If the majority of women voted in favour of self ID?

The right not to be killed or injured is inalienable – you can't repudiate it on your own or anyone else's behalf. I suspect the same applies (at least in relation to other people's rights) to degrading and humiliating treatment (Article 3 HRA) – and we have evidence from ETs that forcing women to strip in front of men is exactly that.

There has been psychologists who have discussed the empathy trap effect.

I also think there is the sense of righteousness behind the opinions that we see replayed on threads constantly. The fear of ever being associated with those ‘bigots over there’ or the ones who believe they are the tolerant and progressive ones because for instance, they believe the very superficial analysis that they read or they have come to the superficial understanding themselves where they have completely fucking ignored the needs of female people in their need to centre a group of male people.

As an example these may women may also then believe that discussing stats on prison numbers is making examples of the group and don’t actually seem to be able to understand that women are discussing risk analysis for the group for safeguarding principles to be applied. So therefore, they can tell themselves that there is no evidence to support the exclusion of those male people.

But on the whole, what we have also seen is that as soon as the question is changed and it has been made clear the male person has a penis, then the answers change and the gap between male and female respondents narrows.

This is a strong indication that those female respondents don’t understand what transition is and isn’t. It is highly likely that they have a preconceived belief that terms like ‘males who identify as women’ refer to a group of male people who they don’t expect to retain their penises.

Let’s face it, if you want to be seen as being progressive and not bigoted, you may only read a narrow selection of media and we know that there is so much misinformation around. Just look at the number of people who will argue that Semenya should be allowed to compete as a female athlete because according to them, he is ‘female, with naturally high testosterone’.

I haven't RTFT but if there was a proper referendum I suspect 1) there would have been some actual debate and those who just waft about saying to doesn't matter and be kind might be forced to consider the RL implications of removing the reality of 'female' as a category for safeguarding and other exemptions
2) even if 51% of women decided TWAW and the law changed, it wouldn't take long for people to realise that - OMG - trans women are men and now the gates are open, females are disappearing from sport and sexual assaults and pregnancy are happening in prisons.
Everyone would realise it's a shit idea and the pendulum would swing back and reform would happen - as it always has and always will, ovetons window etc.

You can't build a society on whimsy. Even the old fashioned type of misogyny was built on the biological facts that men were stronger and women have the babies. This new wave MRA action is built on feelings and emotional manipulation & doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny, hence the hyperbole and leveraging of sad kids and vulnerable adults.

ETA: and I'd join la resistance.

The 2014 survey you cite which examines the concept of 'rape proclivity' isn't a one off. There was research done prior to 2014 (1981) and after (2024) which show much the same result.

Most recent research link below -

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10790632241268527

I think there's a certain kind of woman who is empathetic to the point of sentimentality about men they perceived as "disadvantaged" , while having very little empathy for other women. It seems to be a type. Perhaps a mixture of maternal instincts and sex Instincts? Who knows? I'm not a psychologist.

Lorraine Kelly had guests on her talk show after the announcement who decried FWS as being "cruel & spiteful to celebrate the rolling back of rights" while giving FWS no right of reply.

Basically, any indication that women were pleased that they had achieved a victory in a long fought legal battle was framed as unkind.

It was the pictures of FWS looking victorious outside the court IIRC.

Bloody amazing moment which absolutely deserved celebration, and yet there were some people (TRAs) who thought it wasn't a good look for women to look even a little bit pleased with winning an important court case... for the benefit of women.

I agree. I think I will do the Homer Simpson thing and back out quietly (unless we get more unsubstantiated claims about opinion polls).

It is usually accepted that groups advocating for the rights of their group, or giving support to a particular different group, should do just that, not squander their limited resource and energy on advocating for everyone else.

Not feminists though. If they don't include men in their definition of women they are "transphobic bigots". And some very intersectional forms of feminism seem to think that feminism should be about liberating everybody, not standing up for women.

The "don't cheer if you win" bit was inspired by some real headlines when the Supreme Court judgement came out. I forget who it was, but at least one public figure told women not to be too obviously pleased. Maybe someone here can remember who it was?

If I had known it was going to turn into this poor menz the women are all lazy white middle class SAHMs, who happily lay back enjoying a life of leisure while the poor menz have to fight wars and work in mines.

Feels like time and effort on my part expecting a good faith discussion on the topic at hand, not well spent.

My last driver's mate was a 22yo with a conviction for gbh for hitting somebody with a bottle. He was actually a good lad with a great work ethic. He'd grown up in a pretty dysfunctional background and couldn't drink as it made him volatile.

Is this guy a 'knuckle-dragger'?

The statistics show that the majority of pensioners in poverty are women, and that British women retire with private pension wealth that is roughly half that of men.

Since this is caused by career breaks and part-time work, and no longer direct discrimination, I suppose one could now say that it’s just tough cheese for anyone who ends up not having contributed enough to the tax pot over their career - but IME that ignores the fact that bringing up children is not a neutral activity and would need to be taken into account better if the balance is to be truly equal.

I'm guessing it's going to be that ubiquitous photo of men welding at a oil rig which seems to be so popular among the 'men do all the dangerous jobs - women live life on easy mode!!' manospherers.

At least half of the women I worked with in my corporate career are now working part time

And how does that affect their career? Is it maximising it?

@Helleofabore
Q6. Do you think that biological males who identify as women should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms?
Question 6: the responses were:
Yes: 31% (male 26%) (female 33%) (16-19 - 29%) (20-21 - 32%)
No: 55% (male 63%) (female 50%) (16-19 - 58%) (20-21 - 53%)
Don't know: 14% (male 11%) (female 17%) (16-19 - 13%) (20-21 - 15%)

Quite astounding that more women than men think this is ok! Why? Because women are more empathetic? Because men know, even more than women do, what men are like and are capable of? I find it really bizarre.

Gosh. Working class knuckle draggers. Whatever next.

Imagine a sports league.
Teams A, C, D, E and F are told "play to win". It's seen as entirely natural and reasonable.
Team B is told that if they don't ensure that the other side gets at least as many goals as they do, they are mean, selfish and hateful. And if they do win, their supporters absolutely mustn't cheer.