What percentage of feminists are on board with GRA

No-one I have spoken to so far realises how broad the definition of transgender is, and that most transgender people do not have 'bottom' surgery.

I think in the younger generations most people are OK with transgenderism in general, the GRA and 'transwomen are women'. I'm in that generation and this is where i was until recently.

Mostly because they haven't thought about it too much.

Partly because in our generation there is a drive to be as progressive and inclusive as possible, which is a good thing but misguided in this case.

And majorly because it only recently started to become a real problem.

The odd post-transition transwoman identifying as female and playing on a womans team really isn't a big deal a lot of the time. In a small community people tend to know eachother, transpeople get a certain notoriety, and it's is possible to be pretty sure that that transwoman is safe to share female spaces with so most people are comfortable with that.

However the Trans Rights Movement has gained so much ground in such a short time that most people (feminists, trans people, and the general public) mistakenly believes that that's still where the conversation and situation is at. Considering how hard and publicly women and minorities have had to fight for the smallest gains it's truly shocking how quickly and silently these vast changes have been brought in.

So when TRAs tell them that TERFS are against trans rights, they think we're still talking about Passing Paula being allowed to come and hang out in the ladies loos at the pub. They don't realise we're talking about Creepy Carl having the LEGAL RIGHT to declare that his dick is female and every one who disagrees is committing a hate crime.

Also, transgenderism is based on sexism, which is still fundamental to the way our society works and the way our whole thought processes are structured. Even if you don't AGREE that dolls are for girls and trucks are for boys, you still KNOW that idea and you have known it since before you could talk. So it's been very easy for Trans Rights to slip in to those same sexist slots while pretending it's about protecting poor disadvantaged people.

TO answer your question, based on my personal friend circle it's about 0% of feminists (and just regular women) over the age of 45 who are ok with the GRA.

It's about 85% of LGBTQ groups who are supportive of it, even if they otherwise agree that male violence is a problem and men pretending to be women shouldn't be in womens spaces, it seems to me they're sort of in the habit of defending and including people who claim to be excluded and disadvantaged.

It's about 50% of the general public under 45 years old accept it. Many of them are swayed with 5 minutes of discussion just showing the harm that is already happening due to it.

Ime most people outside the twittersphere answer these sorts of questions wrt transsexuals. Even when you carefully explain self-id they go on imagining a transsexual because they find the self-id concept so outlandish and irresponsible that they actually refuse to believe that mainstream politicians are genuinely advocating for it.

the problem with self ID is that it allows people to change their legal sex to one which is not their actual sex, purely on their say so. There is no way you can stop a man who is not, in any meaningful sense, transgender, from declaring that he feels that he is female and then becoming "legally female" despite having not undergone any actual transition.
Gender and sex are not the same thing. Human beings cannot change sex. I do not believe it should be a human right to falsify your birth certificate in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

However, I would like the law to protect people’s ability to hold beliefs that differ from mine.

Not sure at all about the law protecting belief. People believe all sorts of things.

how they present themselves compared to societal expectations

Protecting people for presentation deviating from social expectations. I can imagine that general principle catching on.

To suppport sporadic, I think that there are discriminations against people based on gender ...how they present themselves compared to societal expectations...so as with any other discrimination, there should be protection.

But sex and gender ( if you posses it ) are different.

Hm, perhaps I could’ve phrased that better.

I don’t have a gender; it is not important to me.

However, I would like the law to protect people’s ability to hold beliefs that differ from mine. That includes believing they have a gender, or believing in a deity, or believing that all money and goods should be distributed equally, etc. I think it should be protected as any other belief is - and all other beliefs are held on a self-ID basis.

However, I want a clear distinction in law between sex and gender - not the muddy mess we have at the moment. They are two quite different things!

what is the purpose of enshrining gender in law rather than sex? Where there is a need for sex segregation, a person's sense of their gender is not relevant. Where there is no need for sex segregation, gender is also irrelevant. So why does the law need to be involved in relation to a person's gender identity?

Perfectly put.

Answer: no need.

I would say that gender is someone's own business. I'm 99% sure I don't have one, but what has that got to do with anything?

most of the time your sex is your own business too. It should only be taken into account on very rare occasions such as

• when providing intimate care
• prisons
• sleeping arrangements for young people

Sporadic what is the purpose of enshrining gender in law rather than sex? Where there is a need for sex segregation, a person's sense of their gender is not relevant. Where there is no need for sex segregation, gender is also irrelevant. So why does the law need to be involved in relation to a person's gender identity?

precisely ALittleBitOfButter

gender - the things you like to do, the things you like to wear, how you like to behave.

that's just another word for your personality. Why the fuck would we use that in place of someone's sex when taking things like safeguarding into account? Particularly as they're incredibly nebulous. For 99% of the population their sex is easily apparent, and taken across the population as a whole gives useful indicators about needs and behaviour.

I think it would be wonderful if gender were irrelevant to people's identity. I'd much rather people identified as birdwatchers or white chocolate eaters or whatever. It would be more meaningful to me.

I think that gender law needs reforming, and I am comfortable with a form of gender self-ID being enshrined in law. I find gender sexist, but I acknowledge it’s an important part of many people’s identity. I guess I view it like I would a conservative religion.

I think, however, that protections on the basis of sex need looking at as a matter of urgency, and there needs to be a clear legal distinction of when a space/service is for a gender, and when it is for a sex.

yeah

they can have

cunt
squaw
bitch
slut
bimbo
cock tease
MILF
gold digger

i'll keep hag and crone though. planning to become one in about 25 years time.

happy to give them "ladies" "fillies" "birds" "chicks" - quite like to keep wench though

The onus is on people who do not identify their gender with their biology to find terms for themselves that do not erase other groups and colonise their rights.

This.

We 2 really good words for "people born with vaginas" - women and girls.

I'm not touching 'women who were assigned female at birth'. FFS.

justabunchofbunting
many people who do not identify their gender with their biology
What do you mean by 'gender' and why is it important?

it would be good maybe, but in this day and age would discount the experience of many people who do not identify their gender with their biology

The terms you used are offensive to me and a huge number of other women.

The onus is on people who do not identify their gender with their biology to find terms for themselves that do not erase other groups and colonise their rights.

it would be good maybe, but in this day and age would discount the experience of many people who do not identify their gender with their biology. You cant turn back time sadly. This is a thing that society is going through and we have to somehow deal with it in a way that is good for everyone.... we arent going to be able to do that by sticking our fingers in our ears and going 'la la la la'

Wildly off topic, but

"people born with vaginas", "women who were assigned female at birth"

Don't you think it would be good to be able to name ourselves in less clucky terms?

I do generally support self ID but that doesnt mean I dont have concerns about it. I think there needs to be more discussion over what it entails and how to protect the rights of people born with vaginas. As it is true that people are oppressed directly because of their biology and not just because of their gender identity. I do think there needs to be recognition of that. But also I understand it must be hard to be essentially denied your right to exist in the way that you genuinely feel you exist and to be told by someone else who and what you are.
Unfortunately many women who were assigned female at birth are also being told who and what they are by society still in an oppressive manner and you cant just ignore that is happening by saying its all about choice.
I mean I could self ID as a man but im still going to be treated as a woman because I look like one.... im still going to have the assumed responsibilities and dangers that come with a female anatomy.
That needs to be taken into account otherwise you cannot protect peoples rights properly.

So I consider myself a feminist but the whole thing worries me because I dont want anyone to suffer. However the two extremes of view on this issue dont seem to offer any resolution at all. It seems like one set of people will not be okay without the other set suferring in some way.

boatyardblues put it better than I could.
Generally, people support self ID because they want to be nice and don't understand the implications. People believe that self ID means there will still be gatekeeping.

Feminists who have not yet learned to listen to established feminists when they speak out, don't inspire confidence in me.

Judging it on internet fora and social media, it is going to appear biased - because a large chunk of them will delete any critical comments.

In my experience, most feminists don't believe that men can become women and vice versa. Quite apart from a feminist view, pretty much everyone on earth knows that men can't become women and vice versa and are absolutely horrified at what's happening.

In fact, it seems to be only a certain kind of lefty dudebro and liberal feminists who do think that men can become women. Lefty men because they coulnd't give a fuck what happens to women as long as they don't have to think about it and, I assume, libfems because they want to be seen as nice and not like those awful hairy lesbian actual feminist tropes that only really exist in their heads.

Am I going to have to start reading Wings?!

LOL! He's not the most conciliatory of people, is he? But he's the only one to have done reliable polling using non-nudge/framed questions. And according to his results, there is not a single demographic supporting self-ID. However you divide up the population, nobody wants it.