Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

207 replies

MaIeficent · Yesterday 00:45

What would you do?

Completely hypothetical question. I'm not so interested in hearing about the stats/reality or that 'it would never happen'. Just hypothetically what people's stance would be if it did.

I'm conflicted as I don't think I could ever be in favour but I simultaneously support the right of women to make their own choices even if I disagree with them.

Would you defer to them in recognition that this is the decision that makes women as a whole happiest or would you soldier on and try and impose the wishes of a minority group onto a majority of dissenting women?

OP posts:
CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 04:43

MaIeficent · Today 04:08

That wasn't really a serious comment about feminists in general so much as about how people act on forums, which isn't exclusive to here. Sometimes when people are extremely invested in a cause it can be a bit exhausting discussing it with them because they're so focused on pushing their point it almost becomes a duel rather than a discussion.

Show quote history

Well I think this just comes down to a difference of opinion really. I think this is all totally normal discussion.

You gave your personal opinion on how popular you thought self id policies with women in other countries are, and then you found it "a bit exhausting" and "pushing a point" that posters wanted to discuss how your personally held opinion differed from the reality.

They did this by giving links to polls, and discussing how self id is introduced to the general public in such a way that a lot of people don't realise it means men in rape crisis centres, female prisons, and a loss of female rights.

You are free to hold whatever personal opinions you'd like, people are free to disagree and even post links to show why. Obviously the same holds true in reverse. Aka discussion.

Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 04:33

You will forgive me for this slightly tongue in cheek comment I hope, but it seems that you and trans identified men have something in common here. Other people's external opinions are given far too much importance, and apparently can shape your internal sense of self 😆

I'm not sure I entirely agree! I think the problem with a lot of transwomen is that they don't actually seem to recognise (or don't want to) that most people don't actually think they're women. It's almost as if many have zero self awareness.

I actually live literally next door to a transwoman - I'm really not making this up. I think he's the only one I've ever actually spoken to. He's nice enough but I thought he was just a crossdresser for about two years as he looks a bit like Mystic Meg when he goes out in his wig and heels etc. It's a pretty exaggerated persona for want of a better description. But he's apparently been using a female name for about 15 years and the elderly lady on the other side who's known him for years says that he claims to have always known he was a woman.

The thing is, he works in the same industry as me and he just looks like a rough, grizzled old bloke when he gets back from work with all his tools. He's gotta be about 60yo.

Ok, I'm completely waffling now and I've probs just created 20 screenshots for the transgender subreddit to froth over so I'm going to go back to bed.

OP posts:
Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 04:08

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 02:49

I also notice that you've given a different reason you/other people find feminists actions/behaviour objectional in your most recent post, compared to when you were saying earlier - that it was because of feminist's dogged insistence on evidence and stats etc.

Edited

That wasn't really a serious comment about feminists in general so much as about how people act on forums, which isn't exclusive to here. Sometimes when people are extremely invested in a cause it can be a bit exhausting discussing it with them because they're so focused on pushing their point it almost becomes a duel rather than a discussion.

OP posts:
CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 02:49

I also notice that you've given a different reason you/other people find feminists actions/behaviour objectional in your most recent post, compared to when you were saying earlier - that it was because of feminist's dogged insistence on evidence and stats etc.

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 02:33

MaIeficent · Today 02:06

I'll have to come back to some of these as it's almost 1:30am and I still need to get out my gym stuff and jump in the shower/make some food etc.

What exactly is this apparently objectional behaviour/attitudes of the women that call themselves feminists that makes other women reject the "feminist" label?

Tbh, I don't agree with a lot of the stuff I read from people that call themselves feminists. When it descends into 'it's not all men but it's most of them" etc it usually turns me away tbh. I see a lot of stuff I feel you'd never see said about any demographic. Like, the view that innocent men need to stand up against the bad men if they don't want to be tarred with the same brush. People never say that about innocent members of demographics overly represented in terrorism attacks or overrepresented in crime stats etc. I mostly believe in individual accountability over group culpabiiity.

I also think some feminists are too myopic and only focus on sex. They'll dismiss male victims of violence by saying "oh, but what sex was the attacker?" This doesn't sit right with me because a victim of a racist or homophobic attack isn't any less a victim because his attacker was male. Sometimes there are factors more dividing than sex. It isn't women's fault of course but it doesn't negate the impact or victimhood.

I don't really see most men as being particularly privileged. Certainly the working class guys I work with lead much less privileged lives than most of women in my majority female team of middle class women when I had a corporate job. I feel that it's a small number of elite men holding most of the wealth and everybody else below them. I also don't understand the fixation with male CEOs. I don't know many CEOs full stop.

I also see a lot of disingenuous claims. Like the claim that 'most men would rape if they could get away with it'. I read the study and it was something like 50 high school students from one college who were apparently given course credits for participating (so likely had a vested interest and may have given silly answers). But either way a tiny sample size of men from one country of a narrow age group can't be used to make broad claims about men in general.

Then I read a discussion about the world's biggest metastudy of DV which found that despite men causing more death/serious injury, women actually commit more domestic abuse. It was conducted by over 100 academics from 20 universities in US/UK/Canada alongside DV associations and they read over 10,000 studies and closely analysed the data from 1200 peer reviewed studies. It was called the 'Partner Abuse State of Knowledge' project.

Some of the same posters who'd referenced that study of 50 college students were loudly proclaiming that the data was 'dodgy' etc but it just seemed disingenuous given the study they'd been using in the other thread. That's just one example. And if you question it you'll usually called a man or a pick me/dick panderer/handmaiden etc. Honestly, I'll usually steer clear of posters who use those phrases as it tells you exactly what type of person they are.

And I'd probs never have chosen to work in the construction sector had I read half the stuff I've since read on here, but I love it. I agree with a lot of feminism but some of it seems determined to make women afraid of their own shadow. Some women get really narky if you say you're not afraid of men (although of course I exercise common sense in terms of safety). I would ultimately rather work alongside the good men than spend all my energy focusing on the bad ones. But granted I'm lucky enough to not live somewhere where women are particularly oppressed.

I have lots of things I could say about male culture too but that wasn't the question. Could say I lot more but need to be up in six hours.

Show quote history

I look forward to reading your reply later, but thank you for your in the mean time thoughts.

I have a lot I could say in return to this post, but for sake of speed at this time of day/night (don't know where you are), it basically boils down to one question.

"I would ultimately rather work alongside the good men than spend all my energy focusing on the bad ones."

You say this about men, but why don't you apply that principle of thought to feminists?

Like if you hear/read a feminist say something you think is extreme or whatever, why would that "turns you away" from women's rights? Or even the label of feminism?
Edited to add here there are various schools of thought on feminism and different types of feminist under the whole wide umbrella of feminist belief, you know like lib fem, rad fem, 2nd wave feminism etc.

Like for me, there are a lot of people that include trans identifying males in their flavour of choice in feminism, I disagree entirely with their stance that men can be women and should be included in female spaces yada yada. I am not "turned away" from feminism just because someone holds an opinion I disagree with also calls themselves a feminist.

You will forgive me for this slightly tongue in cheek comment I hope, but it seems that you and trans identified men have something in common here. Other people's external opinions are given far too much importance, and apparently can shape your internal sense of self 😆

More seriously though, you have essentially said this yourself. In terms of this discussion about self-id and majority vote, you say you might be swayed into supporting it even if you disagreed with it, even if you personally think it's harmful, because a majority voted for it. Now you also say that you don't want to be labelled a "feminist" because you've heard/read some things you disagreed with which were said by some feminists.

I don't really understand this personally. I like to think that I'm a pretty open minded person on the whole, so I'm always open to reasonable, good faith discussion. I am capable of changing my mind on things when presented with compelling evidence which goes against my prior held beliefs. I am open to thinking I could be wrong on a subject if given reason to do so. No matter what though, I still know who I am.

You can't convince me that 2+2 = 5 no matter how many times you berate me - hypothetically speaking, of course, with the royal and generalised "you".

It sounds to me like you can be swayed by what other people think, even if you know it's wrong? I don't understand that, personally.

Edit bolded and underlined end of 5th para.

Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 02:06

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 01:03

"I did answer your question about imposing my will."

Apologies, I must have missed it, would you mind reposting what you said in your answer please?

"I suppose I was talking about the situation whereby women understand what self ID means."

Ok fair enough. My answer is still no.

"... I still don't think there is any justification for men in women's spaces but I do think some women genuinely support it. I'm not going to say that they 'just don't understand it'."

Ok, I don't think anyone here is saying that all of the women who would vote for self-id "just don't understand it". I think (again, no stats, sorry!) most of us are aware that generalised sweeping statements like that are silly.

We are aware that there are a lot of women who do seem to understand what's going on, and would vote for male self-id for various reasons, not just because of compassion for what you called the '"genuine" trans people' in your post.
(As an aside. People, not men? We've been talking in reference to trans identified men so far right? So I assume we aren't suddenly discussing trans identified women too now?)

"That's like when feminists claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist. In reality, it seems that most women who call themselves 'egalitarian' and reject the feminist label don't do it because they reject the written ideals of feminism. They do it because they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists."

There's a lot of sweeping statements in there I'm having a little issue working around.

All feminists "claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist"?

I mean isn't this really just a shorthand term for something that means we're all fighting for the same thing even if we might call it different names? I know that not every woman who I would consider a feminist would consider herself a "feminist", that's fine. I know there are some women who think of themselves as feminists who I wouldn't consider feminist because (for example) I think feminism is for the protection of the rights of female people, not male people.

Really at the end of the day, I don't think it matters much what people call themselves. For me it's not about what people say, it's about what people do. It's not about internal belief, it's about material reality.

All women who reject the label of "feminist" do so because "they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists"?

What exactly is this apparently objectional behaviour/attitudes of the women that call themselves feminists that makes other women reject the "feminist" label?

To me it seems like you're saying there is a general feeling of objection towards assertive women who know their rights and have evidence to back up what they are saying, who will correct mis/dis-information when encountered, and who refuse to sit down silently in a corner smiling benignly while direct harms are done to children and female people's rights.

Show quote history

I'll have to come back to some of these as it's almost 1:30am and I still need to get out my gym stuff and jump in the shower/make some food etc.

What exactly is this apparently objectional behaviour/attitudes of the women that call themselves feminists that makes other women reject the "feminist" label?

Tbh, I don't agree with a lot of the stuff I read from people that call themselves feminists. When it descends into 'it's not all men but it's most of them" etc it usually turns me away tbh. I see a lot of stuff I feel you'd never see said about any demographic. Like, the view that innocent men need to stand up against the bad men if they don't want to be tarred with the same brush. People never say that about innocent members of demographics overly represented in terrorism attacks or overrepresented in crime stats etc. I mostly believe in individual accountability over group culpabiiity.

I also think some feminists are too myopic and only focus on sex. They'll dismiss male victims of violence by saying "oh, but what sex was the attacker?" This doesn't sit right with me because a victim of a racist or homophobic attack isn't any less a victim because his attacker was male. Sometimes there are factors more dividing than sex. It isn't women's fault of course but it doesn't negate the impact or victimhood.

I don't really see most men as being particularly privileged. Certainly the working class guys I work with lead much less privileged lives than most of women in my majority female team of middle class women when I had a corporate job. I feel that it's a small number of elite men holding most of the wealth and everybody else below them. I also don't understand the fixation with male CEOs. I don't know many CEOs full stop.

I also see a lot of disingenuous claims. Like the claim that 'most men would rape if they could get away with it'. I read the study and it was something like 50 high school students from one college who were apparently given course credits for participating (so likely had a vested interest and may have given silly answers). But either way a tiny sample size of men from one country of a narrow age group can't be used to make broad claims about men in general.

Then I read a discussion about the world's biggest metastudy of DV which found that despite men causing more death/serious injury, women actually commit more domestic abuse. It was conducted by over 100 academics from 20 universities in US/UK/Canada alongside DV associations and they read over 10,000 studies and closely analysed the data from 1200 peer reviewed studies. It was called the 'Partner Abuse State of Knowledge' project.

Some of the same posters who'd referenced that study of 50 college students were loudly proclaiming that the data was 'dodgy' etc but it just seemed disingenuous given the study they'd been using in the other thread. That's just one example. And if you question it you'll usually called a man or a pick me/dick panderer/handmaiden etc. Honestly, I'll usually steer clear of posters who use those phrases as it tells you exactly what type of person they are.

And I'd probs never have chosen to work in the construction sector had I read half the stuff I've since read on here, but I love it. I agree with a lot of feminism but some of it seems determined to make women afraid of their own shadow. Some women get really narky if you say you're not afraid of men (although of course I exercise common sense in terms of safety). I would ultimately rather work alongside the good men than spend all my energy focusing on the bad ones. But granted I'm lucky enough to not live somewhere where women are particularly oppressed.

I have lots of things I could say about male culture too but that wasn't the question. Could say I lot more but need to be up in six hours.

OP posts:
Waitwhat23 · Today 01:03

MaIeficent · Today 00:29

OK, you make some fair points.

I suppose I was talking about the situation whereby women understand what self ID means. I watch a lot of debates while I'm waiting about onsite and I think it's not just a case of either not understanding the situation or instead recognising that self ID means Karen Whites or Barbie Kardashians in our changing rooms.

The women I've seen arguing in favour often express the belief that 'genuine' trans people shouldn't suffer because of the bad men who would jump on the bandwagon to abuse loopholes. They think that the GC lobby pick the worst examples as a tactic to undermine self ID. I still don't think there is any justification for men in women's spaces but I do think some women genuinely support it. I'm not going to say that they 'just don't understand it'.

That's like when feminists claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist. In reality, it seems that most women who call themselves 'egalitarian' and reject the feminist label don't do it because they reject the written ideals of feminism. They do it because they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists.

I did answer your question about imposing my will.

Show quote history

The women who genuinely support self id really need to own the real life consequences of their support of self id. After a damning ET, an independent review found that the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had harmed rape survivors, due to the Centre's adherence to self id. That's not cherry picking the 'worst examples', that's the real world outcome of an institution so captured that it actually allowed it's service users to come to harm. In a similar vein, the Scottish Prison Service followed a policy which actively put violent male sex offenders into the female prison estate on the basis of self id, putting female prisons at harm. Again, not a cherry picking of such cases as Karen White, but the deliberate policy of a Scottish Government Executive Agency.

Essentially for the true believers, knowing all the above, they are actively fighting to dismantle safeguarding measures for vulnerable women. And I don't particularly care if a majority of women supported self id hypothetically, I would still fight against such harms to be inflicted on women.

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 01:03

MaIeficent · Today 00:29

OK, you make some fair points.

I suppose I was talking about the situation whereby women understand what self ID means. I watch a lot of debates while I'm waiting about onsite and I think it's not just a case of either not understanding the situation or instead recognising that self ID means Karen Whites or Barbie Kardashians in our changing rooms.

The women I've seen arguing in favour often express the belief that 'genuine' trans people shouldn't suffer because of the bad men who would jump on the bandwagon to abuse loopholes. They think that the GC lobby pick the worst examples as a tactic to undermine self ID. I still don't think there is any justification for men in women's spaces but I do think some women genuinely support it. I'm not going to say that they 'just don't understand it'.

That's like when feminists claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist. In reality, it seems that most women who call themselves 'egalitarian' and reject the feminist label don't do it because they reject the written ideals of feminism. They do it because they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists.

I did answer your question about imposing my will.

Show quote history

"I did answer your question about imposing my will."

Apologies, I must have missed it, would you mind reposting what you said in your answer please?

"I suppose I was talking about the situation whereby women understand what self ID means."

Ok fair enough. My answer is still no.

"... I still don't think there is any justification for men in women's spaces but I do think some women genuinely support it. I'm not going to say that they 'just don't understand it'."

Ok, I don't think anyone here is saying that all of the women who would vote for self-id "just don't understand it". I think (again, no stats, sorry!) most of us are aware that generalised sweeping statements like that are silly.

We are aware that there are a lot of women who do seem to understand what's going on, and would vote for male self-id for various reasons, not just because of compassion for what you called the '"genuine" trans people' in your post.
(As an aside. People, not men? We've been talking in reference to trans identified men so far right? So I assume we aren't suddenly discussing trans identified women too now?)

"That's like when feminists claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist. In reality, it seems that most women who call themselves 'egalitarian' and reject the feminist label don't do it because they reject the written ideals of feminism. They do it because they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists."

There's a lot of sweeping statements in there I'm having a little issue working around.

All feminists "claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist"?

I mean isn't this really just a shorthand term for something that means we're all fighting for the same thing even if we might call it different names? I know that not every woman who I would consider a feminist would consider herself a "feminist", that's fine. I know there are some women who think of themselves as feminists who I wouldn't consider feminist because (for example) I think feminism is for the protection of the rights of female people, not male people.

Really at the end of the day, I don't think it matters much what people call themselves. For me it's not about what people say, it's about what people do. It's not about internal belief, it's about material reality.

All women who reject the label of "feminist" do so because "they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists"?

What exactly is this apparently objectional behaviour/attitudes of the women that call themselves feminists that makes other women reject the "feminist" label?

To me it seems like you're saying there is a general feeling of objection towards assertive women who know their rights and have evidence to back up what they are saying, who will correct mis/dis-information when encountered, and who refuse to sit down silently in a corner smiling benignly while direct harms are done to children and female people's rights.

Pingponghavoc · Today 00:47

Once again, I'd seen reference to European women being more in favour of self ID and it made me question what my stance would be in pushing my own ideals if they were against what most women wanted. I don't care what the actual consensus is, what the studies say, and whether they are accurate. That's not what I was asking and why I mentioned them.

It doesn't matter to me what most women want. Men cannot change sex and women need single sex facilities and opportunities, meaning self id is never going to work. Im not going to sit back and watch girls be put in danger just to be proved correct eventually.

I think you are suggesting that feminism is a sort of democracy, where if the majority of women agree, a policy is implemented, no matter how crazy?

Even if that were the case, the question could never be as basic as 'do you support self id' it would have to far deeper and not shy away from the fact that a rapist could have the right to be alone with women and girls when they are vulnerable.

And that's the point. This isnt really a feminist issue, or it certainly shouldn't be thought of in terms of feminism only. Its a safeguarding one.

Safeguarding isn't a popularity contest.

Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 00:39

AimsAndObjectives · Today 00:14

@MaIeficent You have to understand that this is a public forum, not a private whatsapp group. We are not going to let any statement referencing data, especially without links, go unquestioned. Likewise for links that don't actually show what is being claimed. Likewise for incorrect descriptions of data.

Fair enough. I did reference studies without linking them. Usually I would reference anything I was using to back up my argument but in this case I wasn't making any particularly important point that relied on the studies.

It was more a case of "I saw xyz mentioned and it made me think how would I react if that was actually true". It was more of a passing thought and I wasn't really interested in spending ages reading studies. I've spent way more of my Saturday night on this than I intended already.

OP posts:
Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 00:29

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 00:01

It's all very well asking these hypothetical questions, but even hypothetical questions still need defined parameters in order to be answered properly.

Would you move to Mars?

What would you do if you won the lottery?

Would you support "self-id" if the majority of women voted for it?

The Mars question has lots of parameters I'd want defined before I could give a hypothetical answer. Mars right now as is? Fuck no, I like things like atmosphere, water, food etc. Anyway I'd be dead before I got there. Etc.

The lottery question is easier and I'd only ask for one defining parameter before answering. How much did I win? Because I'd do something entirely different depending on if I won £10, £100, £1,000, or £1,000,000.

The self-id question needs parameters too. What is self-id, does the question mean a meaningless social nicety, or do they just assume it means in terms of everyone should have the same rights to not be harassed or unfairly discriminated against, or does it have the real world effects we've seen such as men in female rape crisis centres, prisons, etc. Do the hypothetical women voting for self-id know it really means men in female single sex spaces, or do they just think it's a question of human rights and general social niceties?

Even if all those parameters were defined, my answer to would I support self-id if the majority of women voted for it would be no.

You might feel swayed by peer pressure, I am not.

That doesn't mean I don't question my own stance on things, because I do. I've yet to see anything that makes me think that I might be wrong.

It does mean that I'm not going to follow blindly where others lead, and especially not if I think they are wrong/leading me down a dangerous path.

I also think it's quite silly trying to compare the "hypothetical" questions of mars and support for the removal of women's rights by majority vote, even if you don't personally agree with it.

Actually I think the original "hypothetical" question is pretty silly on it's own when put like that, don't you?

OP would you support for the removal of women's rights by majority vote, even if you didn't personally agree with it?

You never answered my earlier question about what you mean by "impose your will" either. I'd still be interested to know what did you mean by that?

OK, you make some fair points.

I suppose I was talking about the situation whereby women understand what self ID means. I watch a lot of debates while I'm waiting about onsite and I think it's not just a case of either not understanding the situation or instead recognising that self ID means Karen Whites or Barbie Kardashians in our changing rooms.

The women I've seen arguing in favour often express the belief that 'genuine' trans people shouldn't suffer because of the bad men who would jump on the bandwagon to abuse loopholes. They think that the GC lobby pick the worst examples as a tactic to undermine self ID. I still don't think there is any justification for men in women's spaces but I do think some women genuinely support it. I'm not going to say that they 'just don't understand it'.

That's like when feminists claim that other women are feminists but just don't realise it, because anybody that supports women's rights is a feminist. In reality, it seems that most women who call themselves 'egalitarian' and reject the feminist label don't do it because they reject the written ideals of feminism. They do it because they reject the real world behavior/attitudes of women that call themselves feminists.

I did answer your question about imposing my will.

OP posts:
CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 00:24

AimsAndObjectives · Today 00:14

@MaIeficent You have to understand that this is a public forum, not a private whatsapp group. We are not going to let any statement referencing data, especially without links, go unquestioned. Likewise for links that don't actually show what is being claimed. Likewise for incorrect descriptions of data.

I really appreciate the posters here who bookmark links to things like that, I always forget to save them when they get posted.

I like to see the evidence, the stats, the facts. I think most of the regulars here do.

I don't have any stats to back that assertion up though! 😆

AimsAndObjectives · Today 00:14

@MaIeficent You have to understand that this is a public forum, not a private whatsapp group. We are not going to let any statement referencing data, especially without links, go unquestioned. Likewise for links that don't actually show what is being claimed. Likewise for incorrect descriptions of data.

Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 00:11

RedToothBrush · Today 00:05

Way too many disingenuous posters on here who claim to post in good faith but clearly are not, to give this an inch of taking at face value. It's worthwhile always questioning motives.

Show quote history

Nobody is forcing you to engage.

OP posts:
Original poster
MaIeficent · Today 00:08

AimsAndObjectives · Yesterday 23:55

I'm not being disingenuous or playing with semantics. I'm trying to show you that the words you choose to describe data are important if you want to correctly convey meaning.

Show quote history

How didn't I convey the meaning of my hypothetical question? I specifically stated that it wasn't necessarily based in reality (because honestly I don't know what the real consensus is and can't be arsed to spend my weekend picking through data).

You seem to have chosen to ignore the focus of the thread and instead derail it by focusing on an element I've repeatedly said isn't really what I'm asking about. It's a public forum and that's your choice but it's kinda disingenuous.

Once again, I'd seen reference to European women being more in favour of self ID and it made me question what my stance would be in pushing my own ideals if they were against what most women wanted. I don't care what the actual consensus is, what the studies say, and whether they are accurate. That's not what I was asking and why I mentioned them.

OP posts:
NoWordForFluffy · Today 00:08

AimsAndObjectives · Today 00:05

@MaIeficent I honestly think this is why so many people see the GC lobby as aggressive nutters,

Do you have stats for that?

Bold claim, isn't it? (Especially taking into account the actual aggression and violence from the TRAs.)

RedToothBrush · Today 00:05

MaIeficent · Yesterday 23:17

Fuck off yourself. 🤣

Most people who are comfortable in their views are happy to discuss them. When people take a 'no debate' approach it's not usually a good sign.

There's genuinely no ulterior motive. I'm firmly against men in women's places no matter how they identify but it's not something that keeps me up at night and I'm interested in other people's views.

I did suspect it would quickly descend into a defensive pile on or that people would use it as an opportunity to shoehorn in all the usual arguments which is why I tried to keep it focused on the hypothetical question I was interested in rather than getting into a war of references.

I only mentioned the studies because I've read a lot about how European women are more in favour than we are, which is what made me reflect on what my stance would be if I was in the minority. But ultimately it doesn't really make any difference to the question whether or not my views are the majority.

Show quote history

Way too many disingenuous posters on here who claim to post in good faith but clearly are not, to give this an inch of taking at face value. It's worthwhile always questioning motives.

AimsAndObjectives · Today 00:05

@MaIeficent I honestly think this is why so many people see the GC lobby as aggressive nutters,

Do you have stats for that?

NoWordForFluffy · Today 00:01

Clavinova · Yesterday 22:50

Plus, the Brexit referendum would've had its result voided if it had been binding, due to illegality.

Unlikely - this legal action failed;

Wilson and others v R (on the application of ) v the Prime Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 304

This Court rejected any notion that any breaches of the rules affected the outcome of the referendum result...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/09/judicial-review-is-not-politics-by-another-means/

Show quote history

Brexit still wouldn't have happened if it was binding though, as the threshold would've been set higher than 52:48. So either way, it wouldn't have gone ahead. It probably would've met a turnout threshold though.

CohensDiamondTeeth · Today 00:01

It's all very well asking these hypothetical questions, but even hypothetical questions still need defined parameters in order to be answered properly.

Would you move to Mars?

What would you do if you won the lottery?

Would you support "self-id" if the majority of women voted for it?

The Mars question has lots of parameters I'd want defined before I could give a hypothetical answer. Mars right now as is? Fuck no, I like things like atmosphere, water, food etc. Anyway I'd be dead before I got there. Etc.

The lottery question is easier and I'd only ask for one defining parameter before answering. How much did I win? Because I'd do something entirely different depending on if I won £10, £100, £1,000, or £1,000,000.

The self-id question needs parameters too. What is self-id, does the question mean a meaningless social nicety, or do they just assume it means in terms of everyone should have the same rights to not be harassed or unfairly discriminated against, or does it have the real world effects we've seen such as men in female rape crisis centres, prisons, etc. Do the hypothetical women voting for self-id know it really means men in female single sex spaces, or do they just think it's a question of human rights and general social niceties?

Even if all those parameters were defined, my answer to would I support self-id if the majority of women voted for it would be no.

You might feel swayed by peer pressure, I am not.

That doesn't mean I don't question my own stance on things, because I do. I've yet to see anything that makes me think that I might be wrong.

It does mean that I'm not going to follow blindly where others lead, and especially not if I think they are wrong/leading me down a dangerous path.

I also think it's quite silly trying to compare the "hypothetical" questions of mars and support for the removal of women's rights by majority vote, even if you don't personally agree with it.

Actually I think the original "hypothetical" question is pretty silly on it's own when put like that, don't you?

OP would you support for the removal of women's rights by majority vote, even if you didn't personally agree with it?

You never answered my earlier question about what you mean by "impose your will" either. I'd still be interested to know what did you mean by that?

Original poster
MaIeficent · Yesterday 23:59

AimsAndObjectives · Yesterday 23:48

If you didn't want a discussion about data you shouldn't have stated this, especially without a link:

Apparently YouGov polling shows that the majority of young women in the UK 'overwhelmingly support self ID'.

Yes, I should've known better than to think posters on here might pass up any opportunity to have an argument about stats. I honestly think this is why so many people see the GC lobby as aggressive nutters, because even agreeing with them isn't enough unless you're prepared to shoehorn the same old stuff into any thread at any opportunity.

God forbid we actually have a philosophical discussion about how the wider opinions of women would or wouldn't affect our stance when we could be getting defensive about it instead. I genuinely oppose self ID but the thought that some women might disagree with me doesn't keep me up at night.

OP posts:
AimsAndObjectives · Yesterday 23:55

MaIeficent · Yesterday 23:49

OK, I was wrong to suggest you were being disingenuous. You're just playing with semantics.

If a political party won 40% of votes and another two won 30% each, I wouldn't say the winning party had the majority because obv 60% of voters didn't vote for them. However, if more women than men support something I'll happily say it's mainly women supporting it because the majority of supporters are female.

But ultimately what I meant was that it's more popular with women than men.

Show quote history

I'm not being disingenuous or playing with semantics. I'm trying to show you that the words you choose to describe data are important if you want to correctly convey meaning.

Baileyonice · Yesterday 23:54

MaIeficent · Yesterday 23:42

But the studies referenced are kinda irrelevant. I mentioned them in passing for the reason that they made me consider "what would be my feelings if I was actually in the minority?" Because if you thought you were fighting for women but then realised that most actually disagreed with you it would give you pause for thought.

What I was interested in knowing was whether anybody else ever thinks this and what their thoughts on it were. I didn't really want to have an endless discussion about data because it's not what I was asking and honestly because I'm not particularly interested in it.

Show quote history

Don't you get it? Do you even know where you are? Cultists can't even entertain the thought of people disagreeing with them so its impossible to float hypotheticals & get rational responses. It short circuits their brains to try & imagine a world where their dogmas might be rejected so they immediately resort to sea lioning as a defence mechanism to wear you down.

But good job maintaining posture & not getting sucked in to the black hole of irrelevancies!

Helleofabore · Yesterday 23:53

MaIeficent · Yesterday 23:42

But the studies referenced are kinda irrelevant. I mentioned them in passing for the reason that they made me consider "what would be my feelings if I was actually in the minority?" Because if you thought you were fighting for women but then realised that most actually disagreed with you it would give you pause for thought.

What I was interested in knowing was whether anybody else ever thinks this and what their thoughts on it were. I didn't really want to have an endless discussion about data because it's not what I was asking and honestly because I'm not particularly interested in it.

Show quote history

If you have misread studies or not understood how poor quality they are and then used them to base your reason for questioning your own judgement, doesn’t that give you pause.

It is always great to evaluate your position. However, to evaluate your position because you believed poor quality studies showed something that is, in reality, not reliable in any way, yet you were influenced by that research in any way is a whole other discussion. Even if your reaction was to feel that your position was not reflective of the majority of the population, that seems likely to have influenced how you view your position.

You went from making hypothetical questions to then interpreting what you considered popular opinion and having to evaluate if you agreed or not.

Do you do that generally or has this topic taken a separate rout for you. It seems that the question should be better defined .

Original poster
MaIeficent · Yesterday 23:49

AimsAndObjectives · Yesterday 23:24

That's a swerve, because you have been shown to be wrong.
Let's pretend that there are just 6 sparrows and 5 blackbirds and no other birds in the garden. When you look in the garden, you would be incorrect to say that it's mainly sparrows in the garden.

Show quote history

OK, I was wrong to suggest you were being disingenuous. You're just playing with semantics.

If a political party won 40% of votes and another two won 30% each, I wouldn't say the winning party had the majority because obv 60% of voters didn't vote for them. However, if more women than men support something I'll happily say it's mainly women supporting it because the majority of supporters are female.

But ultimately what I meant was that it's more popular with women than men.

OP posts: