What happened to thread on Labour All Women Shortlist update?

[Wanderabout]

More info from Jennifer James here:

mobile.twitter.com/msjenniferjames/status/1024612561847771136

BTW JJ may have another legal case to fight shortly. She has gone to town on Jess Bradley in a way that looks defamatory to me. She may well know more about Jess than me and be able to justify the remarks. However, I would expect Jess Bradley's lawyers Carter Ruck are salivating reading those remarks.

But what I don't understand is how Jess Bradley is related to either the Labour Party or AWS. She seems to be using rumour and speculation about Jess Bradley to imply all trans women are pedophiles and should be kept off AWS.

BTW cannot link to her remarks on Crowd Funder as breaches MN's rules

Will they really try the straw man defense as suggested by sarahar?
They wouldn't be the first, but it certainly raises competency questions.

It is so creepy the way TRAs center men in women's lives by referring to women as non-trans. Always trying out new insults for women after ordering us not to use transgender as a noun is kinda perfect.
Non-men and non-trans are not significantly different from the slurs the other half of the population scream at us when we tell them no.

On the contrary, AWS that include trans and non-trans women are clearly legal.

Yes, for transwomen with a GRC.

Maybe the goal is to get this out in the open, having people talking about it? The more noise women make, the more the general opinion seems to sway against the mantra of removing all sex segregation in society. Even though the majority of men still see the AWS as unfair, so I predict the end of that phenomenon anyway.

I'm probably being dense, but why does the protected characteristic of gender reassignment even come into it? The AWS are for the protected characteristic of sex for women, and trans woman with a GRC (so legally women). Isn't it like saying there aren't enough disabled or BAME people so they must go on the AWS as well?
I'm sorry if this is offensive/ completely missing the point, but I don't understand.

The AWS are for the protected characteristic of sex for women, and trans woman with a GRC (so legally women). Isn't it like saying there aren't enough disabled or BAME people so they must go on the AWS as well?

What AWS list is doing is discriminating against some people to address under representation. There are two ways you do this legally. You can either have just people with the same protected characteristic of sex or alternatively you have to be able to show that the AWS is proportionate. But here is the kicker. For the 2nd option you cannot restrict it to one protected characteristic. So you could not restrict your list to just people with the protected characteristic of say race.

It is in s. 104 of the Equality Act - but is not the easiest legislation to read. The guidance notes give this example:

A political party cannot shortlist only black or Asian candidates for a local government by-election. However, if Asians are under-represented amongst a party’s elected councillors on a particular Council, the party could choose to reserve a specific number of seats for Asian candidates on a by-election shortlist.

Why are people so desperate to undermine The Equality Act and AWS's? We have very little other human rights legislation.

Why are people so desperate to undermine The Equality Act and AWS's? We have very little other human rights legislation.

They want to drive women out of the public sphere. As Brexit looms closer MRAs become ever more desperate to force females out.

@SarahAr

I would suggest you try reading this. It is produced by the EHRC specifically to help political parties navigate the EA2010.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality-act-2010-guidance-for-political-parties.pdf

Pay special attention to this on p.8:

Selection arrangements that aim to improve the representation of one particular group but would unreasonably reduce the selection prospects for another protected group are likely to be disproportionate.

As PP have pointed out, the crux of this case is that we (and JJ) do not believe that self-ID transgender women have the protected characteristic of sex, hence cannot be included on AWS even under a proportionate aim to increase representation of people with the characteristic of gender reassignment (if they even have this, which it is by no means clear that they do) because it would then no longer be an AWS and thus potentially illegal.

JJ could be disadvantaged since, if it all it takes to get on an AWS is a declaration that you are a woman, this would reduce the selection prospects for women with the protected characteristic of sex, via the mechanism that has been put in place to address their existing disadvantage.

As always this is a fight about whether transgender women should be lobbying for facilities/services/opportunities that meet their needs and requirements, or taking over the ones that women have spent decades fighting to get (and by taking them over, completely undermining their usefulness for women). I expect a lot of women would support them in the first - I would. I won't support the second.

seeing this thread pop up on the board has reminded me to go and donate - thanks SarahAr!

My donation total is steadily ticking up!

Oops that's another 3 incidents

The problem (legally speaking) with including legally male (i.e., no grc) trans people on aws is that it disadvantages male people who don't self-id as women

I've developed an extremely expensive habit of donating every time labour's misogynistic behaviour seriously pisses me off

On the contrary, AWS that include trans and non-trans women are clearly legal

Can you explain this in a bit more detail pls? My understanding is that for Parliamentary AWS the only candidates eligible for selection are women and transwomen with a GRC - the legislation is clear on this. i'm not aware that it is legal to produce any other type of "All" shortlists - no "All Hindu Shortlist"; no "All Afro-Caribbean Shortlist"; no "All Gay Shortlist" (though this may be the natural end result of seeking candidates who represent the constituency)

For council elections, the Labour Party may choose to put forward a "long list" of backed candidates that is overall representative of the borough - so they may decide to nominate someone who is black over someone who is equally qualified but white in order to balance out their long list of otherwise all white council candidates. But they have to be able to justify this, and it still can't be an "All" list

*You can either have just people with the same protected characteristic of sex or alternatively you have to be able to show that the AWS is proportionate. But here is the kicker. For the 2nd option you cannot restrict it to one protected characteristic. So you could not restrict your list to just people with the protected characteristic of say race.

It is in s. 104 of the Equality Act - but is not the easiest legislation to read. The guidance notes give this example:

A political party cannot shortlist only black or Asian candidates for a local government by-election. However, if Asians are under-represented amongst a party’s elected councillors on a particular Council, the party could choose to reserve a specific number of seats for Asian candidates on a by-election shortlist.
*
But, AWS aren't proportionate. It's to ensure fair representation of women, so is for the protected characteristic of sex for women and trans women with a GRC. If men can self-id then then it's discriminatory to men who don’t id as women.
The example of the black or Asian candidate is still only using one protected characteristic, isn't it? The AWS is a very specific thing designed for women and trans women who are legally women (have a GRC). Any other PC is irrelevant.

Or am I still totally confused?

The AWS is a very specific thing designed for women and trans women who are legally women (have a GRC).

You're not confused. As the law currently stands, the Labour Party are discriminating against men with its proposals for AWS. We know this. They know this.

@SarahAr You can either have just people with the same protected characteristic of sex or alternatively you have to be able to show that the AWS is proportionate. But here is the kicker. For the 2nd option you cannot restrict it to one protected characteristic. So you could not restrict your list to just people with the protected characteristic of say race.

The part I bolded is wrong, and the wrongness is why Labour have probably (I have to say "probably" because IANAL) broken the law. For Labour to have AWS they have to restrict it by sex, which is likely to mean legal sex rather than biological sex, so non-transistioned females and transwomen with GRCs. By allowing self-ided transwomen, who are legally men, in, they are no longer restricting by sex and so the shortlist is no longer a single-sex shortlist and no longer an AWS.

The only other means of legal positive action is by reserving shortlist places on an otherwise open shortlist. A shortlist made of legal women and legal men who self-id as women is not an open shortlist with reserved places and so is illegal. Furthermore, it's not a given that self-id would necessarily grant the protected characteristic of trangender status, because the law talks about someone who has transitioned or is taking steps to transistion and simply saying "I am trans" without other steps (e.g. seeing a doctor) might not be considered "taking steps". This would make sense: if I was to claim to be Jewish to avoid Saturday shifts but had never been to synagogue in my life, didn't know a word of Hebrew, and scarfed bacon sarnies during my lunch breaks, a tribunal would be correct to reject my claim to the protected characteristic of religious belief.

To summarise my understanding of this

• An open shortlist with reserved places for legal men who are undergoing transition and legal women who are biologically male but have GRCs: legal if the party can prove that it's a reasonable and proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, which given that we have zero trans MPs is likely to be easy to prove.
• An open shortlist with reserved places for any male-born person who says they are a woman, (i.e. post-GRC, pre-GRC transitioners, and self-iders): possibly legal depending on whether self-id without other steps grants transgender status.
• An AWS for only legal women: legal and explicitly permitted in law.
• A pseudo-AWS for legal women, legal men who self-id, and legal men who are actively transitioning: probably not legal because it's neither an open shortlist with reserved spots nor a true AWS.
• An AWS for only legal women with reserved spots for e.g. disabled women or women of colour: possibly legal because everyone on the list would still be legally a woman, but reserving spots for legal women with other protected characteristics within an AWS is not explicitly permitted in law. To my mind, this would be a much more progressive policy than letting any legal man onto a shortlist meant for women on his say-so.

@SarahAr: alternatively you have to be able to show that the AWS is proportionate.
@bd67th: By allowing self-ided transwomen, who are legally men, in, they are no longer restricting by sex and so the shortlist is no longer a single-sex shortlist and no longer an AWS.

To be utterly clear as to how I'm refuting that point: the formerly all-women shortlist, being open to a sub-set of legal men, is no longer an AWS in order to be "proportionate".

You have to be able to show that reserving some places on an otherwise open shortlist for BAME/disabled/trans people is proportionate. An open shortlist is by definition not an AWS.

"trans and non-trans women"

Or, as we say in these parts "transwomen and women" (though this is very, very much my second choice of word for the former, my preferred choice is arbitrarily banned for causing hurt feelings. Oddly, my displeasure about being referred to as a "non-trans woman" is not ban-worthy).

Still supportive of JJ's campaign. Her suspension for wrongthink, while Corbyn cannot purge his party of actual anti-semitism sums up all thats gone wrong in politics in the last decade.