Are you voting in the next general election purely on the transgender issue?

[TeacherAnonymous123]

Just as the title says really! Is that your only thought about who you'll vote for, or will you look at wider policies? Been getting lots of information through my letter box recently, and none mention it.

Don't be childish. Intersectionalism is not a 'big' word. It is a particular framing device for analysing the collective/social level - in which there are victim groups and oppressor groups and so on.... This sort of feminism is as bad as any other intersectionalist analysis taken too far, in my view.

Ask Julie Bindel.
ask Rosie Duffield.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/01/keir-starmer-rosie-duffield-trans-ideology/

@molotovcupcakes

The same Julie Bindel who praised Starmer for his bravery tackling FGM and violence against women.

On the issue of sexual and other forms of violence against women, Keir Starmer has a sterling record

thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2020/my-fgm-hero/

And yet that party full of women stood by and said and did absolutely nothing while men in their own party threatened to beat up women for saying that men are not women. The police took the threat so seriously that they advised Rosie Duffield not to attend a party conference as they were worried for her safety.

Let that sink in, this woman was not safe at her own party conference due to threats of physical violence from men. The party, including the leader Keir Starmer, did not even condemn this. Starmer hasn’t spoken to her since. Not reassuring that they will protect women’s rights is it?

Just because they believed those things doesn't mean they were true.

There are a lot of things about the EU's workings which are very poorly understood. One of its central aims is levelling up, so that all citizens of the EU can have a high quality of life. That's why it specifically directs aid into the poorest regions, including some of the poorest parts of the UK, prior to Brexit.

Then there's the complaint about awarding public contracts to foreign companies. Grammarnut said that the government was forced to award a contract to a foreign company, which is a really inaccurate way of putting it. How public procurement works is that the public entity awarding a contract has to decide what they want and how they are going to evaluate tenders, and then once they've published their request for tenders and invited companies to bid, they have to stick to the rules they have established. The purpose of this is to ensure fair competition. Yes, if you're in the single market you have to open up these opportunities to companies from all over Europe. This is to ensure that the UK taxpayer is actually getting the best value for money. We might all like the little company down the road to win the big contract, but we don't really want to pay for it, either through higher prices or lower quality. It's also supposed to stop governments from just awarding valuable contracts to their mates, which as we saw during Covid, is a big risk.

It's not reasonable to expect Joe Public to understand how all this stuff works, which is why having a referendum on it is tricky. I think the original referendum should have required a leave vote from a majority of the eligible electorate, with non votes being counted as a vote to maintain the status quo. Unfortunately we ended up having to do something that has been pretty damaging for the UK, without a solid democratic mandate.

Interesting discussion on the doorstep with Lib Dem council candidate yesterday evening. I asked her how she’d define a woman and that this was my deal breaker on voting this time and that I kept asking them and they wouldn’t answer. She stood for a little while clearly conflicted and eventually said I think it would be the same as your definition.

Then chatted for a bit, she’d started to realise there was a problem during lockdown when she had more time to think and she mentioned the Cass report and JK Rowling. It wasn’t something that affected her at work, I explained how it had affected me in work. We ended up talking a while, I said a little about how I couldn’t trust the Lib Dem’s anymore, she knew nothing about the Challenors. She made a note of my name and address and said she’d come back and talk more after the local election. I definitely peaked her a bit more and made her realise this is a voter issue. I’m hoping she follows through on that as I feel like she’s nervously ventured onto the foothills and I plan to get her all the way there.

People saying they will spoil their ballot really? You may feel politically homeless but if so getting the Tory's out has to be a start?

I'm going to stick my head up and prepare to have it shot off (given this is a feminist board) but I'm not a fan of women only shortlists. Why just this PC? Surely we should also have shortlists for other underrepresented groups if we have this e.g. making sure that we have enough disabled people, enough black people, enough trans-identified people in every political party (that's not a genuine suggestion BTW). I would far rather imbalance in representation is addressed in different ways before it comes to selecting a shortlist of candidates. Why aren't enough women coming in to politics? How can this be changed so that they see it as an attractive career pathway?
A shortlist should be based on capability, not virtue signalling.

It's completely different from sports categories. They are segregated by sex (or should be) for a different reason, most often differences in strength/speed etc related to being either male or female. Where the reason is more societal than physical difference, e.g. chess, it comes down to whether there is enough appetite to create and sustain a separate league/division. Any categorisation is exclusive/exclusionary by its nature - appetite for doing so will come down to whether enough people see it as for reasons that are good (I can't imagine much support for a whites only chess league for example. Thankfully!!). I personally don't see enough justification for job shortlists as I think it does more harm than good overall. Shoot me now... 😬

@BonfireLady given some of the MP’s that Labour’s women only shortlists have produced, I’m with you!

(to add, my edits were because I kept writing "short list" instead of "shortlist")

@Teddleshon do you know if there an easy way to see who came through this route? My gut reaction to your comment is that I wonder if it explains the mystery of how Dawn Butler got to be in a seat.

I've now read up on the Scottish proportional representation system and the similarities in terms of unintended consequences are interesting. In both cases, a list of individuals is drawn up (regional MSPs, all women shortlists) and, although the voting calculation methods are different (four rounds of calculations using a formula vs standard FPTP voting), the upshot is that anyone wanting to vote specifically for a political party rather than specifically for an individual candidate (which describes the majority of the "get the Tories out no matter what" posts in this thread) is leaving the door wide open to the potential of electing an unsuitable muppet who has been added to a list by the party.

That is why I always say ‘look at the candidates’.

I disagree about short lists too. I want the best person to represent me. I don’t want a great local candidate removed just because he is a man. The other danger of the shortlist route is people short listed due to a specific characteristic may ‘forget’ they are still there to represent everyone. That is the other problem with PR - they represent the party not voters.

I used to be all for all-women shortlists because I saw it as a way to "leapfrog" societal barriers, to circumvent the prejudice that causes us all to favour men over women and get to a more representative Parliament more quickly. I also believed it was different to having all-black shortlists because 50% of us are women and around 5-7% of us are black, so the lack of female representation was more egregious and needed to be addressed more urgently. I also think the shortlists spurred on other parties, especially the Tories, to encourage good women candidates to stand and to look at how they treated prospective candidates if they were female.

The all-women shortlists have worked in terms of getting more women into Parliament, which is a good thing, but because qualification was not purely on merit, the quality is very mixed, shall we say. On the other hand, the Conservatives' "pure merit" approach has resulted in their share of idiots and Labour has some very bright and able women - sadly none of whom are brave enough to stand with Rosie Duffield.
Having said all that, I'm not sure where I stand on women-only shortlists - perhaps they should be scrapped now, even though the reasons for having them haven't gone away.

• I'm thinking that there are now enough women to push for reforms to the way Parliament does its business, etc. Make it more woman-friendly. Attitudes within Parliament have probably changed since the shortlists were brought in.

No. My parents as devout Catholics always voted for whichever candidate was most anti abortion. That was a moral line they were not prepared to cross but ultimately it was a futile battle.

As with that issue, the horse has already bolted on this one. I tend to believe that the greater numbers coming out as trans are connected with the greater individualism that is so encouraged in right wing thought. And the way that capitalism pretty much commodifies everything, including gender.
Labour isn’t quite socialist enough for me, and I was recently impressed by a spokesperson for the Lib Dems who talked about tackling tax avoidance within large corporations and multi national giants operating on our shores.
I’ve moved away from focusing on the trans issue in order to save my sanity. Critical and intellectual approaches to the issue just get shouted down so I’ve decided that those who make those choices about gender and the body will just have to live with the consequences- whether good or bad. It remains a tiny proportion of the population. At least puberty blockers seem to be off the menu.
But overall it just isn’t such an important hill to die on- the NHS and the environment are to my mind far far more important. Most especially the environment. We only voted for the police commissioner here, but when it comes to the general election I shall be looking carefully at Labour, Lib Dem and Green for the best manifesto. But will probably try to choose the one most likely to get the tories out in my constituency. A Tory stronghold. We could do do with PR which would lead me to the Lib Dems or Greens- but I felt let down by the Lib Dems in 2010 (or was it 11, I forget!) and the Greens don’t have a chance in hell. The last time the NHS thrived was under New Labour, so that might guide my vote.

• also when I say "idiots", I don't mean necessarily on the women's rights issue. Just generally low calibre politicians.

The Labour Party may have more women, but have never allowed a female to lead them. As far as I can see, the only party that has allowed their own female members to be subjected to very real threats of physical violence by men in their own party, is Labour. Without any repercussions or consequences by the way. They have also threatened to expel women in their party for saying men are not women and denied the women a stand at their own party conference for gods sake, not reassuring me.

CBA to RTFT but the answer is yes, and I'm not going to be shamed by anyone who tells me not to put my own interests as a woman first.

I doubt I will vote Tory (never have) but I'm not going to vote Labour, LibDem or Green either. So, unless the SDP or a good independent stands locally, I won't be voting.

I do not trust Labour one iota. I will never forget or forgive the way they were prepared to throw my rights away and call me a bigot for protesting (and, yes, I know the Tories were just as bad till recently, but I never supported them in the first place).

Linked to the PR, shortlists and calibre of MPs issue, here's Ash Regan on Radio 4 with Evan Davis:

https://twitter.com/AlbaParty/status/1786093302800065005?t=yOttILm4Pzi6V3dDabw71g&s=19

To me, this is why "the transgender issue" (as per the OP title), "women's rights" issue, as per other comments is central to everything. Once we get belief recognised in law - which I fully expect Labour to do when in government - the stability of government is lost. Labour talk a good rhetoric about fixing the mess of the last 14 years under the Tories. I would love to see this done. I would love to see a Lib Dem government taking forward the policies that align with my own values and understanding of how a fair country is run. Labour come a close second for me. Issues such as SEN provision, poverty/austerity, faster care under the NHS, fair access to quality education, crime prevention, better prison services etc etc.

However, all I see on the horizon if Labour is elected is the whole thing descending in to the farce that is playing out right now in Scotland.
The real issue of governing the country becomes impossible.

Labour in Wales have just voted to NOT adopt the recommendations of the Cass review.

Can someone tell me HOW labour are going to save the NHS when they ignore evidence based medicine?

Really?

What is wrong with them

https://nation.cymru/news/mss-vote-against-recommendations-of-cass-review/

Can one of the posters on here who are planning on voting Labour to save the NHS please explain specifically which of Labours policies have led them to believe that that is the way forward for the NHS?

People saying they will spoil their ballot really? You may feel politically homeless but if so getting the Tory's out has to be a start?

I hate the Tories, even though they align with my views more than Labour and tge Lib Dems on this particular issue. However, I absolutely cannot bring myself to vote Lib Dem or Labour, partly because of this issue, partly because I have seen nothing to make me want to vote for them. Spoiling my ballot paper won't really make any difference though. The Lib Dems always win here, and I have no doubt they will again. The MP is very popular.

I have to say it’s a very sorry state of affairs when the most compelling reason to vote Labour is that voting the Tories out is “a good start”. I’ve no doubt that Labour will win the next election but it looks like it’ll be because people are sick of the Tories rather than because they are inspired by Labour. And if Labour then make themselves absurd by following the SNP’s obsession with identity politics and hate speech laws and calling voters racist etc they probably won’t last very long in office.