Trans women expected to be excluded from all-women candidate lists

7 comments

1. > Labour suspended its use of all-women shortlists for the 2024 general election …

   > The SNP, which used AWS for Scottish Parliament elections in 2021, is currently not using them because a source says women are no longer under-represented in Holyrood.

   > The use of AWS is not party policy for the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party of England and Wales or Reform UK.

   So no one is currently using all-women lists (although the Conservatives were for a bit, just behind the scenes rather than explicitly).

   However, the part of this article I find interesting is this bit:

   > The EHRC has previously said it was an “anomaly”, external that a trans woman (who was born male) could access a women-only shortlist but a trans man (who was born female) could not.

   > Likewise, it said there was a discrepancy between trans women who had a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), who could legally be on a shortlist, but trans women without one who could not.

   The EHRC being very clear there they have no idea what a GRC is (or rather, was) supposed to do, or how trans people work.

   Of course a trans woman would be included on a woman-only list and not a trans man. Of course a GRC would make a difference. That’s the whole point of transitioning and getting it legally recognised!

   No wonder the Supreme Court messed this up so badly, if even the EHRC has no clue what it is doing (or – perhaps worse – knows exactly what it is doing).

2. This wave of trans articles is getting rather tedious and feels like news organisations just trying to stir up drama in the wake of the recent court clarification.

   Between that and the endless focus on the pope it feels like more important (to most people, I know this is important to transfolk) stuff is just getting buried or ignored.

   It’s easier to ignore the mess the government are currently in if people are pointing fingers and yelling at each other over something like this I guess.

3. Putting aside that all-women shortlists aren’t used anymore, what is the point of this other than performative cruelty? The number of trans people in general is small, and the number in electrical politics is smaller still. It’s not like vast numbers of ciswoman are going to miss out on because of them.

4. Well, yes, this is an inevitable outcome of the court case.

   Can we talk about how all-women shortlists are sexist, discriminatory and should have no place in the modern world *anyway*? All the serious parties have stopped using them, which is “better late than never” but still a good thing.

5. >Political parties are expected to be told that trans women cannot be on women-only shortlists but trans men can.

   Do we have to keep pretending that this is the “common sense” view?

6. How awful. They should just stick to discriminating against 50% of the population like they were supposed to.

7. I can see it now…

   >Disabled people will be excluded from the able bodied candidates list and black and brown people will be excluded from the white people candidates list at the request of both the Conservative Party, Reform, and what’s left of UKIP.

   >”All three parties have declared that if we can exclude one group on the basis of exclusivity then we had better get rid of all the other people we don’t really want to deal with as well.” The BBC reached out to Labour but they refused to comment and no-one gives a shit about the Lib Dems or Greens. The Daily Mail and Telegraph however were furious…ly wanking themselves into a frenzied orgasm with delight.

   **/S?**

Comments are closed.