Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4

@SqueakyDinosaur - That whole paragraph reminds me very much of a scene in the very first episode of Reggie Perrin, which featured a market research woman who spouted a load of incomprehensible statistics about preferences in exotic ice-creams without drawing breath.

This is a really weird piece: https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

It presents what looks to me like a perfectly reasonable piece of research into what proportion of people would contemplate a relationship with a transperson, and reports numbers that aren't really very surprising, but frames the entire story as discrimination, rather than preference.

The note of outrage in these two paragraphs raised my eyebrows far more than the conclusions of the researchers:

"Surprisingly, among the 127 participants open to dating a trans person, almost half selected a trans person of a gender incongruent with their stated sexual orientation. For example, 50% of the trans-inclusive straight women and 28% of the trans-inclusive gay men were willing to date a trans woman, even though one wouldn’t expect either straight women or gay men to be attracted to women. Similarly, 50% of trans-inclusive straight men and 69% of trans-inclusive lesbians said they’d date a trans man, even though both groups are presumably only attracted to women. And 33% of the trans-inclusive bisexual/queer participants said they would only date a trans person of one gender but not the other, even though one may expect this group to be attracted to multiple genders.
Digging even deeper into the choices of cis folks willing to date trans people, an interesting pattern of discrimination against trans women in particular emerged among those who would be expected to be attracted to women: 28% of trans-inclusive bisexual/queer/nonbinary folks and 38% of trans-inclusive lesbians said they wouldn’t date a trans woman — only a trans man. There was no similar discrimination against trans men among those expected to be attracted to men: 0% of trans-inclusive gay men and only 5% of trans-inclusive bisexual/queer/nonbinary folks excluded trans men from their dating pool."

I just made these and posted them on the current SNP thread (under my more recent username) but that thread is 90% chat about sweets at this point so I doubt many will see them…

SNP have a sale on Nicola Says Yes T shirts, T shirts that have a very convenient gap under the original text

(the police have confiscated a £110 grand motorhome from Nic’s MIL’s drive)

duc748 · Today 12:08

That's so poor on the census. If you can't trust your data... and clearly we can't. Surely someone at the ONS should be raised their hand and pointed all this out?

I seem to remember this being discussed two years ago. The man in charge of the census lost a legal case, as he wanted to use gender, instead of sex.

Surprisingly enough, he turned out to be a Stonewall cheerleader, much to everyone's great shock.

Thanks, Womble Cook!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/09/at-last-consensus-emerging-on-protecting-women-only-spaces

That's so poor on the census. If you can't trust your data... and clearly we can't. Surely someone at the ONS should be raised their hand and pointed all this out? My beef with the census at the time was, there was no "I think this genderwoo is a load of old bollocks" option.

I'm rubbish at linking to articles on my phone, but Sonia Sodah has a good one in the Observer today. It's about protecting women's spaces and the effects of the poorly thought out EA 2010 and GRA 2004.

She writes of Kemi Badenoch and her attempt to get the EHRC to back her in clarifying biological sex in the Equality Act.

2.2% of people with poor English (or Welsh) are trans. The power of confusing questions.

A few people at my work put "he/him" in their email signatures. Turns out quite a few colleagues have absolutely no idea why this is done. It's a job where good English is essential. Most people are still only vaguely aware of trans ideology if it doesn't directly affect them.

Blow, cross post!

File under: exactly what was predicted...

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/

That's so interesting. It's quite bizarre to watch the inevitable, predicted consequences of this lunacy just roll out.

Good from the Economist.

This is also interesting and supports what Kuc, TenG and others have said about how difficult this is to navigate if English isn’t your first language:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/

Indeed. Inclusive, but not including women.

I take it they are those misguided 'inclusive feminists'?

Did they mean to be so rude to their fellow women? 😂

For those blocked by Women's March.

Just gone for quick gander to see that score: 88% on aibu think the OP is unreasonable!

There's hope for humanity yet!

Something appears to be missing from this list: twitter.com/womensmarch/status/1644362400341139456?

'There's nowt so queer as folk, except for me and thee - and even thee's a little queer.'

Agreed, @MissPollysFitDolly . It's just so fucking dishonest, the reaction of most politicians.

Thanks for that, an amazing but depressing thread. I wonder what the likes of Lord Tebbit think of the situation today. And shame on David Lammy, he heard all the arguments 20 years ago and still pretends not to understand.