The first openly
Open Democracy wrings its open democratic hands over the tragedy of a man who identifies as a woman being deselected as a candidate for office.
Kathryn Bristow was named on 8 March as a Green Party candidate for the UK’s 2021 local government elections – the first openly trans woman to be put forward by a political party in Bristol City. But less than two weeks later the party formally suspended her and selected another candidate, who was not trans, to run in her place.
Here’s the thing: political parties should not be putting trans women forward for political office, because trans women are simply men (who call themselves women), and its women who need more representation, not men, no matter what they call themselves. Naming yet another man as a candidate for office is not a progressive milestone just because he “identifies as” a woman.
Bristow said she repeatedly asked the party to review its suspension decision in time for her to run in the local government elections, but it failed to do so.
“Having the chance to be a councillor meant so much to me, and it being taken away was a lot,” she told openDemocracy. “I got into politics to help people, that’s why I wanted to be a councillor […] to help local residents.”
But the same applies to women. If Bristow were really a woman he would understand that.
She described worsening mental health symptoms and “feelings of helplessness” since her suspension: “Things have been getting better lately, but it’s still a massive hit to my sense of well-being.”
See: women, passim.
“Being the first openly trans woman to be selected as a candidate by a political party for Bristol City elections had great importance not only to me, but also to the trans community,” Bristow explained in her court claim.
But also to the women’s community, who are seeing our few gains disappearing into the pockets of men who claim to be women.
A member of the LGBTIQA+ Greens, who spoke to openDemocracy on condition of anonymity, said the regional council “have huge questions to answer about their decision-making and whether or not they’re unfairly targeting inclusive people”.
Wut? What does “targeting inclusive people” mean?
In December 2020, Bristow was elected co-chair of Green Party Women (a party subgroup that represents the priorities of women party members), prompting what the LGBTIQ news website PinkNews described as a “transphobic backlash“ including from “a very small number of people” in the party. In an official statement at the time, the Green Party said its support for trans rights was “unequivocal”.
Yes those oh so unreasonable people who think chairs of Green Party Women should be women. Why is it that these stupid bitches don’t want men taking everything women have? Are they demon-possessed, or what?
A Green Party spokesperson told openDemocracy that they “do not comment on individual disciplinary matters”, but added: “The Green Party recognises that trans men are men, trans women are women, and that non-binary identities exist and are valid.”
That’s sad, because trans women are men, trans men are women, and “non-binary identities” mean nothing at all.
“inclusive people”. I love it.
So what? Why does it matter that the other candidate “was not trans?” Would parties publicize anorexic candidates who identify as obese, but who are not? Why is “transness” somehow politically relevant, while anorexia, presumably, is not? Are there other politically germane imaginary beliefs that we should be entertaining in order to expand our inclusivity? I would think belief in the ability to spin straw into gold might be useful in a candiddate for Treasury, or Finance.
It’s to the point now that I would say that pretending you’re a woman when you’re not, and insisting everyone else go along with it, is a sign of worsening mental health. Men aren’t women. Humans can’t change sex. It’s not a plot, it’s not “transphobia”, it’s just reality.
Ah, yes, the Nicene Creed of the 21st century. I detect a note of desperation for the tail-end Charlie enbees. Used to be their identities were just “valid” in the standard boilerplate formula. Now there’s a plaintive demand that they “exist” too. by the way, does any of this stop the polar caps from melting?
Heretic.
Key word – suspended. Why have they been suspended. I’ll bet the Greens haven’t put themselves in this bind for a reason they consider trivial. I’d bet that Bristol has taken an almighty dump on something or someone the Greens hold dear, and that the only reason they have not suffered worse and more public opprobrium is because of their status as trans.
If this candidacy were really about trans rights, then the argument would be that the Green Party should do set-asides for trans individuals, AS WELL AS women. In other words, reduce the number of slots that go to straight white dudes. Instead, though, they’re invariably content to take out the spots that were reserved for women specifically.
Rob: That was what was running through my head as well. “Suspended” sounds a little more series than “the transphobes won”. I wonder if we will ever find out the truth?
For a scary look at what we should really be worrying about….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
I think the logic is that if we would do that, then TIMs would say: “That’s so invalidating! If there are ten slots for women, and I get placed on the eleventh slot, for transwomen, that’s because they think that I’m a lesser kind of woman! I don’t deserve to be on the real, first-class women’s slots! I’m going to kill myself!!!”
Is it just me, or are all these stories about the brave trans folks breaking barriers always about trans women? Why do you never hear about trans men taking spots usually reserved for cis [sic] men?
Because misogyny.
Funnily enough, TRAs would probably agree. They would say something like: “Trans men don’t need to break barriers, because men aren’t oppressed, and trans men are men. But trans women are oppressed by misogyny, and therefore it is brave and stunning when they break barriers.” Or something like that.
Seems he wasn’t kicked out for “being trans” at all, but for boasting about lying on a Census form, a serious matter.
https://twitter.com/CroneInAMillion/status/1423340651937247237
You can’t “recognize” something that isn’t true. Your recognizer is broken; it needs to be sent back for recalibration to reality.
@Roj #11 – Is there a link to a story in that tweet? I’m swearing off Twitter for my health. :)
Re #8
There is a woman who now goes by a single name, Quinn, who is on the Canada women’s soccer team, and who fairly recently announced she “identifies as” non-binary and trans. There was some press about her early in the Games. She is less interesting because she is still competing on the team appropriate for her sex.
Mike @ 13 – the link is to the Open Democracy piece – Crone’s tweet is where I saw it. The tweet says:
Note it says “after” rather than “because of.” I didn’t see references to lying on the census anywhere else so didn’t include it in the post. I’m curious about why the Green Party deselected Bristow and don’t feel that I know. Not that I disbelieve Crone, I just don’t know enough.
The Twitter link above leads to this:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/trans-uk-green-party-kathryn-bristow/
Bristow whines that her/his candidacy was scuppered ‘for being trans.’ As if they didn’t know before hand? Several notes about Bristow encouraging people to lie on their census forms, but no specific confirmation. He may have done something disgraceful that the Greens don’t want to mention…
I seriously doubt that they dropped him for being Trans, it being the Greens after all. You may be right, John.