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?

Lol! Maybe trans-exclusionary shortlists would address that? Joke before anyone posts on Twitter...

Muslims, Jews, lesbians and neuro-diverse people all have MP's.

It seems the most insane Idea to have 1/2 trans people as what's soon to be zero is also a literal gross underrepresentation.

If there was legislation being written about gay men who also don't constitute a massive portion of the population then we would rightly say there was an issue.

seems just hypocritical while legislation is passed on Trans people to have zero representation?

I think perhaps people may be more open to the suggestions if only the trans activists would stop with the threats of violence and death against anyone who dares to have a differing opinion .

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

Do they?! Blimey. Did they not read the Stonewall memo then?

many don't.

and he's still not exactly out and proud.
more out and ashamed.

🤣

And if transwomen would acknowledge that they are transwomen and that biological women are women. Anything else is totally unacceptable.

@pop91 what legislation is being written about trans people?

Muslims, Jews, lesbians and neuro-diverse people all have MP's.

Who's neuro-diverse?

Are there currently any visually impaired MPs? Any with sickle cell disease? Any Rastafarian's?

Agree with others that coming onto a feminist board discussing toxic discussions is not going to encourage interaction.

Not sure why you would think it would.

However, since you are here. I also agree that introducing yet another ‘short list’ is the problem. The major disparity between male and female means there should be goals to work towards for 51% of the population. (Since we have some shortlists, if they are working keep them, if not, ditch them).

Are there other shortlists for populations with clearer disparities?

However, there should be a wider diversity of people encouraged to enter Parliament. For sure. It that included specific goals for trans people, then ok. If it is indeed proportionate.

But, defining trans may be an issue for you? If someone got in and then detransitioned, how would that work? If an elected MP newly transitioned, would that be ok? Would you feel they actually understood and gave good representation?

And would NB people represent trans people well enough? What do you think about that?

I fully support transitioned males not applying for female short lists.

Or for female roles such as ‘women’s officers’. If they need to be called ‘female officers’ to get the message across that no males should be appointed, so be it.

Not ideal but better than males being involved in setting or influencing policy on behalf on women. When in reality, it is their interpretation of what females need or even worse, purely about their needs.

After all, if there is a ‘women’s officer’ role, there is usually an LGBT+ role that transitioned males can and should apply for. Because yes, trans people need their own representation. Of course they do. (I would suggest regulars on this board would not disagree that trans people should have their own representation. Any disagreement would be about definitions , regulation and whether a short list or a target or whatever. The theory is reasonable.).

under the current system MP's are supposed to disproportionately fight the corner of their own constituents, not their own demographic.

the number of trans people in the UK is unknown but thought to be within a range of about 0.25% to 0 75%, about the same as the number of, what, Buddhists or something. I suppose there is Suella Braverman 😂

overall the trans population is realistically too small to have a proper target. if there was only one place, which of the parties would it be in? if the Tories had to do it they'd pick a Blaire White type (in terms of political outlook) or likelier just another Jamie Wallace, who'd end up doing more harm than good.

so would the trans mp be just representing trans people across the country? Or just the trans people in their constituency? And what about all the others?

OP you go into some detail on eligibility of people to be included in to BAME categories but won't define what you mean when you say "trans people". It's impossible to have a discussion on that basis.

I don't believe non-trans people can tackle the issues for trans people as effectively as a trans person could

So by the same token, can non-women tackle the issues for women as effectively as women could?

And if you can't/won't define trans how do I know who will be on your shortlist?

Fill your boots. Just keep anything that's for women only man-free.

@pop91 whilst I agree that it may not seem fair not to have someone who looks like/is like you to represent your interests in parliament it is something that many people have to put up with including me and is however a fact of life in our flawed world all we can do is lobby our mps and create lobby groups to represent our interests and trans people have some of the most powerful lobby groups out there

Would it be fair to have all lesbian shortlists or all bisexual shortlists? I declare an interest that I am bisexual myself and I think this would be really weird.

We've manage to get lesbians and bisexuals in Parliament now through lots of awareness raising to now make these things barely noticeable. Someone's sexual orientation doesn't really matter now in most situations. I guess you need to get trans to that point where it doesn't matter. I still feel it's at the 'it's all that matters' stage and that's not great for a role that's meant to represent everyone.

There are trans councillors now. Eventually there will be trans MPs.

Women are c 50% of the population, and so all women shortlists are designed to increase representation to closer to that of the general population by guaranteeing more female representatives.

We don’t have all gay shortlists, all Christian/Muslim/Jew/Sikh shortlists, all disabled shortlists, all old/young people shortlists. Why on earth do you think trans people deserve their own shortlist over and above other protected characteristics?

Unless you can define what your "all Trans" shortlist will look like, its a pointless question.

And given that "trans" appears to be an ever growing group including furries and those that identify as babies where would you draw the line.

and he's still not exactly out and proud.
more out and ashamed.

Of being trans? Or his business dealings? Or his extra-marital activities if his wife has not agreed to them? As an MP, there are numerous issues to deal with there. And partly to do with honesty and integrity.

To guess that that MP is ‘ashamed’ of being trans over the other major issues seems to serve activists quite well. But does seem to be missing some huge elephants in the room in the desire that the claim be accurate and not just someone’s wish.

people act out when they feel threatened!

the BLM protesters that burned down police stations aren't an indication of every BLM protester! neither are trans people who I can tell you are terrified right now.

two of my American trans friends won't leave the house anymore (they work from home anyway but not even bars/clubs as they used to) - an online acquaintance is moving from texas to new york for his trans daughter - My brother says my niece has gotten urine infections from refusing to pee till she gets home.

and I've personally reduced the number of times I leave the house.

none of US sends threats out but it's not about different opinions - we are scared!

I can imagine a young trans person who lashes out at the people they see hurting them. Not all of us will spend the night arguing on Mumsnet!

I've been away and had a brief think. I think I clearly misunderstood in my previous post, that's what comes from posting from the hip. sorry.

I assume you're after representation, an MP who will do all the work of an MP but just happen to be trans. Yes?

So, if Debbie Hayton decided to retire from teaching and go into politics, would that be acceptable? I imagine not.

Some other high profile trans people have been absolutely vile about women rights. On merits would someone like that suit. To be fair lots on non-trans people including current elected politicians have been no better, or worse, so perhaps that wouldn't matter.

I tend not to like shortlists. It feels a bit patronising and tokenistic.

But I think if there are some trans folk out there who fancy it. Good luck to them. Perhaps try a turn at being a Councillor first. Prove their worth and their local party might put them forward.

Why are you interested in the UK Parliament when you are in the US?

conversion therapy not having included trans people when it was promised.

ban's on trans kid's medications.

EHRC guidance of legal exclusions.

All of which you may agree with but for us having no trans person to voice our opposition in parliament hurts.