Lib Dem internal elections .... women only posts ....

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.libdems.org.uk/internal-elections

At fucking last. Buried in among alllllll that prevarication and careful phrasing and balancing is the key point:

'The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.'

'Women' means women. Not men calling themselves women.

Well done, LibDems.

'Following the Supreme Court decision in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent), the Federal Party has asked the EHRC for guidance about how to approach positive action in internal elections.
In advance of receiving this guidance, given the timing of our internal elections, the Federal Party has taken legal advice about the interpretation of rules 2.5 and 2.6 in the constitution, insofar as they apply to groups with protected characteristics. It is important to say that the constitution asserts the primacy of the Equality Act 2010 in interpreting any rules, and gives authority to the Returning Officer to make reasonable interpretations of the rules in situations where there appears to be a conflict between the constitution and the Equality Act 2010.
Our legal advice is that the Party needs to follow three basic principles:

1. Positive action is permitted up to the point at which a group that shares a protected characteristic is appropriately represented in the Party’s governance. The relevant benchmark for a political party representing the country as a whole is the proportion of people in the country who share that characteristic: i.e. if 10% of the population share the characteristic, then the Party can take positive action until 10% of its governance also shares that characteristic.
2. The Party must treat each protected characteristic as a separate category for the purposes of assessing the relevant benchmark, and mechanisms to take positive action. For the avoidance of doubt, the advice is that the party must treat groups with the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment as separate groups.
3. It is reasonable to ‘round up’ to whole numbers in taking positive action. So for a group who share a protected characteristic with a low prevalence in the population as a whole, it is reasonable to specify that one place on a larger committee is reserved for that group.

In practice this means that two clauses of the constitution need to be reinterpreted by the Returning Officer to make them compliant with the Equality Act 2010, in the context of the Supreme Court judgement. In doing so, the Returning Officer needs to be reasonable and follow as closely as possible the apparent intention of the original drafting. Taking clause 2.5 first, with relevant parts underlined : 2.5 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall self-identify as men or non-binary people, and self-identify as women or non-binary people respectively The apparent intention behind this clause is for the party to take positive action for both the protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Reassignment. However it merges benchmarks for these groups, which the Party is legally required to treat separately. In terms of Sex, the Party’s legal advice is that it is reasonable to treat the rule as saying: 2.5 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall be men and women respectively. The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.'

https://www.libdemvoice.org/prue-bray-i-am-so-angry-i-almost-cant-type-78603.html

Fallout begins.

'I’m seething with disgust over this change. It’s vile. Whoever’s responsible for it should be sacked immediately and thrown out of the party, for either malice (if they knew what they were doing) or gross incompetence (if they didn’t). As others have said, we don’t need to have a quota. '

A comment on that blog from 'Adam'. Who'd have thunk it. Seething, disgusted men calling for sex quotas to be scrapped.

Surely 'The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.' is stating that men who identify as women cannot be women under the EA2010, whilst also implying that they a trans person is completely excluded because men claiming to be women are not cis and cannot be included with men either.

Surely they should say "The party must interpret "men" to mean "adult human males" a group which includes all adult humans who are biologically male, and "women" to mean "adult human females" a group which includes all adult humans who are biologically female. For the avoidance of doubt sex is to be found in the chromosomes not in the hormone levels, dress, hair length or gender feelz."

What a lot of words for something so simple and obvious. I mean, I know they need to spell out the justification for the narcissistic toddlers in the room, but still.

It’s hard to fathom how hard they found it to realise women are people too.

Well, yes, but they aren't apparently able to say that without genuflecting to the gender gods.

Progress. At least they have consulted lawyers rather than activists on a legal matter and they recognise that change is needed.

However, although I know what they are trying to say, the changed wording isn't correct either. It's not "cis" women, it's just women. Humans of the female sex. Of any GI or none. GI is irrelevant.

This bit seems wrong to me:

The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.'

Surely "men" should include transwomen, whether they like it or not. If you're doing affirmative action / quotas, you can't just not count someone because they'd rather you didn't.

I agree the 'cis' wording is wrong. Which shows how little they understand the issue.

So, presumably a transwoman could in theory sue them for discrimination for excluding him from the male pool of candidates.

Or a woman could sue them for being excluded from the female pool based on her gender identity?

Yes, 'cis' is entirely irrelevant, it's still mixing gender identity with sex. The former is entirely irrelevant to the pc of sex.

Political parties who are unsure of how to be legally compliant - instead of asking presumably paid lawyers, ask on MN. We'll keep you right.

Lots of seething in the comments, but Prue has boosted Prue's profile, which I guess was partly the point.

One person almost gets it: "I assume this is to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. The party is not above the law, if we are unhappy with the ruling we need to get parliament to change the law and override the Supreme Court decision."

Why are they falsely claiming that a trans man couldn't stand for a woman-only post?

I thought it was funny myself because the word CIS, is being used against them.

Yes, in theory definitely.

By referring to "cis" women, they're still squishing two PCs together - Belief/non-belief in GI+Sex - and positive action is only lawful for the assistance of people sharing one PC.

Edited for clarity

That statement also goes on :

'In terms of Gender Reassignment, it is reasonable for the purposes of these elections to make an adjustment to rule 2.6 that meets the intention of the constitutional drafting.

Taking clause 2.6, with relevant parts underlined:

2.6 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members of ten or more persons to any Federal Committee or other Federal body: a. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds; b. (not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be disabled people; and c. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be people from under-represented sexual orientations and gender identities, including trans and non-binary identities.

The intention behind this clause is for the party to take positive action on larger committees for both the protected characteristics of Sexual Orientation and Gender Reassignment. However, it merges benchmarks for these groups, which the party is legally required to treat separately, and sets a benchmark higher than the combined Census recorded prevalence in the population for both groups (of 3.2% and 0.5% respectively).

The party’s legal advice concludes that it is reasonable for the purposes of these elections to treat the rule as saying:

2.6 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members of ten or more persons to any Federal Committee or other Federal body:
a. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds;
b. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be disabled people;
c. not less than 5% or, if 5% is not a whole number, the positive whole number nearest to 5% shall be people from under-represented sexual orientations; and
d. not less than 5% or, if 5% is not a whole number, the positive whole number nearest to 5% shall be people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.'

Isn't the nearest whole number to 0.5% one? So shouldn't there be 1% of posts reserved for those with the pc of GR?

The "cis" wording mostly serves to disadvantage trans candidates, but it could affect others too. Suppose there are ten places up for election and the rules say there must be at least 4 men and at least 4 women. The top 10 candidates are four men and six women, which should be fine. But if one of the men says he's a transwoman then it's necessary to drop the last-placed woman and find the next man on the list to bring the number of cismen up to 4. That woman could presumably sue as a result.

Let them have a tantrum. Like the toddlers they are.

I enjoyed this bit: "That change is to apply the quotas to people according to their sex at birth, so that trans men will be considered women and trans women considered men. If you are non-binary, who knows what happens!"

It's really not very difficult Prue. Think a bit harder and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

A reminder - straight women of child bearing age are the most underrated represented group politically at every level compared to the general population.

By referring to "cis" men and women, they're still squishing two PCs together - Belief/non-belief in GI+Sex (on the case of the woman) - and positive action is only lawful for the assistance of people sharing one PC..

Is the claim that positive action is only lawful for the assistance of people sharing one PC really true? I keep seeing this claim made since the SC judgement, but surely it is a misunderstanding of the judgement. Why on earth would that be unlawful in principle?
E.g. if there was evidence that, within a particular organisation, black women in particular were subject to a 'glass ceiling' due to obstacles arising from a combination of racism and sexism, it would surely be lawful to (eg) run a networking programme specifically for black women to try to counter this disadvantage?

(Additionally, this weird lib dem botch-fest doesn't combine two characteristics because it doesn't make any claim that anyone has to have any particular beliefs around gender identity. I suppose their attitude would be that non-trans-identified people are 'cis' regardless of their beliefs on the matter)

I have no idea but I have a lot of sympathy with where you are coming from.

Perhaps (assuming it is correct you cannot run a workshop for black women, which I do not know, but suspect is wrong) the logic would be that if black women suffer racism as sexism then it is likely white women suffer sexism and black men suffer racism, so perhaps there should be separate provisions for race and sex.

But even then, even if obligated to help both based on race and sex separately, it still seems plausible that specific help for black women getting both sets of discrimination at the same time is proportionate.

The anger in the comments of the blog about women meaning actual women, is quite depressing isn't it? Don't they also have LGBTQIA+++.... quotas?

Also, they seem to think that motions passed at conference don't have to be compliant with the law. This seems quite a naive view.

I really do think it must be a misunderstanding, @JamieCannister. What the judgement said was that an alleged single-sex service that that was for both women and gender-reassigned males was not, in fact, a single-sex service (leaving the service provider open to legal action from women who were disadvantaged by the absence of a single-sex service and from non-trans men who were being excluded from a service that was in fact mixed sex).

It isn't the combination of two distinct protected characteristics that causes the problem here; it is the fact that admitting people from the gender-reassignment category falsifies the claim that appropriate provision is being made for the other protected characteristic. That's because 'single-sex' is incompatible with admitting males. In plenty of other cases, providing services that catered to two protected characteristics wouldn't generate the clash. It would all come down to the circumstances of the provision and the nature of the need for it

I just see this misunderstanding coming up so often that I am starting to doubt myself about this!!!!!

@BigGirlBoxers Is correct.

you can only have a restricted group where everyone in that group share a particular characteristic, if there is more than one protected characteristic in the intended group that excludes other all its members must share all the protected characteristics of the group, for example a black disabled women's group which has three characteristics that they all must have.