All Trans Shortlists?

[pop91]

Hi,
Trans person here.
I've posted here before with a not so great interaction hoping this one won't be so toxic😅

Question relating to All Women shortlists for example in politics and the inclusion of transwomen:

Firstly, I actually agree that trans-women shouldn't be on the normal all-women shortlist in almost the same way I don't think someone who's only got one BAME grandparent should be on an all BAME shortlist.

For me, it doesn't provide the best position to have people not fully understanding of the issues to be at the forefront of tackling them with all the knowledge present. So, for example, Lisa Nandy technically has mixed heritage but experiences life largely as a white person so can't for example tackle colourism as well as someone more visibly BAME. Likewise, a trans woman can't tackle period poverty as effectively!

But I understand that's not the same as the GC position of the trans woman not being a real woman so effectively to be considered automatically ineligible for GCs.

However, on the flip side, I don't believe non-trans people can tackle the issues for trans people as effectively as a trans person could! which is why I believe there should be at least some All-trans shortlists, especially in areas with higher percentages of trans people, like London for example.

Currently, there is only one trans person in parliament and he has only just come out and soon plans to leave politics, likely leaving parliament with zero trans people after the next general election. Effectively leaving trans people with zero national political representation again - obviously from my standpoint that is distressing!

Withstanding the GC argument that Trans people aren't real or that it's all gender ideology and that therefore there is no need for a Trans MP - I understand that is the opinion many here hold however as you will know most Trans people believe their identity to be real and not an ideology, myself included and therefore ask for different answers. TLDR: I know you believe Trans is all ideology but we don't and saying so won't change my mind or further this discussion🙂

So my questions:

1. Would GC's then protest All-Trans shortlists if trans women were specifically not included on the All-women shortlists?
2. Would GC's still protest if it was made clear that All-Trans shortlists would only be used in seats held by male MP's and not already using an All-Women shortlist?

A question that's not strictly relevant but I've asked other trans people and you might find interesting:

1. Should there then be separate All-Trans shortlists for trans men, trans women and non-binary people?

Are more than 1 in 650 people trans? Aren't shortlists supposed to help parliament reflect the proportions present in the population?

Could tm be on women's shortlists? Tw can do whatever men usually do to get elected.

Answering for myself, obviously:

1. No

2. N/A

3. Non binary is a nonsense, which will hopefully disappear whence it came. Other than that, I don’t much care how the lists are carved up, so long as they’re not at the expense of the women’s lists.

What percentage of the population is trans? Like a pp says I suspect the number is so low youd basically have to have every single trans person in the UK standing to be put on a PPC shortlist...

May I ask, how are you defining trans?

I think one of the problems of a minority that is so small is that proportional representation will not lead to a diversity of representation. One person cannot adequately represent all the views of its own minority.

If I was going to agree that parliament -should- reflect the population, and I'm not at all sure that I do, I'd want to see a breakdown of all the under represented groups, and I'd like to see them addressed in order of which one was furthest away proportionally from the amount they should have if the parliament was representative.

It's very hard to respond in good faith when you are pre accused of being likely to be "toxic" and to be constantly referred to as GC's". Plus I wonder why you even want to know what women here think.

In answer to your questions, I agree with what @Nellodee has said. Before there's any point discussing specifics, have you identified a genuine area of under representation caused by ingrained prejudice and structural barriers that can't be overcome any other way?

No criteria but Self-ID, yeah?

I would not protest an All Trans Shortlist. I would buy in popcorn supplies. 🍿

Women only shortlists are not created to represent 'women's' issues, they are intended to bring some balance to areas where women are still ridiculously under represented. Especially in leadership. Very simply, we should see 50/50 male and female representation in positions of power and there are no excuses for us not seeing this. Massive over representation of males in leadership is the problem. Making this about representing issues surrounding gender stereotypes undermines the issue and diverts attention from the real issue.

Non binary is a nonsense

I don’t understand how non binary and trans are compatible to be on the same side. Surely Trans is binary?

Incidentally, OP, the word “still” in question two made it clear that you made assumptions about the responses. Perhaps you need to approach such topics with an open mind?

I agree trans representation should only be done via trans individuals and no one else can identify with your experience (which is kind of our whole point as women).

idk - I'm not great at maths tbf😅

Um, still there are more than 0 in 650 trans people in the UK.
I'm not suggesting 100 trans MPs but ZERO isn't representation either!

As well as the issue of whether it’s proportionate to do this, we’d also need to understand if trans people are less likely to be elected because they’re trans. There’s huge evidence that being female means being overlooked electorally. I’m not aware of any data - and given then numbers it may be hard to obtain - that this is true for trans people.

Trans men don't want to be on the women's shortlist.

It's not zero. It's currently 1/650 with who knows how many people who haven't yet revealed their non-binary, or trans, or other identity as of yet.

I'd happily support all-LGBTQ+ shortlists if that helps. Trans only is too specific - trans people make up far too few of the population for shortlists to be able to be representative. A bit like Black-Nigerian shortlists instead of Black shortlists.

The trans umbrella is so large (larger than even those big ones you get in beer gardens) that it would be very difficult for your elected trans person to represent any other trans persons experiences.

I thought an MP was elected to represent all the people in their constituency. Aren't you saying a constituency would be chosen and asked to elected an MP who would have little interest in the vast majority of the people who live there?

I can see any party standing a candidate like that. Even in Bristol they'd have no chance of winning if they were upfront about their intentions if they got into Parliament.

This is such a bizarre idea, I'm seriously concerned that my understanding of our democracy is worse than I thought it was.

We do need to know how many trans people in parliament would be considered representative before we know if help is needed to create balance

Afaik we have 1 ? Which would equate to 1 in 100,000 people being trans ? Someone get a calculator out

If they don't want to be on one, they don't have to. Nobody is going to force them.

NO 🙃

It will only derail the conversation!

Oh well.

I’m GC and wouldn’t have a problem with an all trans shortlist for anything and am relieved that you mention not taking women’s places and acknowledge that trans women don’t represent biological women.

I think a lot of issues would be solved if we just said trans women = trans women and biological females = women.

easy peasy.