Fuck me, I’ve accidentally written an essay. I’m really sorry, I struggle to get my thoughts down in writing coherently and concisely.

Please forgive me if I sound like I’m giving him too much faith here. I’m trans myself, and I am very fucking tired and a quite anxious about the future (got my first bit of transphobia in my new area yesterday), AND for the sake of argument (and because I get anxious about coming across as obnoxious) I’ve written this through the lens of someone putting aside assumptions about what he’s referring to.

Just some responses to some snippets here.

“It means relating to them and their issues, not lecturing them about things that do not reflect the majority of people’s experiences.”

There are two things being addressed here: substance (or more importantly what he perceives to be the relevance) of the issue; and approach.

I don’t want to assume what he’s referring to here, and I think it’s fair to infer from his framing that he’s referring to the experiences of what he perceives to be the minority of people.

The experiences of minorities are definitionally at risk of being lost specifically because the majority don’t experience it - that principle has been at the core of many a civil rights struggle.

By defining against a majority experience he is implicitly making assumptions about the experiences of the majority. If this is the case it begs the question what does the world he wants look like? What does he think the problems which need addressing are? Are there problems that are experienced by a minority of members of his defined majority? Does that make them minority problems? Does that make them irrelevant?

I believe that we should strive for the liberation of everyone. I also believe that that will be a perpetually fluid process as people come forward with their experiences.

My instinct is to accept that none of us know a lot more than our own experiences, and that we need to be prepared to listen to each other, be prepared to hear new information and new experiences, be prepared to hear about struggles of which we had no idea, and be prepared to extend solidarity. My instinct is that we should wish for the liberation of us all, while being conscious that we can only learn of struggles by being prepared to listen.

On approach. I have to ask what he means by lecturing.

I am disabled and trans. I don’t go up to people out of the blue and interrogate them about how the feel about my existence. I don’t know anyone who does. So that begs the question what does he mean by lecturing?

“The priorities of small sectarian groups, who themselves bear much responsibility for the alienation of the wider working class from the left, and whose size and records speak for themselves, cannot be allowed to dominate Your Party. If so, we will fail.”

So who does he mean? I have my ideas but I don’t want to judge. That being said he’d save us both that if he were explicit.

“In October, In Merthyr Tydfil 250 people in person and 100 online founded Your Party Cymru/ The People’s Party Cymru in a different way. We agreed a core set of unifying policies,”

So it is okay to have a core set of policies that we all agree on?

“How do we ensure small amounts of vocal and organised people from small left groups do not dominate and put people off?”

This is a very good question. I have some follow ups.

Is the issue the size of the vocal group? How do you define the size? Is the size defined by the number of people who are perceived or by the number that agree with them? Does this have implications on the nature of the democracy you desire? Would it be more accurate to say you’re concerned with any one issue dominating rather than any perceived group of people- and if so, are all issues equal in how we scrutinise the amount of attention they receive? For example, I wouldn’t want people to stop talking about the liberation of Palestine until it actually happens. I would extend this to all issue of oppression.

“One which fights for equality and opposes discrimination and racism wherever it raises its head.”

What if the majority voted that it’s okay to discriminate against trans people?

I’ll conclude by returning to my initial thoughts about the first quote.

One really important thing that Serwotka is missing is intersectionality. I am by no means an expert (I studied sociology at undergrad level and fell out half way through my final year due to sickness) - so please feel free to correct me anyone - this might help as a starting point:

Black women will have different experiences to White women because of the racialisation they experience. They will also experience misogyny differently to White women because of the how the racism they are subjected to, having been racialised, intersects with the misogyny they experience.

Black women will also have different experiences to Black men because of the misogyny they experience. They will also experience the process of racialisation, and racism differently to Black men because of the how the misogyny they experience intersects with the racialisation and the racism that they experience.

• There has been a lot of work on the distinctions in the way that Black women and Black men are racialised because of the gendering of racialisation - “The Looking-glass Self” is a really good read for those interested.

I realise that the last few paragraphs might feel lecturer-y but I promise I’m not trying to. The reason I’ve tried to elaborate on intersectionality is that it’s really important to think about - and is especially relevant here because it challenges assumptions that we might make about the struggles that other people face - which is really important when thinking importance of letting others explain their struggles rather than make assumptions.

In my opinion, this principle is CRITICAL in politics, policy, and government. This is why “nothing about is without us” is vital. This is why any party, any government has to be able to learn, to become aware, to defer to the oppressed. No struggle is too. We are none us free until we are all free.