An argument over dinner

Felon

Felon

Felon

Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
6,095
Location
Essex
I was out with a few friends and my partner over dinner a few days back, and somebody asked me an interesting question, it turned into a bit of an argument and it's been bothering me ever since :D

Suppose you have to elect a certain number of people into a political position, for example MPs. Suppose that six positions are up for grabs, in the interests of equality - 3x male and 3x female.

Would it be fair/right/acceptable/ok, if the 3x female positions were filled by transgender women?

My answer is that it wouldn't be acceptable, because a transgender woman wouldn't have encountered the unique elements and experiences that make a female what she is, such as childbirth and motherhood, along with many others that are unique only to people of the female sex.

If you're going to elect someone into a legislative position, with the intention of addressing societal balance and equality between two groups - then that person should at least be a genuine member of that group, rather than someone who has decided to identify as part it.

My response generated a lot of gasps and nasty looks.

Despite being a bit of a liberal gay lefty, I am a realist - and to me there are some facts of life that simply can't be undone by wishful thinking, reality bites hard, sometimes we have to learn to deal.

What do you lot think?
 
Screeeech said:
someone who has decided to identify as part it.
Click to expand...

This is where you're going wrong in my opinion. Ok maybe not "going wrong", but certainly not understanding things right, or at least, not in the same way many others do. I'm sure there are some cases of it, but most of those people you're including in your comment there don't simply "decide to identify" any more than one decides to identify if they are gay. What makes a woman a woman is becoming more and more blurred, to say someone can only be a woman if they have gone through a certain list of experiences is complete nonsense, although I think you understand that as you chose not to focus on it in your post and quickly diverted away.

I don't know how I'd answer the question you had posed, and I hope I never have to :p
 
In the interests of equality, I say all 6 roles should be available to both men, women, '30:70 male:female split non-binary gender humans' etc given the electorate will decide if they are awarded a seat or not. If this results in no women and/or no transgender MPs in these 6 positions then it is simply because they are not representative of the electorate's views, assuming the basic principles of democracy apply to this scenario.

Hence, I would say there is no problem in having the transgender women filling the women's positions. If there was a problem, they wouldn't be given a seat anyway.
 
You answered wrong..

You interview all and pick the best 6 regardless of gender...

Equal opportunity does not always equal outcome.
 
Strange question to ask over dinner... it’s a like a trap designed to prove a reaction. Why ask the question if the only interesting thing that come out of it is a rise? :p

I trust you all went to the strip club afterwards :D
 
Hmmm thats a tricky one.

I don't think I'd use childbirth and motherhood as an example of what makes a woman a woman, as there's plenty of cis women who do neither. It's a pretty grey area tbh, and I think I somewhat agree with you but the context of the position (MP) is also important. If you're creating a position for a woman specifically so someone who has lived and experienced what its like to be a woman can share their views and bring about change where it's needed then it's easy to say that a trans woman wouldn't really fit that bill.

They're as much of a woman as any cis woman is but the fact that in some cases they didn't grow up with society treating them like a woman (assuming they didn't transition at a very young age) then it's hard to argue that they know exactly what it's like to be a woman.

iirc there was something similar to this that happened recently, I'll see if i can dig it up.
 
If you have to have X number of women in order to have some specified amount of representation then it is probably prudent that at least some of those women are people who were born women. There are obvious differences between trans-women and people who were born women, certainly surrounding female health and pregnancy etc.. so given that you want that diverse representation then you'd not be getting it if all three were trans.
 
Screeeech said:
My answer is that it wouldn't be acceptable, because a transgender woman wouldn't have encountered the unique elements and experiences that make a female what she is, such as childbirth and motherhood, along with many others that are unique only to people of the female sex.
Click to expand...

Would you exclude Theresa May, who isn’t a mother, as well then?
 
Zefan said:
I don't know how I'd answer the question you had posed, and I hope I never have to :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

For me the sticking point is that we're reduced to the position of having to consider whether a trans woman and a natural woman are the same, if they are the same then there's no problem and it's easy, however I'd argue that they're not the same.

Is it fair on society, when in the name of equality we place such a person in a position where they'd be speaking up about issues from a female perspective (for equalities sake) having never truly had many of the experiences that only a natural born female could ever have?

terley said:
You answered wrong..

You interview all and pick the best 6 regardless of gender...
Click to expand...

But that's not really what it's about..

Nitefly said:
Strange question to ask over dinner... it’s a like a trap designed to prove a reaction. Why ask the question if the only interesting thing that come out of it is a rise? :p

I trust you all went to the strip club afterwards :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not the first time these sort of questions have come up..

Tunney said:
Would you exclude Theresa May, who isn’t a mother, as well then?
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't stand her,

I know where you're coming from - she hasn't had children, but I imagine she went through female health issues, puberty, being hit on by men, periods, female discrimination, attending a girls gramma school, and a whole load of different things that would be unique to a young woman growing up as a politician - it does in my opinion, make her more qualified than a trans woman to speak about female issues, (as controversial as it sounds)
 
With the circumstances provided I agree completely with you. However if you want to go real equal with your six candidates how about the following :

x2 men - one straight one gay
x2 women - one straight one gay
X2 transgender people - one previously a man, one a woman

I mean, my opinion on this whole thing would open a horrendous can of worms, but in the interest of pleasing everyone at your dinner table I feel the above would be fairest.

I still agree with you though :D
 
If you're choosing the most fundamental posts in a representative democracy (i.e. the representatives) on the basis of sex, you don't give a damn about equality, fairness and suchlike. Whatever rules you make are wrong and it doesn't matter what they are.

Why only sex? Obviously, it's because you like sexism more than other forms of irrational prejudices, but how do you rationalise it? If you reject democracy (which choosing candidates by group identity requires), why not use less irrelevant factors? Age. Wealth. Social class. Educational level. Those are far mor relevant factors just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others. Or what about other completely irrelevant factors? "race", sexual orientation, number of sexual partners (subdivided into lifetime and current, perhaps), hair colour, eye colour, height, degree of imperfection in eyesight...just a few off the top of my head.

Also, why bother pretending to have democracy at all? Since the ideology requires rejecting democracy, why not be honest about it and appoint MPs directly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom