Why are the public still not engaged with the gender debate?

My partner doesn't get too excited about it because he feels it's so bat shit crazy that it can't possibly be taken seriously and will all blow over... I have told him what is already happening.

After weeks of reading (to be certain of my own position) I talked to my husband about it.

He was wonderfully matter-of-fact about it despite having a very close transwoman friend. He was so incensed about the intimidation around women’s meeting aspect, he’s vowed to make himself available as a doorman, should a gender critical meeting happen locally.

I follow the board and it scares me. After yesterday I have no idea how to put my opinion across without risking the ban hammer.

I think it might be, my husband mentioned him and his friends discussing Ian/Lian Huntley at work. He's a builder so not really an academic role.

I think some stuff he's just been oblivious to but it's not exactly widely reported

Psychstudent2013 what if I wasn't "assigned" a sex at birth? How do you propose I fill in that survey?

Many people I've come across think its just noisy lobbying from the professionally offended mob, like Owen Jones.

I thought it was faddish student politics for the longest time.

IRL people think it's so obvious dangerous, unfair or out there they think it's not really happening/going to happen so can be ignored for now.

Yep. And when you get it through to people that it's happening now, they literally pale before your eyes.

IME IRL people think it's so obvious dangerous, unfair or out there they think it's not really happening/going to happen so can be ignored for now.

THIS!
Because to most people, the idea of men just saying" I'm a woman/girl" and getting access to segregated spaces/prisons/refuges/sport/Guides/jobs/scholarships/awards etc is so manifestly wrong that they can't believe it will be allowed to happen. Whatever your political views, you have to at least HOPE that those in charge are reasonably sensible!
Many people I've come across think its just noisy lobbying from the professionally offended mob, like Owen Jones. A quick introduction to some of the better know advocates and the Sages leaflet soon changes their mind.

sages.org.uk/publications/sages-factsheet.html

People don't realise that you don't need genital surgery for a GRC and that most trans people don't get the surgery.

Men don't care because it doesn't affect them.

Most people are thinking about old transsexuals and presuming they've had their winkle removed so they are "harmless"-what's the fuss. Or drag queens who are part of our culture and for whom many have a soft spot

Women are conditioned to be nice and not offend and many will choose to say nothing or worse acquiesce

Pastabest Interestingly, this was the response when I mentioned MN FWR board as one of the only places open discussion had been possible to a few friends at the weekend.

The Guardian have posted an article about mumsnet's new rules today.

The comments on Facebook under the article generally suggest that people just don't get it, and the fact that it's being discussed primarily on mumsnet seems to be a massive issue for a lot of people who dismiss mumsnet as a load of bored middle class mummies, who therefore have nothing of value to say on the matter.

This issue is important, but I'm not sure that it is happening primarily on the mumsnet platform is actually helping. Which is very disappointing for all sorts of reasons, but also demonstrates why it is so important that women feel they have safeish spaces in general to discuss feminist issues.

I guess some people may believe God made a mistake. Most, I would think, would not believe it wasn't God who was wrong.

I think one factor is that the issues are really nuanced and I haven't seen a sufficiently nuanced explanation of the GC position in the mainstream media. Even where brilliant women have been on the today programme or Jeremy Vine or Any answers or whatever, the time allowed is simply not enough to adequately convey the GC position. I have understood what they are trying to say but only because I spend a lot of time lurking on here. I think if I wasnt already familiar wth the issues I'd be petty confused to be honest.

I'd say the fact that a large % of the country is religious in some way, even if not a regular churchgoer contributes. I assume it would be more likely they believe in the concept of a soul, which could - in theory - be born in the wrong body.

I find a lot of people believe literally in "born in the wrong body" or the idea of a lady-brain. Because as with the suicide stats, they are shared as facts.

Thanks R0wantrees.

David Aaronowitch in today's Times comments with regards the limiting of discussion about the implications of the GRA:
(extracts)

"But wouldn’t you also say that if ever there was a case for an “open debate” this was it? You can’t just make a change like this without arguing it through and hearing the other side.... continues

"An organisation pledged to argue against the changes, Women’s Place UK, and some of its leading lights, have been subject to what might be called private persecution. Its meetings are abusively picketed, organisations that let venues for its events are targeted, its speakers are “no platformed” at universities, and its leading lights are abused and threatened.

I don’t even know what my own view is of the GRA, but what I can see is that one side is trying to stop the other from expressing its opinion. It is doing this in the first place by characterising any expression of belief that biological sex is important, as being — and I am not joking — akin to fascist violence....." continues

thread with share token access to the full article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3277408-David-Aaronovitch-comment-in-Times

I think it's because, barring women's sports, there are only a small number of circumstances in which it will matter in practical terms and the women it will affect are vulnerable, marginalised women. It will affect rape victims who need female only spaces for support, domestic violence victims who need female only spaces for support, women's prisons and closed mental health wards. So it's all too easy to take an "I'm alright Jacky" attitude to the debate (especially since most people believe that the average transwoman is an individual with dysphoria who has had or is waiting for surgery - Stonewall's extension of the trans umbrella to cover cross dressers just isn't on most people's radar).

rat it’s a good point. I’d class DV killings as femicide. Just as I’d class the killings in ciudad Juarez as femicide and the killing of First People’s women in BC as femicide. They are killed because they are women. DV to me falls into this category. It’s born of a male- female dynamic where a male is violent towards their partner because they are physically weaker. These men are not killing their bosses or male authority figures. DV when it’s Male on female and results in death is femicide.

I will have a look for the link but it’s going to take some googling - the figure of eight was posted. Of course EVERY one of those deaths is inexcusable. And it makes me uncomfortable to even start comparing the ‘worthiness’ of a death. A violent death is always abhorrent. Of those, the poster said a couple were killed during work as sex workers and a couple during non - DV type altercations. Two were killed and the only motive ascribed was pure hatred of who they were as transwomen.
But let’s say all right were killed as a hate crime. Women still experience higher levels of murder. But this is denied and used as leverage

It’s horrible I should even be having to point this out. I am absolutely NOT saying that one life is worth more than another. But it's in response to the claim I hear that transwomen are being killed daily and face constant violence. The stats don’t seem to bear that out in the UK.

It’s a pattern of using it as leverage that’s the issue. It casts one group as ‘worthier victims’ than the other and tries to shut down debate. It’s the same tactic as saying that the alternative to puberty blockers is suicide. It’s manipulative.

Self ID will. Just one example.

• it will allow transwomen to self identify into female prisons. Right now this is done case by case and it’s still causing issues. There was a case the other week where a transwoman prisoner with intact male biology had been sleeping with female inmates. So already there’s insufficient segregation.

Again this is the equality act, not self-id gra, and there is in fact an independent prison authority that does this on a case-by-case basis, and that will not be changed.

Regardless, this may be of interest to people in prison, I think it is a huge leap to suggest 99% of the population not in prison.... use prison conditions as a barometer of what minorities to afford human rights to.

Also the public at large is far more aware of the individuality of trans people, that certain outlets who seek to paint everybody within the minority as the same as the lowest example is transparent.

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

Do you really think that people are questioning this because they are mean, nasty bigots?

People are defending women's rights, they are not just being anti-trans.

If it were all about progressing trans rights rather than assuming women's rights then no one would have an issue and would be absolutely cheering on the cause.

Gibberty, I think those threads are great actually, tons of women explaining why they reject the colonisation of the female sex being promoted as a cure for a number of disorders listed in the DSM.

The hilariously implausible contortions of biology, language and law won't stick, it's too full of holes and contradictory for even the most ardent of cult victims to explain.

You seem terribly disappointed. 😥

Those threads were and are a gender critical own goal.

I doubt it, they were what opened my eyes to women's sex based protections being erased and led me to feminist chat. I'm sure there are many like me.

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

Self ID will. Just one example.

• it will allow transwomen to self identify into female prisons. Right now this is done case by case and it’s still causing issues. There was a case the other week where a transwoman prisoner with intact male biology had been sleeping with female inmates. So already there’s insufficient segregation.

Prisoners serving time is their punishment. Most of these women are extremely vulnerable to begin with - how can making them shower and share space with a male bodied person be justified? It cannot.

Do you feel this is ‘no harm to anyone’ - if so, I’d like to ask why,

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

IME IRL people think it's so obvious dangerous, unfair or out there they think it's not really happening/going to happen so can be ignored for now.

Most people are reasonable and courteous they expect that from others. I think there is a slow erosion of tolerance happening with the current activities and I think reporting is starting to reflect that.