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?

35% of MP's are female and 28% of Lords are so the ruling bodies of our country is not representative of the male / female split. We still have a long way to go on this front and it affects a much larger number of people.

Ethnic minorities are 10% of the house of commons and 6% of the house of lords when the latest census suggests that ethnic minorities make up 13% of the Uk population.

Under 5,000 people have received a GRC and estimates of people who identify under the trans unbrella range between 200,000 and 500,000 so maximum 1% of the population.

There are many other minority interest groups of similar or greater sizes who are not represented or are under represented in parliment.

As mentioned by many posters, our electoral system does not facilitate blanket representation of all groups, not least every socio economic group. There are many barriers to representation.

There's a real accountability issue with this kind of proportional representation though. An MP attached to a locality is accountable to a place, to a particular set of people living in that place, to the good of those particular people and then also to the nation as a whole and the particular people there. That's very concrete, it's a relationship.

When you get pp scenarios a lot of that is abstracted, the MP now represents a set of ideas or policy or an ideology.

I think the second is far more likely to go seriously wrong. A better approach IMO to reform would be to look carefully at the extent to which MPs are beholden and controlled by their parties, and for the government, the Prime Ministers office. Too much of that kind of influence is often what stops MPs from properly representing the interests of their constituents. Pp is almost an institutionalisation of that as a way to try and solve it.

This is gold. So anyone is trans if they self ID as trans except Jamie Wallis and Debbie Hayton. Have Stonewall updated their website to state this? Will you be policing to all trans short lists to ensure the people you disqualify from transness are removed?

This is gold.

Yes. I am finding this need to demand special treatment that no one else receives to be very enlightening to the complete lack of awareness of the hypocrisy of those demands.

So, trans representation ONLY if the person is the right type of trans.

Just like the current sentiment floating around that the abuse/violence/and aggressiveness of extreme trans activists is perfectly legitimate because they are feeling massively threatened... YET... woman and girls are not allow to feel massively threatened at all. Women and girls have to change their language, accept situations they are threatened by or at the very least uncomfortable by etc and any micro-aggression can be considered a violent attack.

Honestly, I cannot think that people who have started to say that extreme trans activists actions are in any way justified can see the very clear hypocrisy of their stance.

Just like the scenario in this original post. I am not convinced that the poster can see the extreme hypocrisy in their stance, they seem to think that they are very well justified to suggest that they can indeed gatekeep 'trans'. Because a group of extreme trans activists seem to feel justified to say some trans people are not 'trans', yet that completely flies in the face of self ID.

I don't agree with restricted shortlists. I want to be represented by the best available candidate. But if there are shortlists to increase participation of certain groups then presumably these should restrict overrepresented groups too? So if more LGB than proportional then we need heterosexual short lists? Or if more than two trans candidates then any other trans candidates should be excluded. Of course as there is already an over representation of white men we better not have any more white transwomen candidates unless they displace another white male...

Just look at what has happened in Scotland and within the SNP to see the pitfalls.

Why do trans people need special representation in Parliament?

I don't support all women short lists either.

Nobody is recognising me as valid non-binary, either.

So Debbie Hayton is the wrong kind of trans huh? Also there's no such thing as trans kids.

Many quarter black people experience racism as much as "fully"black people. Trans people get even worse deal than most of the rest of the world.

That is a very broad statement. The rest of the world? Could you please explain your thinking here, keeping in mind just how females are treating in countries making up a huge proportion of the 'rest of the world'?

That recently trans MP could be replaced soon enough. Just needs another guy to be charged with drunken mayhem or whatever. Then announce they've thought about being trans. Et voila - representation. Or a woman MP I guess. But that's less likely.

Shortlists only work if they represent a sizeable group who is underrepresented.

One obvious problem is that if you nominate one constituency to 'represent' a particular tiny interest group, the pool of candidates will very small and on average lower quality, unless members of that group are willing to move to the constituency.

This would make sense if we had a form of proportional representation that would allow people to choose candidates from more than one list, ignoring the lists that don't interest them. Under the UK's present first-past-the-post system, an all-trans shortlist would represent too few people to be democratic.

Men should not feature on any kind of special shortlist. They are not under-represented - the reverse.

Even if you think TW are a special minority, that doesn't mean they should get their own shortlists.

There aren't special shortlists for minority groups in general eg none for disabled people even though there are far more disabled people than trans, and disabled people are under-represented. None for ethnic minorities even though there are far more and they are also under-represented. etc etc.

So no idea why gender reassignment should attract its own shortlist when no other (much larger) minority groups get their own shortlists.

Women get shortlists precisely because we are not a tiny minority - women are half the population. So under-representation of women affects 50% of the population, not less than 1%.

If we were going to start to have shortlists for every conceivable minority group or protected characteristic, gender reassignment would be one of the last PCs to be considered for a shortlist, as the numbers are so small. But we'd have to redesign our political system first as minority shortlists wouldn't work in FPTP since MPs are supposed to represent ALL their constituents not just fewer than 1% of them.

I think that you are maybe confused about what representation means. An MP represents their constituents in parliament, they aren’t supposed to be a representation of them.

Gender dysmorphia is a condition that needs to be treated with understanding and compassion, but why, out of all the conditions which people have would we select this one and suggest we need to bring it into parliament other than organically?

In what way? Trans is what we call someone with gender dysphoria, or, if you go with the Stonewall definition, anyone who might wear a piece of clothing that was designed for the opposite sex (so my wife if she ever borrows my Barbour jacket). Under either of those definitions, or anything in between, how do you believe they are getting a bad deal?

Meanwhile ...

First trans peer a step closer as hereditary candidate claims seat www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4553555-first-trans-peer-a-step-closer-as-hereditary-candidate-claims-seat

At the school I teach in, the existence of transgender students is 1 in 200.

... as in, it's a big school with several trans students and the ratio is 1:200

Asking me to accept anything other than bio women as women and bio men as men, makes me want to die.

Surely if trans women are women they are as represented in parliament by women MPs as much as any other woman? (Still underrepresented of course, as we have always been.). Why the need for trans shortlists?

Because TWAW only until it advantages them not to be: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553555-first-trans-peer-a-step-closer-as-hereditary-candidate-claims-seat

I'd support all trans shortlists in principle, I would like to see trans people have representation without taking spaces on womens shortlists. And as someone said, Trans Men won't want to be on the latter either.

Not read the thread (10 pages and it’s Saturday night!)

But this had me rolling in the aisle 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

You do realise that you’ve just described the history of women for like forever? 🤣🤣🤣 If TW want to be W they better buckle up and get used to not having fair representation anywhere.