[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its an extension of the same issue. I may have gone off on a rant, but its true.



Think what way? That male and female are actually real things? And that each group has their own needs entirely seperate from the other group?

And yes, it is mostly about stereotypes with 'transgender' people.

Not transsexual people though, who actually have sex dysphoria. Who are not the ones insting that they ARE women.

Tbf, and tell me if I'm wrong.. but it sounds like you're suggesting there should be a job specifically for trans rights? (If theyre not covered under their preferred pronouns' rights.. cos like otherwise youre suggesting they shouldnt have anybody covering their rights?). And I'd agree, that would make more sense to me.

But idk what that has got to do with this person having that job - doesnt seem mutally exclusive to me. They got that job cos they were the best person for it.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

You don't need my permission to discuss it, my opinion though was that as a man it won't effect you so you being fine with it is kind of irrelevant imo

The whole trans issue won't affect many men, which is honestly why I think its gained such traction in such a short space of time. I find the way to effectively 'wake men up' to this issue is to bring their female relatives into it. If you ask a man if he has an issue with men changing next to women he will on the whole say no, as men aren't dangerous. Ask him if he would be fine with his daughter/mother/wife getting changed and a bloke walking in and getting naked next to her, he will be enraged. Not all men of course. But every man I have spoke to about this saw no issue until I tailored it to people in his family. Then suddenly he 'got it' and why its not right.

Not saying all men would not get why its problematic. Just the men I have spoke to about this don't seem to, until I go a little deeper into what its about.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The whole trans issue won't affect many men, which is honestly why I think its gained such traction in such a short space of time. I find the way to effectively 'wake men up' to this issue is to bring their female relatives into it. If you ask a man if he has an issue with men changing next to women he will on the whole say no, as men aren't dangerous. Ask him if he would be fine with his daughter/mother/wife getting changed and a bloke walking in and getting naked next to her, he will be enraged. Not all men of course. But every man I have spoke to about this saw no issue until I tailored it to people in his family. Then suddenly he 'got it' and why its not right.

Not saying all men would not get why its problematic. Just the men I have spoke to about this don't seem to, until I go a little deeper into what its about.

I'm absolutely fine with any person who identifies as a female changing next to a female relative. I'm absolutely fine with any person who identifies as a male changing next to a male relative.

I'm less fine with a trans person who identifies as male changing next to a female relative and vice versa.

I know there are some hazy lines that some are uncomfortable with, but I think thats the general jist of the way the worlds going.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Tbf, and tell me if I'm wrong.. but it sounds like you're suggesting there should be a job specifically for trans rights? (If theyre not covered under their preferred pronouns' rights.. cos like otherwise youre suggesting they shouldnt have anybody covering their rights?). And I'd agree, that would make more sense to me.

But idk what that has got to do with this person having that job - doesnt seem mutally exclusive to me. They got that job cos they were the best person for it.

Indeed. Transwomens issues are not really womens issues, and womens issues are not tranwomans issues. It is wrong to appoint a transwoman as basically a spokesperson for women. They are not the same, not even of the same sex.

It should be noted here, that this person passed up the LGBT officer job, specifically to go for the womens officer.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Indeed. Transwomens issues are not really womens issues, and womens issues are not tranwomans issues. It is wrong to appoint a transwoman as basically a spokesperson for women. They are not the same, not even of the same sex.

It should be noted here, that this person passed up the LGBT officer job, specifically to go for the womens officer.

Still.. that job doesnt exist atm, this is the next most logical thing, no?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I'm absolutely fine with any person who identifies as a female changing next to a female relative. I'm absolutely fine with any person who identifies as a male changing next to a male relative.

I'm less fine with a trans person who identifies as male changing next to a female relative and vice versa.

I know there are some hazy lines that some are uncomfortable with, but I think thats the general jist of the way the worlds going.

You are fine with a male person changing next to a female relative? Taking trans out of the equation, this is what you are saying here. So you disagree with sex segregation then?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Still.. that job doesnt exist atm, this is the next most logical thing, no?

LGBT officer job was passed up. Thats surely more relevant to a trans identified male than a womans officer job is.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

LGBT officer job was passed up. Thats surely more relevant to a trans identified male than a womans officer job is.

Depends on their specific qualities, training, interests etc. No point being an lgbt officer if you dont know anything about gay rights for example

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Depends on their specific qualities, training, interests etc. No point being an lgbt officer if you dont know anything about gay rights for example

No point being a womans officer if you know nothing about womens rights, or lives.

Fairly sure a trans person would be well versed in trans issues. Though you are right, LGBT rights is probably wrong for them, given if they really think biology is irrelevant as they claim they do, then that erases same sex attraction alltogether.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

No point being a womans officer if you know nothing about womens rights, or lives.

I agree, I suppose the main difference is I'm assuming the best person for the job got employed (out of those who applied), whilst you're assuming this cant be possible and that any random person off the street who was born with a vaj would be better

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I agree, I suppose the main difference is I'm assuming the best person for the job got employed (out of those who applied), whilst you're assuming this cant be possible and that any random person off the street who was born with a vaj would be better

I am assuming a woman would be best placed for this position. Not 'any random person with a vag'.

Same as I would not think a straight 'cis' person would be right for the role of LGBT officer

Or a white person in a position about black peoples rights.

[Vicky.]

Or do you think a white person would be suited to a role about black peoples rights if they knew a bit about black people and their struggles? Would this be fine? I think not, somehow. I definitely would not think so...regardless of how much the white person said they knew about black people.

Maybe this is where we are getting mixed up.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I am assuming a woman would be best placed for this position. Not 'any random person with a vag'.

Same as I would not think a straight 'cis' person would be right for the role of LGBT officer

Or a white person in a position about black peoples rights.

Oh yh, I disagree with all of that tbf. Passion, reasearch, an interest, ambition etc can make up the difference imo. Best person for the job should get employed, straight people shouldnt be excluded from applying to be an lgbt officer just because(?) etc etc.

It would be a desirable quality to fit the bill on paper I'm sure, but to exclude people just because(?) or to only include people of a certain persuasion in the interview process(?)* seems daft. If the best person for the job isn't reflective of the people they represent, why would you hire the 2nd or 3rd best instead of the actual best person?

*also, I think the equal opportunities act would make that illegal

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh yh, I disagree with all of that tbf. Passion, reasearch, an interest, ambition etc can make up the difference imo. Best person for the job should get employed, straight people shouldnt be excluded from applying to be an lgbt officer just because(?) etc etc.

It would be a desirable quality to fit the bill on paper I'm sure, but to exclude people just because(?) seems daft. If the best person for the job isn't reflective of the people they represent, why would you hire the 2nd or 3rd best instead of the actual best person?

OK I see why we are arguing on this then. I really do think that something thats specifically about the rights of one group...the representative should be from that group. I don't see how any amount of research and passion can outweigh lived experience.

[Vicky.]

*also, I think the equal opportunities act would make that illegal

There are exceptions to the act. Not sure exactly what but I know for example, a rape crisis counselor for women...the post can specify that a female person gets it.

[AnnieK]

I find this worrying too.....more on an age issue than sex though. A 19 year old has no where close to the life experience to hold this type of role imo

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh yh, I disagree with all of that tbf. Passion, reasearch, an interest, ambition etc can make up the difference imo. Best person for the job should get employed, straight people shouldnt be excluded from applying to be an lgbt officer just because(?) etc etc.

It would be a desirable quality to fit the bill on paper I'm sure, but to exclude people just because(?) or to only include people of a certain persuasion in the interview process(?)* seems daft. If the best person for the job isn't reflective of the people they represent, why would you hire the 2nd or 3rd best instead of the actual best person?

*also, I think the equal opportunities act would make that illegal

Also in this specific case, Lily was elected wasn't she? So it's not as though some person just decided to hire her, she was elected by the public. Surely they must have felt represented by her if they elected her?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Also in this specific case, Lily was elected wasn't she? So it's not as though some person just decided to hire her, she was elected by the public. Surely they must have felt represented by her if they elected her?

Aw I didn't know this

Why dont you like democracy Vicky

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Also in this specific case, Lily was elected wasn't she? So it's not as though some person just decided to hire her, she was elected by the public. Surely they must have felt represented by her if they elected her?

You realise, the public includes males who would see no issue with this? And may actually find it funny to have a male in such a position.

I didnt know he was elected actually. But even so, he should not be up for the position to start with. IMO

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

You realise, the public includes males who would see no issue with this? And may actually find it funny to have a male in such a position.

I didnt know he was elected actually. But even so, he should not be up for the position to start with. IMO

I disagree that men are far more accepting about transpeople than women, and to the extend that womens voices in this election wouldn't have been heard. I don't actually know any stats on that tbh so I'm open to being proved wrong, but just from personal experience and people I've known I've found women to be generally more accepting of trans people than men. It would be interesting to know the ratio of men to women that voted for Lily in this election. I also doubt that enough voters would cast their vote out of humour to make any impact. You're not really giving credit to people's ability to make an informed decision, what do we know about Lily's qualifications? What do we know about her competence within the role? Aren't these important factors?

Also Vicky i totally get your opinions on pronoun usage etc when it comes to trans people but the thread title does make this discussion really confusing, a lot of people won't read all the posts and links etc.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Aw I didn't know this

Why dont you like democracy Vicky

I don't tbh in roles that are specifically about one group. My opinions would be identical if there was a position about gay rights and a straight person getting it, trans rights and a 'cis' person getting it, mens rights and a female person getting it...and so on.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I disagree that men are far more accepting about transpeople than women, and to the extend that womens voices in this election wouldn't have been heard. I don't actually know any stats on that tbh so I'm open to being proved wrong, but just from personal experience and people I've known I've found women to be generally more accepting of trans people than men. It would be interesting to know the ratio of men to women that voted for Lily in this election. I also doubt that enough voters would cast their vote out of humour to make any impact. You're not really giving credit to people's ability to make an informed decision, what do we know about Lily's qualifications? What do we know about her competence within the role? Aren't these important factors?

Also Vicky i totally get your opinions on pronoun usage etc when it comes to trans people but the thread title does make this discussion really confusing, a lot of people won't read all the posts and links etc.

We know that he thinks biology is irrelevant tbh. We also know he counts male people as women given his emphasis on 'transwomen'. Thats enough to say he is not qualified for the role. Its like appointing someone into a position about gay rights, and them immediately saying that sexuality is irrelevant and straight people have problems too. Its nonsense.

I dont see how me referring to this person as he makes the thread confusing? I said in the title this is a male person. He is a male person.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

We know that he thinks biology is irrelevant tbh. We also know he counts male people as women given his emphasis on 'transwomen'. Thats enough to say he is not qualified for the role. Its like appointing someone into a position about gay rights, and them immediately saying that sexuality is irrelevant and straight people have problems too. Its nonsense.

I dont see how me referring to this person as he makes the thread confusing? I said in the title this is a male person. He is a male person.

She seems to believe that gender identity isn't determined by biological sex, but looking at the role description of the Womens Officer I fail to see how that belief would conflict with her carrying out the role, regardless of if you agree with that belief? It seems to be more about engaging with and recruiting women into the party rather than working on womens rights?

I got it from here...

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1445544799

I just think that she must have had some sort of manifesto or something that people voted based on and isn't her competance in the role the most important thing, and surely if this role is about the person connecting with the public then having someone democratically elected by them is the best way? Yes men will have been able to vote as well but without knowing voter stats it's impossible to say that the women who voted in this constituency wouldn't have wanted Lily for the role.

The pronoun thing, I was confused myself at first because I didn't realise the issue was that it was a transgender person, which is obviously what sparked the debate, like I said I get your stance on it and wanting to refer to her as him and I wasn't wanting to get into a debate about that, I just thought that if I was confused, maybe other people might be confused, maybe clarity about what the actual issue is would be helpful, that's all. Or maybe it was just me that was confused for not reading it fully at first lol.

[Withano]

No I was confused too, I thought Vicky was talking about a trans woman who practically pushed a woman out of the job for a different man (in every sense of the word) to get the job afterwards.

[Vicky.]

A male joined forces with another male to bully a lesbian woman out of her role as womans officer, then took the role of womans officer themselves. Is that better?