently Labour are being pilloried for this issue...

I don't know if this would work, but what about suggesting a trans-shortlist as well as a woman's shortlist. That way, you could suggest that trans will have their representation in the trans shortlist always and not be reliant on trying to vie for a woman's spot.

Men have more than enough spots, they shouldn't have a problem with budging over to provide room for all these trans persons they are supporting.

This way you can stick your neck out, but not seem transphobic, as this is supportive of trans rights, but still protects women's spots.

I would firstly take issue with the statement 'transphobia in the form of debate". Examining the implications of a potential change to the law is common sense, and the basis for democratic process.

It sounds like they want to just rush this through by obscuring the facts and telling the (largely uninformed) members what to think. That in itself seems like a very good reason for the group to examine it in much more detail and come to their own conclusions.

It might also be worth stressing that the Conservatives introduced it but have very definitely distanced themselves from it recently, as the many problems and pitfalls have become apparent. Labour run the risk of alienating 50% of their voters if they rush headlong into this without due consideration - which will, of course, play directly into the hands of the Tories.

Nosetothesun The thing is the motion doesn't even make clear what this 'rise in transphobia' is or who the 'small group of members discussing which rights people should be allowed' are. I haven't been invited to join them for one.

I actually hope this motion will be quite alienating for a local Labour Party with an average age of 60+ types, who don't have a clue what on earth this motion is actually referring to. I just don't know how to do that without coming across as a massively patronising git…

TheMonstrousRegiment I have seen women thrown out of feminist/women's meetings for suggesting that.

That is so ridiculous! It does absolutely show that this is not about trans right at all. How on earth can this be an offence worthy of getting the boot?!

Having their own short list would be so beneficial for trans persons, esp transmen who seem to be almost invisible and are certainly not getting any special attention from those pushing forward TW rights.

This makes me so angry. Well done for getting out there and facing this, OP!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elected_transgender_officials_around_the_world

Try pointing out that although trans people are under represented as a whole, the number of elected transwomen massively outweighs the number of transmen - why could this be? Why is it the opposite for any other group of men and women? Which way does the privilege run between transmen and transwomen? We have all womens shortlists to increase the representation of women to nearer population levels. Why then should we be prioritising transwomen over transmen and perhaps a separate trans shortlist would achieve the aim of more equal representation better.

I would imagine that the data generated by terfblocker and receipts collated from LM account will have been widely accepted as proof of rising levels of transphobia.
The motion conflates the two issues... yes, challenge homophobia / support individuals who are transgender BUT question self id.
It may make it easier for others there to agree with you.....

I seem to remember @JenniferJames had some advice on this. I'm not a member myself so don't understand exactly how things work. I think she might have suggested raising a counter-motion (could have got that wrong). There's a suggested motion on the crowdfunder (update 29).

Ask all the awkward questions that will force them to spell out exactly how this will work. If you can, get in touch with other members before the meeting and encourage them to ask questions too, especially if they don't understand it.

The way I understand it (as a non-lawyer) -

1. AWS are a specific exception in the EA and it's only legal to have a shortlist based on a protected characteristic if that protected characteristic is sex. (so no you can't have a separate all-trans shortlist but afaik some spaces can be reserved on general shortlists for trans candidates or any other minority)

2. TW with a GRC legally share the protected characteristic of sex with women. TW without a GRC do not (they share the pc of sex with men). Both groups have the pc of gender reassignment but that isn't relevant here.

3. If Labour get away with this it becomes a precedent and makes every mention of sex in the EA utterly meaningless. Gender will replace sex. For everything.

Labour are probably breaking the law by allowing self-ID'd TW on AWS. The situation is less clear for women's officers.

Ask how TW are prevented from participating in the labour party at the moment - they have the same rights in the party as men and it hasn't held men back.

Ask them RRC's questions.

I'm not sure I understand why trans people and transactivists should oppose an all-trans shortlist? Wouldn't transactivists want all varieties of trans people to have a boost, not only the specific type who are males saying they're women? What about TIFs, or even enbies of both sexes?

All trans shortlists are not legal. The only reason AWS are legal is because women aren't actually a minority.

Because if you suggest a trans woman should have their own shortlist then you are suggesting they aren't really women. Which is literal violence against them apparently. And they will threaten you with actual real violence if you do this to them, so I don't feel safe doing that at a Labour meeting.

Ah, I see. Thank you, Pencils and Hippo.

So sick of this 'literal violence' garbage they keep spouting, they have no idea what literal violence is.

Don't blame you AllIWant , it is scary and they are 'literally violent'.

There was an earlier thread about this. I recommended doing an amendment that mentioned 'especially supporting the rights of sex offenders to access women' s prisons'. Talk at length about examples that hateful terms use which mean you are protected from accusations of 'transphobia' while at the same time revealing the logic and good sense in gender critical ideology.

*terfs not terms