Britain needs more trans people in public life, including the Commons

[Igneococcus]

Says Lord Herbert, Boris Johnson's first special envoy on LGBT rights:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0e8d186e-db6a-11eb-8f14-0bb645f59db0?shareToken=8cf210f54c9d71aa462bb34a9c3e2aa7

The problem is that the most visible trans people in politics currently are pushing only for the rights of men to have access to women’s spaces.

As such, they are highly likely to demand positions where they are employed to represent women, but in fact only represent men like themselves.

@TheSlayer

I'm all for proportional representation. 50% women 1% trans 20% disabled

I trust this person with absolutely no agenda will be pushing for representation of all minorities...

I'm really pleased you're a supporter of PR, I'm loving anything to get rid of those nasty Tories. There are thousands of us who will be right behind your drive for at least 6 trans MP's who are just looking to make things better for their constituents alongside your admirable demands for trans representation in the higher echelons of policing, education, healthcare and business. Of course, I also support proportional representation of the other categories you mention too. Women, sexual minorities and ethnic minorities should be banging down the patriarchal door. There's far too many stale old white guys who've been kneeling on all of our necks for far too long and trying it on with the old divide and conquer routine. I'm really hopingyou didn't fall for that. Whoever thought we could never agree? The small shoots of progress are here tonight, it would be awful if we missed a golden opportunity. Keep shouting for PR, we love you.

As I said proportional representation.
So 6 trans. Is that 120 disabled? I'm crap with maths. 1 in every 400 babies is born with cp, but as far as I can see there have only been 2 MPs with that condition, one of the most common disabilities in the UK.

What about those who are deaf and/or blind? Those with dyslexia or autism or albinism? What about those who have lived through cancer?

No one knows how many trans people there are currently in parliament though.

There could be any number of non binary, transmen, transwomen, agender etc people.

You can't tell by looking at someone what their gender ID is, it's not compulsory to change pronouns etc.

Also trans people may indicate their identity with their clothes etc. But some choose to do that only some of the time. Cross dressers are also under the trans umbrella.

When he says more trans people I assume he has a definition in mind that is no way universal and actually doesn't include all trans people.

Exactly.
I think they could perhaps start by addressing the fact it's not rwpresntive of the population to have the same 5 top schools featuring in the majority of positions of power.

I notice that he focuses on his own history/ experiences as a gay man. I find his story really interesting tbh.

I think he, like many gay men, take that struggle and overlay it onto trans (women, I'd guess). Naturally they must be supported. So things are better for them than they were for me.

The support comes not from a careful and unbiased look at everything. But from a shared 'group', a general lack of interest in women's issues and experiences, and a deep seated instinct to prioritise male people.

That's all really.

@NiceGerbil

No one knows how many trans people there are currently in parliament though.

There could be any number of non binary, transmen, transwomen, agender etc people.

You can't tell by looking at someone what their gender ID is, it's not compulsory to change pronouns etc.

Also trans people may indicate their identity with their clothes etc. But some choose to do that only some of the time. Cross dressers are also under the trans umbrella.

When he says more trans people I assume he has a definition in mind that is no way universal and actually doesn't include all trans people.

Isn't it just as simple as you can always tell? I'm sure we could be forgiven a modicum of confusion given the contradictory arguments in certain quarters. Fair play to Stats though, 6 trans Mp's would be a real boon. I second that idea and I am also supportive of other minority groups being represented too. A lot of the antagonism I see towards trans people does seem to do a lot more to uphold the patriarchy than it does to support women. You only have to compare the success of various crowd funders in comparison to others to smell a rat around all the GC stuff being in support of women's rights.

@NiceGerbil

I think, from speaking to my LGBT friends, the overlay of that struggle makes a lot of narrative sense. Many of the arguments that are currently levied against equality for trans people are effectively recycled from arguments against equality for the gay community back in the 80s and 90s.

I don't think this specifically seeks to prioritise male experience over female experience, trans men exist and are discriminated against, they are skipped over in a lot of the discourse that focuses on trans women in order to tee up the Gender Critical debate by pitting equality for trans people vs women's rights as being a zero-sum game

Parliament being more representative of society would imo be a really good thing.

Prioritising one group is not right imo.

There are loads of under-reprented groups. Different parties vary but.

Race religion
Education
Different backgrounds, too many career politicians at the moment
Women obv
Are gay men proportionately represented? Lesbians? Openly bi people?
How is it doing on age?
Disability is a massive one
Probably more, I'm sure I've missed important things

And yes trans people. Esp transmen who are treated as male in many situations, and so have a massive insight into how women v men are treated. I've read loads of fascinating pieces about that written by transmen. I mean they may not be interested in that but just a thought!

So yes of course representation is important, but I think it's a mistake to prioritise as that just leads to loads of resentment.

Also loads of people really hate quotas etc and also loads think people are there because of tokenism which is a poor position to be in.

'I don't think this specifically seeks to prioritise male experience over female experience, trans men exist and are discriminated against, they are skipped over in a lot of the discourse that focuses on trans women in order to tee up the Gender Critical debate by pitting equality for trans people vs women's rights as being a zero-sum game'

Totally agree about trans men.

Thing is that the TRA people focus on transwomen and males with other trans identities. And only talk about female trans people as a 'gotcha'.

And those who have concerns focus on trans males for obvious reasons.

Female people with trans identities also seem to be much less visible /vocal.

And this in general is the case as well.

Loads of trans activists and supporters write stuff all the time which shows that when they say trans people they're actually talking about males with trans identities.

@NiceGerbil

'I don't think this specifically seeks to prioritise male experience over female experience, trans men exist and are discriminated against, they are skipped over in a lot of the discourse that focuses on trans women in order to tee up the Gender Critical debate by pitting equality for trans people vs women's rights as being a zero-sum game'

Totally agree about trans men.

Thing is that the TRA people focus on transwomen and males with other trans identities. And only talk about female trans people as a 'gotcha'.

And those who have concerns focus on trans males for obvious reasons.

Female people with trans identities also seem to be much less visible /vocal.

And this in general is the case as well.

Loads of trans activists and supporters write stuff all the time which shows that when they say trans people they're actually talking about males with trans identities.

Personally, I think 3 trans men and 3 trans women sat in parliament would be huge achievement. That really would be hope over hate. The added bonus of Littlejohn, Liddle and Vine getting upset about it would go a long way too.

Oh I would LOVE to see parliament be more representative of the people that actually make up this country, and not be a small elite.

I would especially like to see more open LGBT representation in parliament. Bi erasure is still a huge issue, even among LGBT communities.

I would love to see more trans men and trans women in parliament as well. Diversity of experience and oppression is key to making decisons in the interest of equality as a whole.

I think in this instance, and I'm biased somewhat as a trans woman, that trans represenation (and proper, non-tokenistic representation) is hugely important at this particular moment in social discourse. So much is being said about trans people and legislated about trans people at the moment, but without trans people actually having a voice in those discussions. We are left feeling like we make for great 'culture war' clickbait, and for that reason that the mainstream media amplify trans-panic stories and amplify anti-trans voices. We are fortunate that we do have allies in Westminster that stick up for us, but we need that representation for ourselves as well to avoid being mischaracterised.

they are skipped over in a lot of the discourse that focuses on trans women in order to tee up the Gender Critical debate by pitting equality for trans people vs women's rights as being a zero-sum game

Well that's a new and interesting spin. That's quite possibly because TM are not seeking to remove sex based rights from women, or affecting women's rights. And as the judge found in the case this week: in some situations it is a zero sum game, and women's rights are being affected and removed to accomodate TW.

Are women just supposed to hand over their rights, deal with the issues it causes and shut up? As opposed to seek for ways that would meet all needs? Because in reality that's the GC position generally: that all needs matter, and solutions cannot exclude anyone, including women. Meet trans needs, just don't wreck women's rights on the way.

So much is being said about trans people and legislated about trans people at the moment, but without trans people actually having a voice in those discussions

I think this is debatable. Much evidence is out there, easily found, that trans groups and voices have been fully included at all levels, repeatedly, enthusiastically, sought and valued, by government at all levels from speaking in the HoL to giving evidence to select committees, to private meetings, to many of the groups being Stonewall Champions signed up to the guidance produced by trans people for trans people. In contrast, in almost all those situations, women's groups and voices were excluded and were not even regarded as stakeholders in decisions that radically affected women's rights, needs, spaces. And try looking on the recorded meetings with the select committee currently in progress: compare the manner in which trans speakers are approached, listened to and responded to, compared to the openly dismissive, aggressive manner in which speakers for women are treated by the committee.

[quote Thelnebriati]Hopefully this will put paid to the myth that the Conservatives support women's rights.

Apparently BJ invited Stonewall to Number 10 last week.
epaper.thetimes.co.uk/the-times/20210703/283665417753409[/quote]
Surely everyone knows the only women boris gives a fuck about is all those he fucked? Not about any party supporting womens rights, none do. It was about the least worst of the options.

@NiceGerbil

Hi - some of your language here came across slightly problematic and also confusing. I've quoted the below bits I'm responding to, but I've edited slightly without altering the content of your argument

Thing is that the TRA people focus on transwomen and AMAB non-binary people. And only talk about trans men as a 'gotcha'.

I think that's a mischaracterisation. I would argue that dragging of that argument to focus on transwomen is done by the mainstream media and Gender Critical ideology. Transmale voices are really minimised within that argument because of the focus on pitching trans rights versus womens rights. Transmale people are seen as being deployed as a 'gotcha' because they expose a huge flaw in GC narratives, but the more harmful aspect is that their voices were being minimised in that debate in the first place.

Trans males and AFAB non-binary people also seem to be much less visible /vocal.

Totally agree, we need diverse voices from across the gender spectrum. Trans people of all shades need to have a voice in a debate that is more often about them than involving them.

Loads of trans activists and supporters write stuff all the time which shows that when they say trans people they're actually talking trans women.

Again, as above. The debate is framed by mainstream gender critical voices, and so the response falls down the same lines.

Transmale people are seen as being deployed as a 'gotcha' because they expose a huge flaw in GC narratives
What's this "huge flaw" then?

@Redapplewreath

they are skipped over in a lot of the discourse that focuses on trans women in order to tee up the Gender Critical debate by pitting equality for trans people vs women's rights as being a zero-sum game

Well that's a new and interesting spin. That's quite possibly because TM are not seeking to remove sex based rights from women, or affecting women's rights. And as the judge found in the case this week: in some situations it is a zero sum game, and women's rights are being affected and removed to accomodate TW.

Are women just supposed to hand over their rights, deal with the issues it causes and shut up? As opposed to seek for ways that would meet all needs? Because in reality that's the GC position generally: that all needs matter, and solutions cannot exclude anyone, including women. Meet trans needs, just don't wreck women's rights on the way.

Transmascs are absolutely affected by the outcomes of those debates though, but they don't fit mainstream GC narratives, so they dont get mentioned.

I'm really interested to know what rights you feel you are being asked to hand over. As a trans woman, I'm not interested in taking anyones rights away. I just want to live my life as a woman without any additional discrimination. From my perspective GC ideology seeks to remove any chance of me having that, by instead judging me solely based on a binary understanding of biological sex, and thereby forcing me into situations that are unsafe for me as a woman.

From my perspective GC ideology seeks to remove any chance of me having that, by instead judging me solely based on a binary understanding of biological sex, and thereby forcing me into situations that are unsafe for me as a woman.
This doesn't make sense to me. The GC position seems to me to be that sex matters - often more than gender identity. Do you disagree with that?

'Personally, I think 3 trans men and 3 trans women sat in parliament would be huge achievement. That really would be hope over hate. The added bonus of Littlejohn, Liddle and Vine getting upset about it would go a long way too.'

Do you have anyone in mind?

That's the other thing. Given the nature of parliament, those who don't fit the norm don't tend to consider it. There are loads of barriers. You've seen the shit that female politicians get, and if they are black it is appalling. Death threats etc.

Women have been in parliament for ages and they still get way more abuse.

It's a big ask/ very brave thing for an opposite sex presenting openly to trans person to take on.

I would worry they would be seen as tokens (as women so often are) by those who don't think they should be there, and it could be counterproductive.

Of course anyone with the desire to represent their local area should though.

As with anything else, it means for everyone, the BNP had an MP I think?

Anyway. That's my thoughts!

I'm really interested to know what rights you feel you are being asked to hand over.

The right to female only spaces, female only groups, prisons where female people have privacy, dignity and safety in a single sex space as opposed to imprisoned with male people a good percentage of whom are convicted sex offenders who are offending against female prisoners once accommodated in the women's estate, refuges where traumatised women can be in a single sex space because they are too afraid to cope with anyone present who they perceive as male, toilets and changing rooms and swim sessions etc that do not exclude female people who are dependent on female only spaces to be able to access due to disabilities, trauma, faith, culture, a need for privacy and dignity. For you to live your life as a woman currently means when you walk into a women's space, some women have to leave. And they do not have a choice of spaces; they're left with nothing. I don't see the kindness, the inclusiveness in this at all.

Surely the answer is to maintain female only spaces and provide additional mixed sex and gender neutral provisions alongside rather than just expect that these women have a responsibility to give up their access for people who were born male.

@Lonel

Yes. In that my biological sex at birth is completely unknown to anyone unless I tell them. Gender is the lens by which we make a judgement about someones biological sex, usually in adults, that judgement is based on secondary sex characteristics developed during puberty. The default risks to me and the hardships I face day-to-day are based on my gender, not my biological sex at birth.

If I was forced to use a male toilet or into a male prison, I would be at risk not based on my biological sex at birth, but as a woman because of my gender.

'and proper, non-tokenistic representation'

In things like parliament I don't think tokenism happens though? People can't be put in they have to be elected.

My point is that large numbers of people prefer to see people from certain groups as having their role because of their characteristics rather than their skill etc.

Women are 50% of the population and plenty have expensive educations, degrees from unis with cache, great connections etc etc. And many people still see them as not up to it, having got there by some kind of unethical means, and judge them much more harshly than the men etc.

The default risks to me and the hardships I face day-to-day are based on my gender, not my biological sex at birth.

Are such hardships really because of your (personal, internal sense of) gender?

Or are they because other people mistakenly think your biological sex (at birth, if you will) is female?