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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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’.

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.

Some women have degrees and are middle class. Some men are working class and do lower paid work.

To even it out, we are to allow men into womens and girls spaces?

If the majority of people thought fox hunting was fine it would have absolutely no impact on my opinion that it really isn't. Same goes for self ID.

I would hope that I’d get involved in some kind of education push to emphasize safe places for women and girls, because that is what it’s all about.
Without safety we are all confined to the home again.
I also have a thought abput why it is mostly young women who support self ID and allowing trans women into female spaces. Put simply, they are far less likely to have children yet. Once they do, their perspectives are very likely to change.

What is also quite important to remember is how many of the posters here and some now gone were supporting single sex provisions while constantly being told they WERE the MINORITY. That they were the outliers and there were no stats to show otherwise.

So, having lived through the very scenario that OP has ‘hypothesised’, I think most of us can very confidently answer the question and indeed many of us have already answered it on this thread.

I can't let this comment go.

The thread is about men self identifying as women and using women only spaces, and you compare criticism of the idea to racism?

What advdntage do women and girls gain from having spaces away from men? What do men lose by having spaces away from women and girls?

It was obvious to everyone 10 minutes ago why we have separate toilets and changing rooms, but suddenly you are perplexed and compare them to racism?

Why did you rush to that conclusion? Do you really think that when a women or girl does not want to use the toilet or change near a man, she is the equivalent of being a racist?

Do you really this safeguarding should be eliminated just like racism?

If not why use the comparison?

I'm writing from a Nordic country. Officially we are all in for self-id and have been for years. The truth: no one knew what was actually proposed. It was portrayed as an extension of gay rights and nothing more. Everybody that dared to ask questions about women's rights, including leftist feminists, were accused of bigotry, hatred and being far right.

It was not disclosed that we would have to consider a grown man as a woman if he feels so. It was not discussed at all how this will affect on women. Assessment of the gender impact of legislation was practically just skipped. It turns out that most people don't understand gender lingo at all. I hardly ever meet a person who know that trans man is actually biologically female person.
The truth is this legislation was rushed through as fast as possible and without a thought fot women and girls. All major women’s organizations are TRA. The new one’s that are not are “far right”: leftists talking about the rights of women and girls. It’s weird that immigrant women can have sex segregated services (which is good), but others cannot.

Sorry for typos and bad English.

There's a near-perfect analogy for this.

UK women over 30 gained the right to vote (with some property conditions attached) at the same time as the 40% of men over 20 who didn't own property.

You seem to be suggesting the suffragists were morally wrong to focus on votes for women, when there were so many men also lacking a voice.

Just to avoid obfuscations, the suffragists agitated for women's votes. Men had their own advocates. The women who got a vote in 1918 were, in fact, the better educated, more middle class (and older) women you seem to be saying were poor or dishonest leaders for change.

Really interesting post @KnittingCatLady . Thanks.
Do you see any indication that things might improve in the future? Are the issues being discussed by women, even if only cautiously and below the radar.

There is a strong indication that majority of people don't buy self-id. An example: Major newspaper had a piece about UK's "inhumane" legislation couple of days ago. Most liked comment (openly available with the name of the person, translated by google):

“The article portrays a complex societal conflict as a simple battle between good and evil.It leaves the reader with the impression that the issue is merely about curtailing the rights of trans people and "transphobia," whereas the unanimous ruling by the UK Supreme Court arose from the need to reconcile two genuinely valid interests: the human dignity and non-discrimination of trans people, and the maintenance of women-only spaces, safety, and clarity in equality legislation based on biological sex.

The article interviews only those who support a single perspective. The reader hears nothing of the arguments put forward by the lawyers, women's rights organizations, or legal scholars whose views underpin the Supreme Court's ruling. Instead, they are dismissed as "transphobic" or representatives of "liberal transphobia." This does nothing to help understand the true nature of the dispute.

Good journalism would help the reader understand how a democratic state governed by the rule of law can arrive at such a decision without it being attributed to hatred or discriminatory motives.

When dealing with difficult questions of values, it is essential to honestly present the strongest arguments for the opposing view as well. Otherwise, journalism easily shifts from explaining a social phenomenon to mere moral posturing and activism.”

Women and lgb are opposing self-id in small ngo:s. They have not been openly challenged for ages. However, they are also very small and have no funding as far as I know.