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?

My brother says my niece has gotten urine infections from refusing to pee till she gets home

Is this 'niece' male or female though? Because trans activists don't seem to give a fuck about all the girls who don't want to use the toilet in school because they are now forced into mixed sex facilities because their female only facilities have been removed.

EHRC guidance of legal exclusions

This guidance was written to point out the ACTUAL law, that Stonewall and trans activists have been lying about when they claim males can access all female only spaces. The law that is already in place to protect FEMALE people from MALE people where they are at their most vulnerable and so they can have things like fair sporting competitions.

You might not give a shit about males in female spaces because you have opted out of 'woman', but that does not give you the right to wave away the protections for the rest of us who want, and are legally allowed, male free spaces.

Do you understand that their is a massive difference between young teen females with dysphoria and grown men who claim to be trans who have no dysphoria and are happy with their penis? Men who we used to call cross dressers and transvestites. Two distinct groups with very different motives?

Do you realise you are advocating more for the second group?

The vocal male trans activists only ever advocate for other males. They give no shits about women or transmen. Yet it seems that transmen also want the removal of female only spaces and female sex based language just because they don't want or need it.

I’m a big believer in the 9 protected characteristics being represented proportionately - but in line with legislation gender reassignment is a protected character while gender identity is not a protected characteristic. Lists for women could include biological females and those with a formal gender reassignment certificated.

No they couldn't, it defeats the object of AWS which is to correct the under representation of women in Parliament.
A GRC does not confer a person all of the rights of the opposite sex.

I think women only shortlists have had their day and I wouldn't support any other identity related shortlists either.

My gender euphoria is limited by feelings of dysphoria caused in large part by the current media climate!

Do you also realise the current climate is due to trans activist behaviour and demands that people bow down to their dogma. The whole "trans women are women" mantra was an own goal.

Most people give no shits what others want to wear or call themselves, but being told we must pretend men are now women just because they say so is absurd. Having to read articles about male sex offenders with 'woman' in the headline and she/her pronouns for a man who has raped someone with his penis?

What sex are the activists who send the raoe and death threats to women like JKR? The ones you excuse because you you think THEY are frightened or threatened rather than them just being violent aggressive males.

Yet you think it's GC women who are causing the issue because they won't put up and shut up when their very right to name and advocate for themselves as a separate sex class to males is being undermined and their single sex facilities are being removed to appease the feelings of a subset of men?

Knowing that people can't change sex and that biology, in many situations, should be prioritised over feelings, is the view of the vast majority. So why are we now told that the niche belief system of a minority should be given priority everywhere at all times and that no one must question any of the illogical, incoherent absurdities of gender identity ideology in case it hurts someone's feelings?

Transexuals have been screwed over just like women have, because now 'trans' has been redefined to become anything anyone says it is to the point it's practically meaningless.

How can both you and Jamie Wallis, a man with no dysphoria, who has no intention of changing his appearance or pronouns and is perfectly fine with his male body, for example, belong in the same category?

All-trans shortlists would be problematic in a number of ways given our democratic constituency based system. All-BAME shortlists would have a similar problem in places where they wouldn't be unnecessary.

The only reason all-women shortlists work (and I don't think they are free of criticism) is because women are basically half the population in each constituency. The alternative to having the male half of a constituency represented by a woman is having the female half represented by a man - it's an "equal" imposition on either side.

An all-woman shortlist doesn't automatically remove almost all people from the candidate pool or insist that the representative of the general population for a constituency is a member of a class that is not a significant part of the electorate.

If we want to ensure the Commons reflects various classes of people we'd need to move to a list system and proportional representation of some type.

I don’t believe in ‘all anything’ shortlists. They’re anti-democratic. But all-trans shortlists would provoke a huge backlash against trans people because they are <1% of the population and by the same logic that you imply a person who is not trans can’t represent you (though I don’t agree) an all trans shortlist couldn’t represent virtually everyone else , so I don’t think you want this either.

You may need to go and check what groups are being included under the umbrella of "trans" before you accuse others of "trolling".

Whether you accept it or not there are many fringe elements to "trans" including some that identify as demons, animals etc.

It is why a definition is so important.

I think the op has gone.

Aside from the private and rather painful stuff. I think the op wanted to know if there would be objections to an all trans shortlist. But only including the right kind of trans (which is rather transphobic, no?).

I don't think a shortlist of people with a history of campaigning for a group that is not the political party would work, no. Nor would I vote for such a candidate. I want a candidate to represent their constituents, not a minority group at national level.

Well OP, I think we had covered the extent that your questions came from the same place as the usual ambiguous claims.

You wanted a short list that trans people ‘gatekept’. So you wanted only the ‘right’ trans people to be counted.

You also would not define the group you would approve.

So, in essence, this shortlist you proposed would not be democratic or representative. It would be merely a controlled candidate.

Do you understand how very discriminatory you are with this attitude? The only thing that should be the prerequisite for a shortlist should be a clearly definable group, within the ‘membership’ of a much much larger group ie the political party.

Political party’s by nature have a wide range of people.

So, you are demanding an all trans shortlist, but you also wish to treat people who are trans as not being ‘trans’ if they don’t fall into your belief.

Do you see how your plan fails at the first hurdle?

And you are particularly either willfully denying or naive about people who are or aren’t ‘trans’ under the current umbrella.

Personally I'm inclined to disagree with an all trans shortlist in parliament as I don't think it's representative and unfair on other minority groups mentioned who've had to graft to be elected 'normally'.

I agree with separate trans lists however at awards ceremonies, sports and in the workplace and wouldn't protest that.

I worry that a high profile trans activist as the OP puts it in parliament would be focussed on a single issue and not have the best interests of women and children because of all the things we talk about on here. To me they'd be like a fox in the hen house. I only say this because of the unreasonable way TR activism has gone over the past few years.

Sorry, I appreciate the debate though.

The only reason all-women shortlists work (and I don't think they are free of criticism) is because women are basically half the population in each constituency. The alternative to having the male half of a constituency represented by a woman is having the female half represented by a man - it's an "equal" imposition on either side.

This is a really good point. And I believe all women shortlists were only ever seen as a temporary measure to get people over the idea that MP = man.

Caroline Nokes refused to define ‘trans’ as well.

Is this because the Stonewall definition, when said out loud or typed out, is actually embarrassing and problematic?

Is this because the Stonewall definition, when said out loud or typed out, is actually embarrassing and problematic?

Yes. They know it doesn't look good. Nokes is stupid, but she isn't that stupid.

I worry that a high profile trans activist as the OP puts it in parliament would be focussed on a single issue and not have the best interests of women and children

Unfortunately so far TQ+ elected into posts have chosen to do exactly this, very much justifying this concern. Several well known TW for example who have taken women's officers posts on the grounds that they can represent women and women's issues as well as a female can - and then declined to represent any female only issue on the grounds it's exclusionary. It obviously has not done much in terms of building trust.

I'm an atheist. It doesn't mean I think Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc don't exist or even that they are delusional.

I just don't share their beliefs. Largely, modern religious people do not demand non-believers/those of other faiths convert. Which is just as well because those "convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

Absolutely as long as they are harming noone religious people should be able to live their lives freely and in accordance with their beliefs. It is none of my business.

What is my business is if people use their beliefs to justify things such as restricting access to abortion. Then we'd be on different sides of a campaign. But that doesn't mean I'm out to get them or want them not to be e.g. Christian.

I suffered from agoraphobia for a decade myself and I'm sorry that you and other trans people you know are suffering from this level of debilitating anxiety. I overcame it and I am sure you can too. Little steps of graduated exposure, with help if you can get it.

Though your anxious thoughts are perhaps focusing around things that GC women say, the solution is not to have everyone in the world agree with you in order for you to feel safe to leave the house. It's getting to the point where you accept that not everyone will agree with you and you are okay leaving the house anyway. (And people are generally less focused on you than you worry about - honestly, having been there!)

GC women generally have a lot of compassion for transmen. Because we are very often gender non-conforming ourselves and can understand some of the discomfort around the roles and expectations of the female sex. For us, that didn't get as focused on our physical body as it has for you, or at least it passed as we grew up. I know I felt extremely uncomfortable with my teenage body, but I'm glad I didn't have the options of medical "treatment" because I am happy as an adult human female and appreciate the functionality of my body which has given me children and breastfed them. I appreciate your mileage has varied!

Gender non-conforming children are not all (or even mostly) future trans adults. Their medical care needs to reflect that, and we need to demand the same high standards of safety and effectiveness for trans-identifying patients as we do for everyone else. Do no harm. I'm really concerned it is a hardware solution for a software distress and will not work.

I'm sorry you have found the discussion distressing. Honestly feminists want you to be able to live your life to the fullest, we don't want gender to hold anyone back, no one wants you to not exist (and if they did they wouldn't be someone to listen to!).

So half the problem with short-lists is that we have a first-past-the-post system in the UK where MPs are meant to represent their local constituency.

If we got rid of that and had a Proportional Representation system (or a hybrid), then there would be much more scope for underpresented groups to have an MP who would get elected via the PR list. Or even who could stand for their own political party for their own special interest group.

Campaign for PR first, rather than trying to squeeze special interest groups into the FPTP system.

I agree that there are some massive problems with FPTP. However, given that in Scotland we have the horrible modified D'Hondt system, which is a sort of botched half arsed PR system that regularly returns people who won hardly any votes at all, I'm not quite sure that I'm as enthusiastic about PR as I used to be.

What other systems are there?

We all want to be represented, to feel that someone who understands and will put our own needs at the top of the agenda are in power.
Well maybe we don't ALL think this way or we wouldn't continue to vote in rich white men into parliament.
If you want someone "like" you OP then you need to stand, get involved.

I note this has already been mentioned, but the whole thing is moot anyway.
All Women Shortlists required an exemption from the equality act, which originally ran out in 2015. The Cameron government extended this to 2030, I can easily see the current government refusing to do the same as it fits neatly into the culture wars.
The parties that have used AWS now have 51% (Labour) and 64% (Lib Dem) female MPs and I believe have been warned that this means they can't use AWS in future GEs.
Other specific shortlists would require the same sort of exemption and I can't see that happening. Trans people would be better not having shortlists IMO as they would probably only receive 1 or 2 MPs proportionally, more representation would probably be achieved by pushing good Trans candidates through an open system.

Got it. So OP gets to decide who is non-white enough, poor enough, trans enough to represent communities the OP defines. Got it.

I do feel sorry you've had what sounds like horrific and inappropriate counselling. I am glad that you have found a path that makes you feel more comfortable in yourself.

But that doesn't mean you can decide if someone else is trans enough.

And your decision that someone who has only one BAME grandparent is not eligible to represent BAME communities is really... it has mirrored the awful apartheid approach of "one drop" hasn't it? If racists decided only one ancestor was "enough" to oppress people, isn't it really just as bad to say that someone doesn't "pass" as black or Asian enough to be part of a community?

I suspect the issue isn't about short listing but about OP wanting to control who is or isn't trans as well as whether people see them as trans or if they "pass".

Until there's a coherent, adequate definition of what it is the be 'trans', nothing like this would, or should work. Is it a person alleviating debilitating unease due to body dysmorphia? Is it a person who like to cross-dress three days per week? It is a person who simply makes claims and alters their own pronouns when they feel like it? If trans identifying people won't define it, and it remains a fluid concept, we're all a bit stuck.

OP you sound very unhappy. I sincerely hope the extreme surgery you hope for gives you some peace with your body and mind and that you are given honest facts about the potential outcome.

I also think you are rather naive about what an MP actually does all day; you might be surprised to discover it involves wading through mountains of correspondence about bin collections, local bypass plans, the local education authority, the local council etc and that there are very few minutes leftover to pontificate on your own unique specialness. You wouldn no doubt be shocked to find that the majority of constituents don't want to listen to you bang on about your transness, but just want their fucking bins collected on time.

You also seem to assume that trans MPs would essentially be you but with a job in Westminster, ie exactly replicating your every experience and thought. This isn't how it works. My MP is superficially "like" me in that she's white and female, but she's local to the area (I'm not) and she is in a party I've never voted for. So does she represent me, or not? Would you vote for a "right type of trans" person who stood for the Conservatives?

I didn't know the Labour party had phased out all women shortlists; I think they served a purpose at the time but it's right they've been abandoned now. I honestly don't think there's much appetite amongst the general population for any other kind of shortlist.

All Women Shortlists required an exemption from the equality act, which originally ran out in 2015. The Cameron government extended this to 2030, I can easily see the current government refusing to do the same as it fits neatly into the culture wars.

Gentlemen's clubs still quite happily enjoying that exemption though, which I think would quite possibly get a lot of Westminster men hopping if it was threatened that they were about to have to deal with females they couldn't refuse membership to.

1 in 2 people are female. The definition of trans is so broad. I won't point out what I mean as Mumsnet won't think its appropriately 'kind'. The Head of Trans Inclusion at Stonewall needed them's mum to help give evidence in court. Is this really a population who can stand the cut and thrust of parliamentary democracy?