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?

I'm not hugely convinced of the value of an all-trans shortlist to recruit MPs, but I would absolutely support plans to recruit - say - trans counsellors and volunteers in a trans rape crisis centre or devising trans policy for a trans charity. I would also expect the same courtesy in return.

Campaigning for a third space I can get on board with, but the pp have a point about proportional representation, and the purpose of these lists.

I agree that there should be all trans shortlists, as soon as trans people are statistically underrepresented in parliament.

Restricted shortlists should be available for any group that is statistically underrepresented in parliament I.e. accounts for more than 1 in 650 of the population and isn’t otherwise represented.

Since anyone can just say they are trans I don’t see how these shortlists could really work. Surely the would be candidates all just come out as non binary. As stated above their are surely more important URGs to promote.

The issue with this though is that LGB represents sexuality and the T represents gender identity. A lesbian woman is still a woman, I’d like to see representation of gay men and lesbians through the

I meant the conversation was toxic!
Should I not want to know what women think?

and no they can't be overcome in another way in my opinion - I'd like to detail ingrained prejudice and structural barriers but it would only derail the actual conversation.

another post maybe for that?

Posted too soon.

id like to see lesbians and gay men represented through political parties rather than othering them to be part of a specific group. I am concerned that some trans issues conflict with LGB issues and would ask if the umbrella is now too wide with conflicting issues between sub groups.

Jamie Wallis? Trans, but he's keeping his pronouns, his male entitlement and socialisation and his appearance just the way it is??

He's no more trans than my shower gel. He's using that as an excuse for all his dodgy shit.

I don't care about trans lists so long as TW don't appear on all-women lists.

I think this idea will be unpopular here, but speaking for myself alone - I would support all trans shortlists. In my view, a relatively fair degree of representation could only be achieved if these shortlists included all 'subtypes' of trans people, vs all transwomen, all transmen, etc.

In general I don't agree with shortlists. Labour used to have them, but have never had a female leader. Also if there is trans shortlists should we alao have all black shortlists, all LGB shortlists, all people with disabilities shortlists, etc. In short, how many all xxxxx shortlists should there be?

Also the definition of trans would need to be precise otherwise people would just self identify onto a trans shortlist.

Also, top tip, if you come into a predominantly female space describing it as toxic in your opening post that isn't a great start to debate

@pop91 I wonder why you want to know what these particular women think. The ones you feel engage usually in toxic debate and deny your existence. Presumably if this is something you're going to campaign for, the possible objections (or not) of a group of women you profoundly mistrust are not relevant.

I wouldn't vote for a part that had restrictive selection like that irrespective of whether it was for trans, gay o women. I'd suspect that they may be leaving out the best person for the job. In the current system here you vote for the party and the person they put forward. Talking about we need x number of trans or y number of women or z gays would be tough even under PR. Where would you stop? We need % of dog owners/cat owners/vegetarians. Your MP should represent you irrespective of your gender/sex/sexual preference.

Sounds good to me. So long as the scale of representation is proportional and reasonable. I think it would be interesting to see how you would gate-keep that role for a suitable candidate though.

The issue with this though is that LGB represents sexuality and the T represents gender identity. A lesbian woman is still a woman, I’d like to see representation of gay men and lesbians through the

Oh I know! But until stonewall disaggregates the T we should treat them all as one homogenous group.

I'm naturally curious.
To my parent's constant dismay😂

Yeah but he's got a court case coming up so......

There’s Jamie Wallis, so not zero.

he's supposedly leaving politics and many trans people say he's not trans which I don't think is particularly fair.

But I think generally we would look for already out and proud and high-profile trans people.

Aye. That chap who came out as a trans woman is an oddity.

On the self-ID question that many have mentioned:

No I don't a GRC would need to be required to run but would likely select from already out and proud High-Profile trans people with a history of trans activism!

To be fair, I don't think anyone wants to claim Jamie Wallace as one of their own

Which got me thinking a male who transitions late will have little in common and no understanding of the life of a teen female who is thinking about transition. Thinking about Wallace, he knows far more about life as a privileged white male than he would ever know about a young female struggling with sexuality, body image, gender and I genuinely don't think he could represent their interests any better than anyone else.

1st gender critical people don't think that trans people don't exist we just don't believe that anyone can change their sex nor do we believe that gender identity (whatever that is) trumps biological sex. Dress however you like and date any consenting adult you like but please don't tell me that I'm nothing more than an idea in a man's head.
2nd no I wouldn't complain about or protest against all trans list if there was
A, a clear definition of exactly what trans is
B, a clear and valid reason/need for such a list
C, there would be no conflict with existing lists
D, that they were only allowed the same % of mps as the % of trans people (would obviously round up to the nearest whole person) which if Stonewalls figures and my maths are correct would give you 1 mp.
As for your last question considering that trans people would only be able to have 1 mp under the equality act rules of proportional representation discrimination (if rounded up and not sure if its allowed but assuming it would) it would be pointless to have separate lists for trans men and women.
Also I should point out that as the Scottish government discovered with there own gender representation Bill that there are very strict rules on how and when it is acceptable to positively discriminate and I don't think an all trans list would be as simple as you think

How do you imagine it working if every minority group (and trans people are estimated at 1% of the population, so one of the smallest groups)? Will there be all Muslim shortlists, all Jewish shortlists, all lesbian, all neuro diverse candidates shortlists etc?

I’m not a particular fan, but the argument for all women shortlists is that we are half the population and grossly under represented. There is no other group that comes close or would be workable IMO.

If we accept Jamie Wallis' definition of himself as trans, doesn't this mean that trans people are now overrepresented in Parliament?

Excellent point @ArcheryAnnie