UNISON all women shortlists

[PhonicTheHedgehog]

I’ve just seen this and couldn’t see another conversation on it but felt it was worth bringing to peoples attention.

It’s difficult to see how this press statement makes sense in the wider context of UNISONs TWAW believe.

^Jeremy Corbyn must oppose any attempt to undermine the practice of all-women shortlists, UNISON said today (Friday).

UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis has written to the Labour leader warning that any move that threatens equal representation in parliament risks a return to the ‘bad old days’ where men ‘monopolise promised (parliamentary) seats.’

It comes as Labour is set to decide who will replace retiring MPs in the run-up to a general election.

In his letter, Dave Prentis says: “The Labour Party and UNISON have a proud record of encouraging women to come forward.

“We’ve worked together over decades towards our goal of 50-50 representation through the all-women shortlist process.

“However, I’m aware of discussions around existing seats that seek to overturn that practice.

“I find this deeply concerning, and wish to flag up the risks and dangers of meddling with a process that has served us well.

“All-women shortlists are being used as bargaining chips primarily for the convenience of men to take or monopolise promised seats.

“There must not be a return to the bad old days of backroom stitch-ups and women being pushed further away from being represented in parliament.

“We support more than a million women including thousands who are active in the Labour party. They’re strong, talented and from all walks of life, and many – like Angela Rayner and Eleanor Smith – would make excellent MPs.

“Labour has a clear policy that where a female Labour MP steps down, that specific seat must stay open to women only. This must remain the case.”

Notes to editors:
– UNISON is the UK’s largest union, with more than 1.3 million members providing public services – in education, local government, the NHS, police service and energy. They are employed in both the public and private sectors.
– UNISON is committed to increasing women’s representation in parliament through the all-women shortlist (AWS) process.

Media contacts:
Sophie Goodchild T: 0207 121 5255 M: 07767 325595 E: [email protected]
Siobhan Cooley T: 0207 121 5555 M: 07816 538199 E: [email protected]^

“It’s difficult to see how this press statement makes sense in the wider context of UNISONs TWAW believe.”

Surely the joy of TWAW is that one can virtue signal support to women, yet prioritize the Heather Petos of this world.

Do you think the existence of people who identify as transwomen means labour should get rid of AWS? There's men in the Labour party who would happily get rid of it. I don't agree with self I'd allowing TW to put themselves forwards for AWS but I'd rather that than no AWS.

No i don’t think that the existence of TW should mean that labour should get rid of all women shortlists.

So what about the press release doesn't make sense? I think it's really good of Dave Prentis to come out and say that AWS are important and Labour's commitment to them should be consistent and not brushed aside when they want to parachute men in. Issues about self id are separate to that.

I'm gender critical but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I just saw this too. I think you have to assume based on Unison's own policies of self identification, that when Dave P refers to "women" he includes TW.

I noticed he said that when a "female" MP stands down they should be replaced by a "woman"'(ie not necessarily a female).

AWS are important. God knows I've realised in the last year or so why the fact men are so very over represented in all powerful positions is a problem for women (and the women who get into those positions often have achieved this by sticking rigidly to man pleasing behaviours and view points: they've won at Patriarchy, not challenged it). The 'best person for the job' stuff is all very well once women have fair representation.

This is totally defeated in principle if no one knows what a woman is but a man definitely is one if he says so.

Pretending some of those males are women does nothing for the needs of women. And if those males actually cared about women and the best interests of women and equality as opposed to personal validation of their own needs they wouldn't take away women's spaces, they'd demand additional LGBT spaces to be taken from men's spaces.

And that's before I explode with rage about the selfishness, offensiveness and oppression involved in a TW speaking for women and representing them.

The Unison LGBT+ group are trying to get the union's stance on prostitution changed- currently the policy is Nordic model based, and that policy came up through women's conference.

The LGBT+ want this to be changed to a policy of sporting legalisation "for safety".

It's an ideological battle based on queer theory. IMO there's every chance they will eventually be successful.

Supporting legalisation, not sporting!

What good have AWS done for us? With a tiny handful of wonderful exceptions, the majority of women legislators seem to have feasted on jelly babies washed down with Kool Aid

I noticed he said that when a "female" MP stands down they should be replaced by a "woman"'(ie not necessarily a female).

I hadn’t read that. Sigh.

Their policy of TWAW makes every word hypocritical nonsense.

Women are fucked. I have been a supporter of AWS in the past but they may as well not exist now.

Maybe a name change to All Female Shortlists may help?

Unison's guidance on "How to be a trans ally" says that if you misgender somebody it "may be unlawful harassment".

I read that Tinsel.

I don’t know if I should stick with my union or bail. Be more active or less active.
I wish I didn’t have to work for a living.

Who remembers black sections?

The criteria for membership of those was quite potty and drawn straight from Apartheid South Africa: You were black if you were black in the opinion of a party officer. HK Chinese could be black, but not Japanese who were white. Turks were not black, but Greek Cypriots were, etc.

I have been a supporter of AWS in the past but they may as well not exist now.

Don't understand this logic at all. Because transwoman are able to access AWS, we should get rid of them and potentially go back to a situation where less than 10% of MPs are women. How does that make sense?

And of course misgendering someone could be harrassment if you do it deliberately and repeatedly to cause that person distress. That's what harrassment is. Being gender critical doesn't give us free reign to be horrible to people.

I work on the basis that I agree with everything else Phonic.

Yes, I’m being pragmatic too Tinsel. I just sometimes have a wobble.

And of course misgendering someone could be harrassment if you
do it deliberately and repeatedly to cause that person distress. That's what harrassment is
I haven't read the policy but does it say "repeatedly " or does it just say misgender, implying said once is a hate crime?

No it doesn't say repeatedly.

Hence me thinking it's misleading.

"Misgendering someone or using their previous name (sometimes called deadnaming) is hurtful and may be unlawful harassment."

Not great implications for trans widows who want their own history respected.

It doesn't say repeatedly but neither does it say misgendering is a hate crime. It says it may be harrassment and to meet that definition it would have to be deliberate and repeated.

The guide also says:

"If you do make a mistake, apologise and move on. Don’t make a big
thing of it."

So it absolutely recognises that people may say things which are unintentionally upsetting to a transperson and that's not a hate crime.

Whole PDF guide is here:

www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2018/03/24861.pdf

Compelling my speech and compelling me to pretend a belief I really don't hold and see as actively harmful is also hurtful and may be harassment.

We're back to why does one group of people matter more than another when it's the same behaviour apparently unacceptable? And should law in a sane country ever compel one group to actively service another group against their wills?