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

Because the "battle lines" eg access to womens spaces, womens bathrooms, the trans sex offender in womens bathroom bogeyman etc aren't really compelling enough to grab the publics attention, or make it a real issue.

Activists should make more effort on publicising transwomen competing and winning in womens sports, convicted male prisoners transitioning into womens prisons etc

As others have said many people assume transwoman means no penis. There are even some people who think men can actually physically change into women, get pregnant etc. They then equate trans people with gay rights movement, most oppressed people etc.
It’s based on a lot of mistruths and misunderstandings
I think that’s why when people come on here they start peak transing!!

"because maybe the majority of people are decent enough to understand that when a minority says 'please don't say this, it is offensive' they are happy to do this..... and include trans people as one of those minorities, instead of knocking up 'spartacus' threads, or 40 pages complaining about the owners of a forum."

This. Those threads were and are a gender critical own goal.

The latter statistic was explored on a previous thread and it turned out that 8 transwomen had been killed over the last decade. Of those, two could be classed as being killed simply for being transwomen.

Two women a week in the UK are killed by partners in DV incidents - ie killed for being female.

Just as an aside, what makes you say all domestic violence victims are "killed for being female"?

But there can be no other context in the killing of a trans woman in order for her to have been killed for being trans?

I didn't see the other thread; if you could link it I'll happily head off over there with my questions.

It's regularly been in the papers, on television and is always on social media and yet it seems that the average person in the street is still not engaged with the topic.

The slant on what’s previously been in the papers is heavily biased. It’s tended to be biased towards suicide stats (debunked) and the idea that transwomen are facing very high levels of violence in the UK. The latter statistic was explored on a previous thread and it turned out that 8 transwomen had been killed over the last decade. Of those, two could be classed as being killed simply for being transwomen.

Two women a week in the UK are killed by partners in DV incidents - ie killed for being female. Statistically then, transwomen are less likely to be killed than women.

So that’s those two slants debunked.

The media coverage has tended to be of the fawning ‘look at this nice teenager, validate them or they will kill themselves’ type. It is only in the last few weeks and months that a more critical and balanced stance has started. Man Friday for example was reported pretty well in the DM without the usual language of ‘feminists’ and referring instead to ‘women.’ That’s a definite change of tack.

I think the reporting will change. Right now people see it as either;

Twatty metropolitan elite stuff that has zero relevance to the real world
Irrelevant to them
Part of the entirely legit LGB struggle and thus something to not oppose
That transgender people are all of the gender dysphoric/postop type.

I think the tide is turning as more people realise that self ID will have numerous negative effects on women and children’s safety.

Because they have no idea how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

They are unaware of trans ideology...they think they know about the subject but actually have no idea what is being peddled. They don't realise how rapidly it is being taken on by the younger generation or how the numbers claiming to be trans are dramatically increasing.

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

Tell that to Bridget Lalonde whose chances of a college scholarship are affected by boys identifying as female running in the girls races.

Tell that to the high school that Lila Perry in Missouri attend. The school organised a third space for Lila to get changed in for PE but Lila won't accept anything other than the girls locker room. The other girls are not transphobic to want the girls locker room to be penis free.

I know that these examples are in the US but US trends tend to eventually reach the UK.

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

I hear this 'harming no one' quite a lot and I wonder if it is true. Does the inclusion of trans women in AWS harm no one? Does the election of trans women as women's officers in various organisations harm no one? I think it is possible to argue that this kind of 'progress' harms women who have grown up with female biology and socialisation and need to be represented politically by - or to be political representatives for - women who have experienced the same kinds of material disadvantages.

If people aren't engaging with the gender debate, I suspect it's because they aren't examining whether there is any harm here.

*sorry its currently at 54 pages complaining about the owners of a forum. 2 threads now!

Why do you think people beyond the TRA and feminist bubble are not talking about gender issues? It's regularly been in the papers, on television and is always on social media and yet it seems that the average person in the street is still not engaged with the topic.

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one, the majority of people can easily understand this, by not being affected by trans rights in any way themselves.

because they don't live in an anti trans echo chamber.

because they know or are related to someone who has come out trans and can see the actual reality of what an oppressed minority has to deal with.

because they have empathy and can understand complex ideas, and listen to what trans people are saying and going through, instead of handing out unqualified diagnosis' like the 'gender-critical' types tend to do.

because they understand how toxic it is to have your gender, appearance and identity policed and shamed by people who have no right to do it.

because maybe the majority of people are decent enough to understand that when a minority says 'please don't say this, it is offensive' they are happy to do this..... and include trans people as one of those minorities, instead of knocking up 'spartacus' threads, or 40 pages complaining about the owners of a forum.

because people see you.

prunemerealgood sums it up perfectly.

I watched a documentary the other night. Stacey dooley investigated the abuse of women and girls around the world where they were sold as sex slaves. The programme bothered me for many reasons but stacey dooley really annoyed me.
When the police in the phillipenes (I think it was) found a pimp and knew he was selling three girls one a child, the police reffered to the pimp as a "female impersonator" and made it clear he was a man. Stacey constantly refered to the pimp as "she" and "her" even when the police were referring to him as "him" and "he". I fidnt understand why stacey dooley felt a pimp selling a child for sex' feelings mattered. It was so strange and sad.

I dislike intensely the quality of engagement that the internet brings. Most people are just getting on with being fine with things, actually. Now it seems we have to perform all sorts of things related to other people's business and I really just won't. Especially not as the likelihood is of somebody "calling me out" for not putting something exactly the right way. I would vote the right way if asked, donate, protest, I'd encourage a child of mine if need be - but I'm not getting involved with the sort of discourse I see on the internet

I wouldn’t be protesting or donating due to some of the people who are involved in the movement. But yes to everything else you said.

Because I’m heartily sick fed up hearing about it. The way the people are trying to get the message across is off putting. It alienates people. It makes me want to stick my fingers in my ears and head for the hills screaming.

You catch more flies with cider than vinegar.

In my experience, very few people have heard or seen what TRA say about everybody else. This hate is directed at women rather than men. I think if it was at least 50/50 men would call them out on this and not accept terms like ladyd*ck.

Apologies; long post. I have been thinking about this a lot. I would say there are different reasons, depending on audience.

The victim narrative, drawing on genuinely distressing stats from South America, has been coopted in the U.K. and USA. People don't check stats, as a rule.

Also, the general public has been led to believe that there genuinely is a 'hate mob' who oppose the human rights of transpeople. The ones I have discussed the matter with genuinely have no idea that the 'hate speech' (from what I have been able to see from my admittedly limited vantage point) consists mainly of disagreement with the position that pre-op transwomen people are, in the ontological sense, female based on their say-so. Once people understand that, they don't understand why this would ever be seen as 'hate speech'. They are incredulous, and find it hard to believe that's all there is.

Those who do know about this and still don't see why there may be resistance to self-ID generally don't realise that it's a matter of conflicting rights under law.

Part of the problem is that trans activist are operating in quite a strategic manner, e.g. the Equality Act does allow for exceptions on a case-by-case basis for putting protection of gender ID at the same level as sex, which some quite reasonable legal people point to, without realising that there has been a grassroot-level campaign to get individual councils to remove this exception by switching 'sex' for 'gender' in local regs. The two campaigns have seemingly taken place in tandem, but on different levels. One would have to engage closer than most without 'skin in the game' tend to do to see the connection.

Re. the 'hate speech' argument, the TRA discourse that cannot possibly be filed under the 'victim' category, e.g. the calls for rape, assault or even murder of so-called 'T*RFs', does not take place in full view, but is directed at individuals on social media or circulates in LGBT+ or feminist media sources. The general public simply don't see it. Those who do are horrified.

Basically, mosr people are quite nice, and are willing to believe a victim narrative and give people the benefit of the doubt.

Is there more scepticism towards women than men, i.e. is there a sense of underlying misogyny? Possibly. Arguably, someone who subscribes to the feminine norm - 'feminine' in the cosmetically aspirational way, and tending towards the submissive, long-suffering victim role, will be seen in a kinder light than the stereotypical 'angry woman' (especially if they can be imagined as 'middle aged', 'old', 'ugly', 'hairy-legged' and so forth - whether that is the case or not). It is very easy to dismiss women as 'screeching harridans' - again, whether this is the case or not.

Let's also not forget that the public generally also relates differently to suffering or victimhood that is common, seen as depressingly inevitable, and beyond what is 'solvable' with some kind of 'fix', compared with something that has news value, and seen as 'fixable'. An element of titillation also helps. The interests of vulnerable women in refuges or prisons will have a hard time 'winning' over reasonably glamorous transwomen in the media. It is depressing to think about the former; fun and cheering to think about furthering the rights of the latter. We tend to avoid engaging with genuinely difficult problems to 'solve', like domestic abuse.

Funding is possibly also a factor. The lesbian community, who currently seem to be in receipt of the sticky end of this, receive something in the order of £4m per annum, according the figures I saw. The corresponding number for transpeople is £22m.

All these things likely matter, and a coherent response hinges on joining the dots. This takes interest and engagement, as well as media exposure.

I personally don't engage because:-

I don't have a problem with trans people, and I'm going back decades here so it has none of the novelty that the internet has brought it for me.

I am not 100% on board with trans women being in all of women's safe spaces but having a nuanced debate about this is obviously impossible, so I keep my views to myself.

I dislike intensely the quality of engagement that the internet brings. Most people are just getting on with being fine with things, actually. Now it seems we have to perform all sorts of things related to other people's business and I really just won't. Especially not as the likelihood is of somebody "calling me out" for not putting something exactly the right way. I would vote the right way if asked, donate, protest, I'd encourage a child of mine if need be - but I'm not getting involved with the sort of discourse I see on the internet.

OTOH, I can peak trans any man or woman in under 3 minutes.

Ooh, ooh, do me!

Some people are engaged and simply hold differing opinions.

Because people think it's about the 'old fashioned transsexuals' which traditional no one has any problem with.

Because there hear stuff about e.g. girl guides and think 'that will never happen' because they don't realise it is happening.

Because over the last X years the word sex has slowly been replaced by gender so now no one even knows what is being talked about.

Because people like to think they are on the side of minority rights because giving minorities rights doesn't usually impact anyone else, but now the vocal activists are asking for things that erodes the safety and rights of women and girls and people don't realise.

Because people have confidence that the decision makers will do the right thing when statements obviously against biology are being declared, and they don't realise that these decision makers have been infiltrated too and/or are too afraid to be called phobic to stand up for biology and women.

Because until something happens that is so blatant it can't be ignored people will stay quiet for fear of being called a bigot, but by then it will be too late.

What do you say Southfields?

I don't watch the trans programming on TV. I have no interest in medical or surgical TV. I don't watch much TV that 'educates' the public on ' poor me' stories or Jeremy Kyle high drama stuff.

I think its because many who have heard/read a bit about the debate aren't sure exactly what this debate is actually about or what either side are trying to achieve. That coupled with Trans being under the LGB umbrella makes some people wary of saying the wrong thing or just assume transpeople should be welcome and that's the end of the discussion.

Because people are either not interested, or not aware of the issues.

A lot of people think that it’s someone else’s problem, or doesn’t affect them. They are not aware that the whole trans issue has moved on. Out of curiosity, I asked if anyone in my office had heard of ‘cis’ or ‘mx’ and no one was aware of this.

If you don’t read papers, who,subscribe to any of the relevant social media sites, and don’t watch of the trans programmes, you could easily bypass the whole issues.

If it wasn’t for Mumsnet, i wouldn’t be so aware of the issues.

DfE fund political pressure groups, schools buy in training from political pressure groups, schools train children.