NationStates

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 7:52 am**

Imperializt Russia wrote:Women fail to reach political office for a long list of reasons. Your phrasing makes it sound like you believe this is due to personal factors and choices - not running, not being good enough, doubting their own self-confidence.

Personal choice has to be a factor. We know it's a factor in STEM as there is evidence of a inverse relationship between gender equality and % of women in STEM. Is there a similar correlative factor in politics? Probably not. But as we approach genuine equality, you have to accept that women may simply not want to enter politics. I'd be interested to find out if anyone has looked at the numbers.

As for doubting their own self-confidence...that's entirely possible, and there might be factors that play into that. I'd submit telling women (who apparently according to you have a lack of confidence) that the big bad boogey-patriarch living under their bed is going to come out at night and rape them is not going to be a good way to help resolve that.

But lets actually look at what I said:

Hirota wrote:No, I want to "destroy" AWSL because - like I already said - it is patronising, regressive, undemocratic and implies most women are incapable of reaching political office without handouts.

It's patronising for a number of reasons, not just because it asks the question why shortlist advocates consider women incapable of getting elected on their own merits. It's also patronising because it considers the electorate - most of whom are women - so stupid they wouldn’t elect a woman even if she was the best candidate. It's patronising because it considers the local constituency members incapable of choosing a woman to stand even if she was the best candidate.

It's regressive because it assumes women are infantile, unable to get to the top without help, yet we've had 2 women Prime Ministers - from the only mainstream party not to impose shortlists.

It's undemocratic because it eliminates the freedom of choice from constituents to choose the best candidate.

25% of all women MPs ever elected to the UK Parliament are currently sitting MPs.

Any how many MP's are trans? From ethnic minorities? From other religions? What makes women so deserving of special protections and a leg up, more so than these other demographics? Do you have evidence that women need shortlists but the others do not?

Heck, you have socialist leanings, why are there no quota for lower income candidates? Are they more or less worthy of special protections than your average female Labour candidate?

It's almost like there are centuries of imbalances in society that we have only recently begun to try and redress.

It's almost like I'm more forward thinking and progressive and don't see the need to obsessively dwell on the past and instead focus on the future.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 7:56 am**

Chessmistress wrote:Some considerations: the poll looks very interesting: Labour solution isn't getting the majority, just only 49%, while clear opposition is not so far, at 39%.
That's a very interesting result, especially given that NS forum users are mostly males - I suspect that there's a good chance that such percentages would be at least reversed in a forum with a reversed sex ratio.

#TERFLogic

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:01 am**

Chessmistress wrote:Mumsnet

You mean that parenting forum that got hijacked by TERFs?

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:08 am**

Chessmistress wrote:
Albrenia wrote:
As uncomfortable as it may be, trans people do exist - one cannot handwave away people because they create a problem for ideology. Men (although one could argue they're never men to begin with, but always trans) can become women.

The point here is when they become women.
I stated, always, that 1. I call them women after a complete transition, and that such transition should be provided for free through public funded healthcare, 2. so calling me "bigoted" can't be productive since I'm a good ally and not an enemy, 3. and you can see that even here we have a large minority, 39%, basically sharing my view.

1. People shouldn't have to go through major surgery just to earn your acceptance.

2. Maybe you honestly believe that, but its simply not true.

3. A number that will continue to dwindle in favor of the current plurality opinion (which might as well already be majority, for how close it is to being more than half).

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:08 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:Mumsnet

You mean that parenting forum that got hijacked by TERFs?

The /pol/ of transphobia

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:13 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Wow. I didn't know there were so many TERFs in the UKLP.

Seems to be a problem with so many TERFs being in the UK in general.

Hirota wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:No. I mean that, generally, men have no interest to defend AWSL - example:

As you can see: allowing people within the AWSL just only on the ground of self-identification can be a mean to oppose (and even to destroy) AWSL.
No, I want to "destroy" AWSL because - like I already said - it is patronising, regressive, undemocratic and implies most women are incapable of reaching political office without handouts. The fact it would also help stamp out transphobic bigotry is a bonus.

From my (admittedly American) understanding, your whole election process is that you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for a party, and the party assigns people to fill the seats. Seems to me like complaining about all-women shortlists being undemocratic is rather moot.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:18 am**

Chessmistress wrote:
Albrenia wrote:
As uncomfortable as it may be, trans people do exist - one cannot handwave away people because they create a problem for ideology. Men (although one could argue they're never men to begin with, but always trans) can become women.

The point here is when they become women.
I stated, always, that I call them women after a complete transition, and that such transition should be provided for free through public funded healthcare, so calling me "bigoted" can't be productive since I'm a good ally and not an enemy, and you can see that even here we have a large minority, 39%, basically sharing my view.

You realise in order to have SRS in the UK, You have to live for a long time as a woman. It's not as simple as popping down to the doctors getting a diagnosis then popping off to surgery in a month or so to get vag and a pair of breasts. Your gate keeping is keeping people who live as women from being represented as women.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:28 am**

Grenartia wrote:From my (admittedly American) understanding, your whole election process is that you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for a party, and the party assigns people to fill the seats. Seems to me like complaining about all-women shortlists being undemocratic is rather moot.

That's wrong, but that happens in other elections, often where it's proportional representation.

We have 650-odd constituencies where each provides a single member of parliament. Before that happens, before general elections (or by-elections), candidates from each party for that election are ostensibly chosen by the party members in each constituency. How each of the main parties chooses their candidate varies, but there is a summary here.

A lot of the people in there talk about how it's often a long and hard fight, but one that is worthwhile:

But another Labour candidate, who is also a mum-of-three, insisted the tough schedule was necessary: "The process is a taste of what's to come.

"It might be a baptism of fire but that's a good thing. You are thrown in there, and if you are dedicated you can make it work. You need to be determined and definitely need a thick skin, just as you would in Parliament."

It's Darwinism to an extent - survival of the fittest. And if it leads to better MP's (which I'm not convinced it does!) then it's a good thing.

Thats not to say it couldn't be improved. They talk about the financial strain in that article, which is going to disadvantage lower-income aspiring members.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:31 am**

Olivaero wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:
The point here is when they become women.
I stated, always, that I call them women after a complete transition, and that such transition should be provided for free through public funded healthcare, so calling me "bigoted" can't be productive since I'm a good ally and not an enemy, and you can see that even here we have a large minority, 39%, basically sharing my view.

You realise in order to have SRS in the UK, You have to live for a long time as a woman. It's not as simple as popping down to the doctors getting a diagnosis then popping off to surgery in a month or so to get vag and a pair of breasts. Your gate keeping is keeping people who live as women from being represented as women.

>have to live as a woman for many years to get SRS

How can you be expected to do that if nobody will treat you as a woman until you get SRS?

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:33 am**

Hirota wrote:
Grenartia wrote:From my (admittedly American) understanding, your whole election process is that you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for a party, and the party assigns people to fill the seats. Seems to me like complaining about all-women shortlists being undemocratic is rather moot.
That's wrong, but that happens in other elections, often where it's proportional representation.

We have 650-odd constituencies where each provides a single member of parliament. Before that happens, before general elections (or by-elections), candidates from each party for that election are ostensibly chosen by the party members in each constituency.

"That's not how it works, except this one time when it is, and this is how it really works, which sounds exactly like how you described, but is somehow different".

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:36 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Olivaero wrote:You realise in order to have SRS in the UK, You have to live for a long time as a woman. It's not as simple as popping down to the doctors getting a diagnosis then popping off to surgery in a month or so to get vag and a pair of breasts. Your gate keeping is keeping people who live as women from being represented as women.

>have to live as a woman for many years to get SRS

How can you be expected to do that if nobody will treat you as a woman until you get SRS?

The Gender recognition act of 2004 allows transfolk to apply for and obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate to acknowledge their gender identity. The law states you must have lived as your preferred gender for the last two years. You do not need to have completed the SRS at that stage, although SRS can happen as early as a year into the process

The NHS has a whole thing on it, which is quite interesting.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:37 am**

Hirota wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
>have to live as a woman for many years to get SRS

How can you be expected to do that if nobody will treat you as a woman until you get SRS?
The Gender recognition act of 2004 allows transfolk to apply for and obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate to acknowledge their gender identity. The law states you must have lived as your preferred gender for the last two years. You do not need to have completed the SRS at that stage, although SRS can happen as early as a year into the process

The NHS has a whole thing on it, which is quite interesting.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria

And that process can take several years to start. For example when I got my referral the wait time for an initial assessment was two years. Last time I checked it was getting closer to three for new referrals.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:40 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Hirota wrote:That's wrong, but that happens in other elections, often where it's proportional representation.

We have 650-odd constituencies where each provides a single member of parliament. Before that happens, before general elections (or by-elections), candidates from each party for that election are ostensibly chosen by the party members in each constituency.

"That's not how it works, except this one time when it is, and this is how it really works, which sounds exactly like how you described, but is somehow different".

...I don't know how I can explain it any better, and I don't really have the time to (in probably very patronising terms) explain the difference between how you think it happens (proportional representation) and how it actually happens in General elections.

But, to be fair, There are six types of elections in the United Kingdom, so I can get why you might not get it.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:44 am**

Vassenor wrote:And that process can take several years to start. For example when I got my referral the wait time for an initial assessment was two years. Last time I checked it was getting closer to three for new referrals.

Hmmm, indeed. It's why I asked about how accessible the whole process was in the UK when you said SRS was inaccessible for most people.

I've actually got an off-topic, unrelated interest in the matter since my nephew has decided when they attend university later this year they wish to be registered under their female name/persona/alter-ego. But if I have questions I'll take it to the proper topic.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:48 am**

Hirota wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
"That's not how it works, except this one time when it is, and this is how it really works, which sounds exactly like how you described, but is somehow different".
...I don't know how I can explain it any better, and I don't really have the time to (in probably very patronising terms) explain the difference between how you think it happens (proportional representation) and how it actually happens in General elections.

But, to be fair, There are six types of elections in the United Kingdom, so I can get why you might not get it.

I mean, fair enough. I guess its sort of like trying to explain to somebody from the UK that "Biscuits and gravy" isn't cookies drowning in salisbury steak gravy.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 8:57 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Olivaero wrote:You realise in order to have SRS in the UK, You have to live for a long time as a woman. It's not as simple as popping down to the doctors getting a diagnosis then popping off to surgery in a month or so to get vag and a pair of breasts. Your gate keeping is keeping people who live as women from being represented as women.

>have to live as a woman for many years to get SRS

How can you be expected to do that if nobody will treat you as a woman until you get SRS?

With great difficulty and lots of abuse and of course threats of physical violence to your person. Especially if you go out enjoy yourself some guy starts hitting on you then you drop into conversation that your trans and he thinks you've tried to trap him. But hey those damn trans people taking the focus away from real women with their greedy hogging of the limelight. They should just wait until they've done it properly they're just whatever gender they got assigned at birth until then.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 9:07 am**

Nyoronet wrote:
New Emeline wrote:Saying "she" instead of "he" is kowtowing?

Yes, if it hardcounters the narrative that reality has established (for all you trans people out there, this is why 'hons' are a thing). Also if it is demanded of me - I yield to no one except by my own choice.

I get it. You want to be able to be a dick to people without LOOKING like a dick.

That actually is cowardly. Just admit that you don't consider transgender people to be valid, yeah?

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 9:46 am**

Hirota wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:Some considerations: the poll looks very interesting: Labour solution isn't getting the majority, just only 49%, while clear opposition is not so far, at 39%.
That's a very interesting result, especially given that NS forum users are mostly males - I suspect that there's a good chance that such percentages would be at least reversed in a forum with a reversed sex ratio.

If you had a better, less misleading poll, you'd find more valuable answers. But I'm sure you knew that already, and decided the only way to get even scant support would be in a shit poll in the first place

Did you expect any better from a chessmistress? People like chess give a bad name to feminism.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 10:16 am**

Puldania wrote:
Nyoronet wrote:
Yes, if it hardcounters the narrative that reality has established (for all you trans people out there, this is why 'hons' are a thing). Also if it is demanded of me - I yield to no one except by my own choice.

I get it. You want to be able to be a dick to people without LOOKING like a dick.

That actually is cowardly. Just admit that you don't consider transgender people to be valid, yeah?

What's a "hons"?

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 10:17 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Puldania wrote:I get it. You want to be able to be a dick to people without LOOKING like a dick.

That actually is cowardly. Just admit that you don't consider transgender people to be valid, yeah?

What's a "hons"?

I have no idea.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 10:49 am**

Grenartia wrote:
Puldania wrote:I get it. You want to be able to be a dick to people without LOOKING like a dick.

That actually is cowardly. Just admit that you don't consider transgender people to be valid, yeah?

What's a "hons"?

IIRC, a (derogatory?) term for older trans women who are seen as holding outdated views about gender identity, believing that trans women have to conform to typical female gender roles if they ever want to pass, often exaggerate femininity and use words like "hon" and "girl" at the end of every sentence--like the type you'd find on older trans forums like Susan's Place.

EDIT: Nah, looked it up, it's just a derogatory term for older, late-transitioning trans women who are judged not to pass, not an ideological judgement. Oops.

Chessmistress wrote:Some considerations: the poll looks very interesting: Labour solution isn't getting the majority, just only 49%, while clear opposition is not so far, at 39%.
That's a very interesting result, especially given that NS forum users are mostly males - I suspect that there's a good chance that such percentages would be at least reversed in a forum with a reversed sex ratio.

I don't think so, considering women statistically tend to be more liberal and accepting of trans people and OK with trans women in, say, women's restrooms than men are.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 10:55 am**

Jelmatt wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
What's a "hons"?

IIRC, a (derogatory?) term for older trans women who are seen as holding outdated views about gender identity, believing that trans women have to conform to typical female gender roles if they ever want to pass, often exaggerate femininity and use words like "hon" and "girl" at the end of every sentence--like the type you'd find on older trans forums like Susan's Place.

Oh, so, basically, the MTF specific version of TruTrans. (there's another word I could, but won't, use).

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 11:53 am**

Jelmatt wrote:I don't think so, considering women statistically tend to be more liberal and accepting of trans people and OK with trans women in, say, women's restrooms than men are.

I'm sure those statistics must be easy for you to provide in support of your claim.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 12:45 pm**

Hirota wrote:
Jelmatt wrote:I don't think so, considering women statistically tend to be more liberal and accepting of trans people and OK with trans women in, say, women's restrooms than men are.
I'm sure those statistics must be easy for you to provide in support of your claim.

I would also like to see these statistics.

Mainly because almost all the rhetoric against transpeople and bathrooms has been against transwomen infiltrating women's bathrooms to do <nefarious things>. You don't hear much about the reverse.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2018 1:06 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Hirota wrote:I'm sure those statistics must be easy for you to provide in support of your claim.

I would also like to see these statistics.

Mainly because almost all the rhetoric against transpeople and bathrooms has been against transwomen infiltrating women's bathrooms to do <nefarious things>. You don't hear much about the reverse.

Or the rhetoric against transfolk supposedly infiltrating women's elections lists for forementioned <nefarious things>

But I'm sure some of those nasty transphobic men must have resigned as well in solidarity with the 300 women? Right? Right?

NationStates

UK Labour Women Mass Resignation