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?

We had a similar resolution in our clp, although not this one.
If you follow the usual format in your meetings then I assume it the proposer will have 5 mins, respondents will have 2 mins and it is only the proposer who has the right to reply?

I opposed ours on the grounds -
too many assertions in one document which meant it was not a workable proposal.
refuses right to debate (which ours did as said anyone not agreeing should be "disciplined" the word I heard used before the meeting was "punished" ffs).
used the term "cis" which I explained why I opposed use of that term which led into why self id is wrong

That was two mins worth.

With your one maybe oppose it on the grounds of too many unexplained assertions and that you would like more time to explore some of the things you believe are inaccurate. You could do a for example, particularly that the Tory party are unlikely to go forward with the change to the law.
Then bring out the statistics on how many MTF remain biologically male.
and then say why you think it wrong.

Two minutes is not very long at all and if you try to say too much it will be garbled. But your meetings may be different, I don't know.
I didn't go on about toilets etc as I think that is a practical issue that doesn't address the ideology (although totally relevant, but if your in a room full of politcal types at a Labour meeting they will want to hear about the thinking).

Write down what you want to say and then time yourself.

What I noticed in our meeting and may happen to you -
a young person (who I have never seen at clp meetings before) was bought along as the "prize - victim - of - the - day". He spoke about his own experience of being non binary something something. It was horribly manipulative.
If people speak after you opposing what you have said don't let them speak to you directly as it needs to be directed at the chair. This is what happened to me and I had to remind the chair that I had no right of reply. He was good and reminded people not make the issue personal.
There seemed genuine surprise (you know that thing when people turn round in there seats and look at you really shocked?) that anyone would speak against the motion (and in the end quite a few people did)

You'll be great. Let us know how you get on.
Once you speak other people will speak up also.

oh my god, OP, I'm feeling a similar feeling of terror having just received the following motion from my Labour Party women's forum meeting (which I have never attended!). It says the following:

Motion for Discusison

Reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004:

“This CLP celebrates the role of women in the labour movement and the Labour Party’s commitment to women’s equality. We affirm our commitment to tackling sexism, discrimination and harassment of women. We note the diversity of women and the impact of intersectionality: race, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, poverty and other factors all impact on women’s experiences and risk of discrimination.

“This CLP notes that trans people face particularly high levels of discrimination at work, when receiving services and in public. We welcome Labour’s track record on trans equality, including encouraging trans participation in public life and in the Party and in working strengthened trans equality laws.

“We welcome calls for the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be updated, in line with international human rights best practice. This would base the legal process of gender recognition on the declaration of the individual concerned, rather than a person’s gender being ‘judged’ by a panel of medical and legal ‘experts’, as it is now. This would bring the process for updating birth certificates in line with the current process for updating all other UK ID.

“We are concerned at attempts to oppose reform which spread doubt and confusion. Suggestions that trans rights and women’s rights are opposed to each other and that trans equality puts women’s safety at risk are not supported by evidence. However unintended, they contribute to the discrimination and harassment of trans people.

“They contrast sharply with inclusive and progressive voices within women’s movements who welcome the proposed reforms.

“This CLP resolves to:

1. Reaffirm that trans women are women and trans men are men and that trans rights are no threat to women’s rights
2. Encourage all members to be active allies for trans equality, supporting trans members and speaking up for trans equality
3. Call for the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act to commence and to encourage members to respond to the consultation, in favour of a reformed UK Act in line with international best practice.
4. Ask that the CLP sign up to LGBT Labour’s Trans Allies Network

“The Labour Party is the party of equality, diversity and inclusion, and we must all act as such.

I don't think I can face going to a meeting for the first time in my life and being treated like a bigot!! I have been thinking about resigning from the party over the issue and wonder if I can resign and cite this matter specifically. I am horrified!

In point (1), I think they mean

'This CLP resolves to:

1. Pretend that trans women are women and trans men are men'

Suggestions that trans rights and women’s rights are opposed to each other and that trans equality puts women’s safety at risk are not supported by evidence.

Absolute bollocks. Surely even a child could see that if women have rights based on being women, giving those rights to men too mean that the rights do not exist anymore.

It's such bollocks. If people wanted a debate there would be time set aside, with papers submitted prior to debate, contributors on either side and a chair, rather than cobbled together with no opportunity for actual discussion.

It also says:

Our March meeting will have a discussion on Understanding the Gender Recongition Act 2004 and reforming it for the future.

This is will be a discussion that will be carefully facilitiated to ensure that it allows a space for open discussion, while adhering to principles of equality and respect, that is inclusive and welcoming.

You can can read about the 2004 GRA here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contpents

Don't want to derail from the excellent advice that has been posted in this thread, but given that some people here (and elsewhere) have suggested that feminists advocate for trans-specific shortlists as a way of getting TIMs off women's, I thought I'd repost something I said in the Sarah Ditum/Spectator thread outlining why that's an awful idea. It does give me genuine anxiety when I see feminists from Jennifer James to Sarah Ditum to many on Mumsnet pushing the idea of trans-only shortlists, as I think it would be a spectacular own goal for women. Anyhow:

There is no case for having parliamentary shortlists to specifically promote people whose only shared characteristic is that they subscribe to an anti-woman, anti-child, anti-gay, anti-science belief system.

I wish feminists would stop unthinkingly pushing the idea of shortlists for trans-identified people, in an effort to deflect accusations of 'transphobia'. In the current political climate, it could very well happen, and the prospect ought to rightly terrify any feminist who thinks it about it for five seconds: it would mean extreme anti-woman, anti-child protection, anti-free speech trans ideology would become entrenched in the very structure of political parties and thus the parliament. You can't reason against and defeat this ideology because the people who subscribe to it have mandated representation at the highest levels of politics, which they will use to ruthlessly promote their ideology and suppress all dissent against it. You'd be in the situation of the Iranian women's movement, trying to use the political system to fight against a patriarchal religious ideology whose mullahs have entrenched representation in that same system.

Even setting aside the extremely adverse affect that shortlists for trans-identifed people would have on women, it makes no sense from a pro-minority perspective either. The rationale behind all-women shortlists isn't to fight discrimination per se, but is predicated on the logic that women make up half the population, and therefore the proportional parliamentary make up ought to reflect this. That's why the legal exemption allowing the creation of AWS has a specific timeframe (expires in 2030 I believe) and also why there aren't any shortlists to promote ethnic minorities or disabled people, even though both groups undoubtedly suffer from structural barriers to political representation. If you are going to go down the route of having positive discrimination for every under-represented minority, shouldn't you start with the ones who make up a more significant proportion of the population than 0.6 per cent, and have shared objective characteristics, rather than a shared belief system?

Speaking of which, there is no evidence that trans-identified people suffer from any structural barriers in politics. Unlike being female, black or disabled, which are embodied experiences that a person can't identify in or out of, being 'trans' is purely a matter of self-declaration. So how can we know that there are no trans-identified people currently in parliament? Many TIMs don't come out until well into middle age. Half the male parliamentarians might be closeted 'transwomen' for all we know. And as we have seen with Madigan, Peto, Bergdorf et al., TIMs get fast-tracked to positions of political power based on nothing but their trans status: they get promoted over vastly more qualified women and then excused for incompetent and/or appalling behaviour that women - and for that matter non-trans-identified men - would never get away with.

It is this branch's position that self-identified transgender men and women be recognised as men and women in all areas of life.

I think there is a way of questioning this which would not appear as 'transphobic':

If someone says that they are a self-identified transwoman, how would you tell the difference between a genuine self-identified transwoman and a man who has put on a dress just to take the piss or because he feels hard done by because he wants to stand for the post and doesn't qualify?

I don't think that, objectively, you can tell the difference, and the way things are going at the moment, it would probably be considered transphobic to question the individual.

Donkeyskin, that’s a really helpful and useful post. I keep reading claims that trans people face massive discrimination and the Labour Party certainly seems to think so. I can imagine that they may be at risk of being physically attacked by groups of hostile men but is there any data or evidence that shows this? Or that they are not getting jobs?

TheEmperorHasNoClothesOn -

It would be worth finding out the format of the women's forum meeting and thinking how you could contribute. They are usually less structured than other meetings and you may have more time to speak/ get slaughtered!

Could you email the convenor and ask what the format will be?

Don't feel guilty because you've never been before. So what (said to the people who may use it against you). You feel passionately about something and want to contribute.

@Donkeyskin it would mean extreme anti-woman, anti-child protection, anti-free speech trans ideology would become entrenched in the very structure of political parties and thus the parliament.

This is the "little lie" that they want accepting in return for backing off the big lie……. The ?% of the 0.6% that are aggressive men know these tactics very well - being the Cluster Bs they are. As you articulate well, there is no rational basis to give them anything - keep the boundaries….McCarthy came to a sticky end as will these….

Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

From Emporer's post: We note the diversity of women and the impact of intersectionality: race, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, poverty and other factors all impact on women’s experiences and risk of discrimination.

I think that even if I felt too intimidated or too sure I'd be dismissed as a bigot to actually voice opposition to the 'transwomen are women' party line, I might just be able to raise a concern about this section, and ask why "female reproductive biology" wasn't included alongside race, gender identity and disability as a characteristic that 'some' 🙄 women have, which impacts on their experiences and risk of discrimination (and violence). I would say that as a woman, certainly the oppression and sexism and intimidation I have suffered in my own life has related directly to my female reproductive biology, and I was disappointed that the party's understanding of intersectionality seems not to include any validation of the ways on which women are subjugated on that basis.

What argument can they make? That discrimination on the basis of female reproductive biology doesn't happen? Or maybe that it's already covered because that's what 'woman' means in the first pla... OOPS!

It might be useful to point out that Gender ID can exclude TIFs from AWS (or similar). This helps point out the commonality they share (biology and socialisation) which is why AWS were developed and deflect accusations of transphobia. TIFs absolutely are welcome on AWS etc. Just a thought.

RogerAllamsFangirl
I think that's a good point, as it can avoid accusations of transphobia. If AWS allow anyone with a female birth certificate, it would allow TIFs who have been socialised as female and therefore have the same disadvantages as other women, and also TIMs with a GRC, whilst keeping out the self-identifiers who just want validation.

I will never vote Labour again. I don’t know who I will vote for, but this is it for Labour. I never imagined I would be in this position.

Its a fucking race to the bottom
WE MUST VERTUE SIGNAL HARDER THAN THE TORIES EVEN IF IT MAKES NO SENSE..

At some point I think they need to stop pretending that it is about what they like to call LGBT people.
Transgender advocates transitioning away the Gays and Lesbians.
The list of rights transgender advocates demand violate the rights of Lesbians, Gays, and women.
There really needs to be a discussion.
Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly?
It is like transubstantiation. A belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?

It might be useful to point out that Gender ID can exclude TIFs from AWS (or similar).

Doesn’t it also exclude people who are non binary?

Has the Labour Party clarified who should be on AWS?

Hi @AllIWantIsAHippopotamus

I just PM you. I hope that's ok.

Great post Donkeyskin

@merrymouse I raised this topic at a recent CLP women’s council and was told there was no need to debate it because the Party policy was clear ... when I said I didn’t think it was clear, and that it was being challenged by a number of groups, it was proposed that AWC referred to “women as defined by the Labour Party”. Not sure about you, but I don’t think I need the Party to define for me what a woman is. Sad but true.

And what are women, 'as defined by the labour party'? Did they say?

If the party policy is clear why have they delayed making an official statement twice? Why has it now been put off 'til June for the Labour party to decide what a woman is? can't they just ask their mums?

If the party policy is clear why haven't they responded to Jennifer James's crowdfunder by showing exactly how allowing self-ID for AWS is legal? If I was a True Believer, convinced that both history and the law was on my side I'd be all over that: 'You don't have a case and here is why ...' (with decent references)

Instead we have 'don't be so hysterical, this doesn't even affect you! Are you saying all transwomen are rapists? Men will rape you anyway so shut up and most of all don't be mean you horrible bigot, transwomen are the most oppressed ever.'

This is pure deflection. There is no way it would take them six months to decide what a woman is 'as defined by the labour party' if they weren't completely winging it.

Ask all the awkward questions at every opportunity:

How is this legal?

What precedents does this set for sex as a protected characteristic throughout the Equality Act?

Will you literally believe anybody who says they ID as a woman?

I'm not a party member but from the outside it looks like Labour are hoping to delay an official position long enough to push through lots of motions like this at CLP level so they can say 'the membership is behind us'.

Is it fuck. Most people just want to be kind and not crap on people who are having a hard time. Most people dont understand the trans agenda (because it makes no sense), but if they are told this is what they need to sign up to to stop bad things happening to trans people then they'll sign up.

Certain activists within the party are saying 'there's no need for a debate' and they're framing these motions as the only decent non-bigoted thing to do, and they're arranging speaking engagements for young, vulnerable trans people to show how oppressed and unthreatening trans people are.

I don't believe the people orchestrating this campaign are young, vulnerable or oppressed. Clearly the threats are real for women in the party. There are secret reporting groups, suspensions and McCarthyite interrogations going on.

Doubleplus ungood.

The bad news for Labour is that the longer they string this out, the more people are waking up and going 'hang the fuck on a minute ...'

The other bad news for Labour is that emotional blackmail doesn't work in court.

I'm not a party member but from the outside it looks like Labour are hoping to delay an official position long enough to push through lots of motions like this at CLP level so they can say 'the membership is behind us'.

Absolutely this.

Agree and if I was in the Labour Party I would fight this and the way it is worded at a meeting Very few people go to CLP meetings though and it was branch reps only years ago when I was in the LP. Branches are more representative. Is it being discussed there?