The backlash against women’s rights is relentless and comes in many forms. Only 20 years after all-women shortlists were first adopted by the UK Labour Party, in order to address the low numbers of women elected to the House of Commons,
The backlash against women’s rights is relentless and comes in many forms. Only 20 years after all-women shortlists were first adopted by the UK Labour Party, in order to address the low numbers of women elected to the House of Commons, they are at risk.
On Tuesday, the Labour Party was expected to officially adopt a new policy allowing males who identify as “transwomen” access to all-women shortlists (AWS).
The shortlists were adopted as an affirmative action practice due to pressure from the Labour Women’s Network, which was founded in 1988 after only 21 Labour women were elected in the 1987 General Election. In the 90s, women represented less than 10 per cent of parliamentary MPs — the shortlists made it compulsory for Labour to select female candidates in some constituencies. In 1997, with a goal of electing 100 female MPs, Labour used all-women shortlists to select female candidates in half of all winnable seats for the General Election. This was a success, and 101 Labour women were elected, as compared to 1992, when only 37 Labour women were elected as MPs.
The shortlists were not without controversy — many men claimed they were undemocratic, prevented equality of opportunity, and constituted, essentially, “reverse sexism.” Indeed, in 1996, an employment tribunal ruled that all-women shortlists were illegal under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Instead of appealing this decision, Labour introduced a new Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act in 2002, allowing parties to use “positive discrimination” in the selection of candidates, and the shortlists were reinstated. As a result, in the 2005 General election, the number of female parliamentary MPs was increased to 128, with the Labour Party’s 98 women making up 77 per cent of the total of women elected.
The impact of all-women shortlists has been notable and continues to ensure women and women’s interests are represented in parliament.
Nonetheless, in January, Labour announced that males need only self-identify as women in order to apply for the shortlists. This decision came alongside stated support for recently proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which would, if adopted, change the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” to “gender identity.” What this would mean is that Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC), which allow people to legally change their sex, could be issued without any conditions, but by a process of self-declaration alone. “If the Conservatives fail to do so, Labour will make it law once we’re in government,” a Labour Party spokesperson told PinkNews, with regard to the proposed changes.
Troubled by the potential disappearance of all-women shortlists, Jennifer James, a Labour Party member and committed socialist, started a crowdfunder to support a legal challenge against the party. Eleven days after she started the crowdfunder, she was suspended by the party, apparently, in part, “for saying women don’t have dicks.”
James explains to me that “men and women are treated differently because they are categorized by reproductive biology.” She argues, further, that gender is not innate, but is only a “toxic set of stereotypes” imposed on women in order to enforce their subordination.
“There is nothing progressive about ‘gender identity.’ It is a reactionary concept and a pure insult to women to suggest that we ‘identify’ with our own oppression.”
The policy clarifying that trans-identified males may access all-women shortlists was expected to be revealed this 