Turn on thread page Beta

Trans Women To Be Allowed On Labour’s All-Women Shortlists watch

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0479c0255e9c2

    What is so funny about all of this is that it is only happening because Labour tranphobes kicked up a big fuss about trans women. They overplayed thier hand and now look. Trans rights are totally entrenched as a priority for the Labour party :rofl2:

    Well done my dimb witted comrades.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Labour may break their shovel if they carry on digging a hole this big.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think its fine; the all-women shortlist is made to improve women's chances because they generally have a harder time getting into higher paid government jobs. I think a trans person would pretty much find it harder than a (born) woman
    Offline

    15
    In b4 TERF rage

    "if you've ever had a penis, you're the enemy"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, Monroe Bergdof lasted a week. That's pretty bad even for Momentum Labour appointees.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    They'd have a much easier time if they just got rid of shortlists in the first place, a bad idea in the first place.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    They'd have a much easier time if they just got rid of shortlists in the first place, a bad idea in the first place.
    I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Here’s a wacky idea. Let everybody man or woman onto the shortlist.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Here’s a wacky idea. Let everybody man or woman onto the shortlist.
    Nope. That defeats the point of a shortlist.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand.
    You know I'm a liberal so forgive me for being slow but not sure exactly what you mean there
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Quite fun watching the Stupid Left war amongst itself over which version of a stupid policy they should go with.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Nope. That defeats the point of a shortlist.
    I disagree, a shortlist is just a list of potential candidates. Letting both men and women onto it doesn’t defeat the point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Labour may break their shovel if they carry on digging a hole this big.
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Quite fun watching the Stupid Left war amongst itself over which version of a stupid policy they should go with.
    The solution to both these problems seems clear: they should take their pick. They seem to have plenty of people strong enough to wield such implements.

    Jeremy Corbyn's face, in the picture of him with Sophie Cook in the OP's link, seems to indicate he may not be fully on board with being photographed alongside attractive females.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    You know I'm a liberal so forgive me for being slow but not sure exactly what you mean there
    Technically there is no law in place to stop women from applying for male dominated areas in society. There is legal equality. That's normally enough for liberals. But it ignores other factors. For example say you had a society that enslaved women. Then the rules of that soceity are change so women are no longer enslaved. Everything is now fair and equal right? WRONG. The result of generations fo women who received no education, could not hold property, generations of behaviour conditioned into women means they are still stubonly remaining at the bottom of society. In fact the power inbalance that is a result of past slavery is allowing new and creative ways for the powerful to exploit the techniqually equal women. Someone like a socialist is like we need to interfere more and find ways to organise these women so as to totally smash the opresion that still lives on.

    That's an extreme example (Is it?) but shortlists are an example of that kind of thinking. Women have been (and still are) living in a patrachical society. It;s only in the last century that they have even been able to vote. We need to use things like shortlists in a progressive political parties to get round the prejudices and lingering sexism of the past that amkes it harder for women to get involved in politics so we need to ensure they is adequate female representation in politics. Then eventually, once sexism has been eradicated from society, we can do away with the shortlists since we don't need them anymore.


    (Original post by Andrew97)
    I disagree, a shortlist is just a list of potential candidates. Letting both men and women onto it doesn’t defeat the point.
    It does if that shortlist is there to ensure than a certain number of women are guaranteed to get selected, becuase you are a feminist party.

    Please keep up at the back.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We need to use things like shortlists in a progressive political parties to get round the prejudices and lingering sexism of the past that amkes it harder for women to get involved in politics.
    And we do that by allowing men who claim to be women to take up those women's places on those shortlists. This could be quite a good sitcom script, couldn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    And we do that by allowing men who claim to be women to take up those women's places on those shortlists. This could be quite a good sitcom script, couldn't it?
    Yes because Trans poeple are like on a whole differnet level of being ****ed over by society. We want to help them as well.

    Let us deal with how we respond to LGBT politics. You continue doing whatever it is you do. Waving burning money at the homeless or whatever.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Surely there is a difference between someone who has had gender reassignment surgery and someone who has not done so. Whilst who the Labour Party choose to represent them or as candidates is of little concern to me as I don't vote for them, the concept of self-identification could be used in other circumstances by perverted men to gain access to places such as women's gym changing rooms.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Technically there is no law in place to stop women from applying for male dominated areas in society. There is legal equality. That's normally enough for liberals. But it ignores other factors. For example say you had a society that enslaved women. Then the rules of that soceity are change so women are no longer enslaved. Everything is now fair and equal right? WRONG. The result of generations fo women who received no education, could not hold property, generations of behaviour conditioned into women means they are still stubonly remaining at the bottom of society. In fact the power inbalance that is a result of past slavery is allowing new and creative ways for the powerful to exploit the techniqually equal women. Someone like a socialist is like we need to interfere more and find ways to organise these women so as to totally smash the opresion that still lives on.
    I understand what you're saying. In fact, it has a similar tone to a case I often make on egalitarianism simply not being enough, e.g. it's all good and well that Pakistan offers education to both boys and girls but that doesn't address the underlying issues that negatively disproportionatly impact women and girls that has meant a significant amount don't receive it and others get shot in the head for trying to get it - there has to be an element of an advocacy of women's rights.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's an extreme example (Is it?) but shortlists are an example of that kind of thinking. Women have been (and still are) living in a patrachical society. It;s only in the last century that they have even been able to vote. We need to use things like shortlists in a progressive political parties to get round the prejudices and lingering sexism of the past that amkes it harder for women to get involved in politics so we need to ensure they is adequate female representation in politics. Then eventually, once sexism has been eradicated from society, we can do away with the shortlists since we don't need them anymore.
    I understand why shortlists make sense, but do not think they are the right approach. After all, it thrives on discrimination and results in the opposite effects of those intended. Instead, cultures of participation should be looked towards where people are chosen because of merit and not because they fill a quota.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    LGBT politics.
    That is odd in itself, isn't it. Politics based on what people like to do in bed. Perhaps it should be extended to LGBTM, so as to include the lonely, or LGBTMS to further include those who enjoy swinging, or even LGBTMSF to include those who like to flagellate or be flagellated?.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    The result of generations fo women who received no education, could not hold property, generations of behaviour conditioned into women means they are still stubonly remaining at the bottom of society.
    Evidence? What do you mean by bottom on society? Economically? Socially? Expand? Men make up 88% of the homeless population, for example.

    Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thin...pacts-men.html

    If being more likely to become homeless isn’t at the ‘bottom of society’ idk what is.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    In fact the power inbalance that is a result of past slavery is allowing new and creative ways for the powerful to exploit the techniqually equal women. Someone like a socialist is like we need to interfere more and find ways to organise these women so as to totally smash the opresion that still lives on.
    Again, an unforgivable amount of evidence provided. Why mention slavery when it wasn’t that prevalent in the UK and also done mainly to black men, not really women?

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's an extreme example (Is it?)
    No. It’s a downright awful example which is backed by no subsistence.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It;s only in the last century that they have even been able to vote.
    Oh you mean 1918? When 5.6 million men also got the vote…a majority of the male populous.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repres...eople_Act_1918

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We need to use things like shortlists in a progressive political parties to get round the prejudices and lingering sexism of the past that amkes it harder for women to get involved in politics so we need to ensure they is adequate female representation in politics. Then eventually, once sexism has been eradicated from society, we can do away with the shortlists since we don't need them anymore.
    Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A wise man once said you can’t fight fire with fire, but given the Labour parties rampant disregard for common sense, they decided it would be a good idea to fight discrimination with discrimination.

    At the end of the day, affirmative action may have been useful in the 60s, but it is an outdated and reprehensible scheme that should recognise that men and women are at the same standing in society, and in the law, and therefore, be done away with hastily.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 11, 2018

1,133

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.