70% in favour of self-id

They're such liars. I'm unaware of any advocacy group that has ever been this much a pack of lying liars, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

@Chersfrozenface is right (to a point)!:

I was once told by a civil servant with a fairly high-level job in a national administration that a consultation is an exercise through which a government collects views it can then ignore.

I think it would be more accurate to say (in the main): a public consultation is an exercise through with the government finds out what shit they will have slung at them when they do the thing thet already know they want to do...

It's because the consultation was brigaded, which the government have apparently realized.

YouGov is a reputable polling company, you sign up and they send surveys by email. In this case, it looks like they have sent them out to a large range of people, other times they will target people in a particular demographic.

I was once told by a civil servant with a fairly high-level job in a national administration that a consultation is an exercise through which a government collects views it can then ignore.

Where was the survey actually accessible? How was it publicised?

• The actual numbers are 38% for 37% against 25% don't know

In surveys of this size, the margin of error is 3%.

In my view, it would have been more accurate to visualise this result with the grey circle as a tie.*

Yes - with a 3% margin of error, a 1% difference is of no real statistical significance.

Please note that on that graph a light green tick does not mean a majority of the people was in favour, but only that of those who did express an opinion, a majority was in favour (Yougov are calling this a plurality.)

I'm not sure this is the clearest way of representing the data. First of all, if you don't look too closely, it is easy to read the green ticks as representing a large majority in favour (green) and a small majority in favour (light green).

And if you take a closer look at the figures, I'm not even sure some of the ticks (whether red or green) are justified - for instance, regarding the unqualified question about males who identify as trans accessing women's toilets, YouGov is showing the opinion of men is in favour with a light green tick.

The actual numbers are
38% for
37% against
25% don't know

In surveys of this size, the margin of error is 3%.

In my view, it would have been more accurate to visualise this result with the grey circle as a tie.

(It is quite normal when reporting on survey results to exclude the don't knows and just represent the opinion of those who did make up their minds, but I guess here too many people are undecided.)

Also, overall people don't want TW in women's changing rooms, sports and toilets.

Here is a further breakdown on the polling results in the survey commissioned by Prick News.

Only 36% of women agree that TWAW and all groups are opposed to making legal changes to the current GRA despite saying they accept self ID, maybe they don't know what self ID actually means.

I think that they are referring to the results of this pol that YouGov did on behalf of Pink news, which showed the vast majority of respondents agreed with the statement that 'a person should be able to self identify as a gender different to the one they were born in.'

Which goes to show that people in the UK are pretty tolerant, and transphobia is exceptional rather than the norm. The British public does not want people to be discriminated against if they choose to dress unconventionally, and we aren't bothered if some people feel a compulsion to perform the stereotypes associated with gender.

What is very striking, and highly educational, is how they have focused on the response to the initial vague statement, and pointedly ignored the responses showing that nobody is in favour of the kind of self id they have been lobbying so hard to push into law, beneath the radar of public awareness.

If you look at the answers to statements about the process of legal gender recognition, you will see that only 2 of the 12 categories of people polled in the UK were in favour of making it easier for people to legally change their sex (just 18-24yr olds and people who say they vote Labour), and none of the 12 groups was overwhelmingly in favour of allowing them to do so without a doctor's approval and having spent 2 years as their preferred gender.

So when transgenderists claim "On 14th June 2020, the Sunday Times reported that, despite 70% of responses to the recent consultation on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act being in favour of self-identification, the UK Government intends to scrap the GRA reform and roll back the hard-won rights of trans and non-binary people" they are being exceedingly disingenuous.

The majority don't give a toss about people choosing their own preferred gender and performing the related stereotypes, but they are firmly against the proposed changes to the gender recognition act that Stonewall, pink news and the rest of the trans lobby are still pushing for, and in completely in favour of the governments decision to scrap the proposed reforms.

Have a look at the results for a quick masterclass in lies, damn lies and statistics.

Notice too how nobody thinks it is fair to allow males to compete in female sports, and how the question about allowing transwomen in women's changing rooms doesn't mention genitals. I can't remember which women's group it was that paid for an independent poll of UK attitudes a while back, but do remember, very clearly, how the number of people in favour of transwomen in women's sex segregated spaces plummeted once the concept of female penis was explained.

Download and save the graphic. You too might find it comes in handy at a later date when you need to shed light on what the British public really thinks, compared to what the Stonewall and Pink news propaganda machine wants you to think that they think.

If you compared the GRA to an airplane; if 600 passengers sitting on the plane believe it to be safe would you still fly on it if one person points out a critical flaw?

Mamala321 I was just about to say the same thing! I realised as I was reading this thread, that I find out more news and current affairs from Mumsnet than any other source.

It's not only the OP and links but the well-informed comments that give me a good all-round picture of events.

Specifically on the erosion of women's rights, Peaktrans.org is also a valuable news site. And transcrimeuk.com keeps tabs on the crimes that we're told don't happen and are not a problem.

I have to remind myself to look at the MSM sites in case I've missed anything vital. I rarely have.

And by asking people who have no real idea of the consequences of self id.
You only have to look at the AIBU pages to see posters with no actual clue of the repercussions of this.

Public consultations are a load of shit anyway. I went to one about 10 years ago, I was paid £40 (which was significant money for me at the time). It was about cuts to the fire service and was "hosted" by an "independent" facilitator. It was basically a sales pitch as to why we should all vote for the proposed cuts.

For example they showed us a video of a new type of fire service motorbike that one firefighter could put out a fire on this motorbike and therefore many fires no longer needed a crew to attend. That was just one of many things.

I have never trusted any public consultation since.

An overwhelming majority favouring a bloody awful, morally wrong law doesn't mean that law should be made.

Not snappy as such, but I think I want this on a t-shirt

I think it is less representative of how people feel and more representative of the majority of people's ignorance on the subject.

Should people who are trans be discriminated against? Most people would say of course not.

It is only when you get into the practical questions, the reality of how this would be implemented, that people are forced to look at how this would actually look in reality.

Most people don't ever look that hard at the issue.

It wouldn't matter if those figures were real. No matter how many people are dying to hurl out female only spaces, the law protects sex based interests of females, this would abysmally discriminate against and fuck over a significant number of females, and they have rights too.

An overwhelming majority favouring a bloody awful, morally wrong law doesn't mean that law should be made.

Being, not bring 🤦‍♀️

We want to be kind, but not that kind.

Bring kind’s great. Bring a mug isn’t.

Fair Play For Women (sorry don’t have link) have done an interesting analysis on a survey, not sure if it is the same one. Sport was pretty clearly no to self ID in Sports from practically all respondents, and although the concept was broadly agreed with, as soon as people were asked if this applied to men without any SRS , women especially were not in agreement. We want to be kind, but not that kind.

That article has so many inaccuracies. The BBC aren't a news organisation, they are spreading propaganda.

As someone else said, consultations are not referendums, they are a means for the public to raise potential issues about a policy change. Technically, it doesn't matter if 99% of people are in favour of something, if 1% raises an issue that no one else had thought of and could potentially cause problems then that will be noted. And they said that a lot of that 70% was just templates generated by Stonewall etc with no actual meat on the bones, whereas people (myself included) who raised the issues with GRA reform did actually raise some serious potential pitfalls of any change.

Also, I think it's worth saying again. Trans people already do have the right to change their legal sex on their birth certificate. So in effect they have the right to legally falsify their birth certificate, where someone who was born male can get their birth certificate changed so that it says they were born female. This is a legal fiction that no one else has the right to make. It's just that at the moment they do have to jump through hoops to create that legal fiction: there is gatekeeping to ensure that people who do this are genuine. The GRA reforms were to allow anyone to change their legal sex on their birth certificate, to be allowed to legally falsify that document, with no checks whatsoever.

I really think its important to continue to get that out there, because there is so much emotive language around this issue, I don't think most of the general public even know what the GRA reforms even mean.

does anyone know how this figure was reached?

By presenting the consultation as only of concern to LGBT people. By not asking other stakeholder groups for their views. By writing it in a way that presupposes a belief in transgender ideology in respondents, therefore making it all but incomprehensible to anyone not steeped in it. By allowing responses to a proposed reform of a UK law to come from outside of the UK.

That responses were mass generated by email campaigns is neither here nor there - if it suited them, the recipients of such consultations have previously disregarded responses because they were of that nature and they have disregarded individual replies (see the survey on London's single-sex spaces for that tactic).

Looking at many other consultations on law reform, they aren't about quantity alone. They are about quality, too. Otherwise there'd only be a survey to fill in. They invite opposing views and arguments, because those writing law proposals can't think of every possible consequence when between them they may not have the necessary experiences.

Such as my friend who was responsible for the Equality Impact Assessment about changes to the out of hours GP service provided by our local health board. She organised many public and private meetings with stakeholder groups to solicit their views. By talking to them and answering their questions. Those of just one deaf blind local had a huge impact on her, because that was one patient group she had no experience in, and both the issues and proposed solutions were unknown to her.

The government did not organise such meetings, neither the UK one nor the Scottish one. However, the latter did organise such meetings on the proposed new Hate Crime Bill. I took part in one of them. The Law Commission organised public meetings seeking views on the proposal to reform the law on surrogacy.

To name but two law reform proposals treated very differently by the government.

That they did not do this for the GRA one, speaks volumes.