To find media discussion about trans issues far overstated compared to the actual seriousness of the issue?

[BarmyBrunhilde]

Full disclosure, I happily accept most trans people I've met as their transitioned gender which I know puts me at odds with most people on MN. But as a feminist and a lefty, even if one views trans women as men which I don't, in terms of political priorities it ranks so list on my list of concerns. I assume that applies to most people too (trans people included!).

What someone has listed on their birth certificate has no impact on my life, and surely minimal impact on most women's lives? Imo we should be focusing on cost of living crisis, housing, properly funding women's services including rape crisis services, funding childcare, sorting out the health service and bloody schools! Gender recognition comes way below those for me (even though I'm broadly supportive with some checks in place).

I know gender criticals won't agree with me, and maybe some trans people who feel very strongly, but I do feel there's a silent majority of us who just aren't that fussed?

I live in an area where we plan public services based on data that indicates need, trends in health, trends in population growth and demographic splits etc. Like most areas I would imagine.

If we no longer have sex recorded accurately on legal paperwork ie if death certificates do not reflect biological sex, then how will we spot trends or issues that need investigation/research/funding/prevention.

We will not be able to say "men are dying at higher rates than women from falls" or "women are more likely than men to die or sustain life limiting injuries when in an RTC, even the same collision" When something drastically unusual happens, like covid, it becomes of vital importance to spot patterns and trends to help our understanding.

It is absolute madness to suggest that we do not accurately record material facts.

There is case law trans people can use spaces of their transitioned gender in many circumstances, so not quite sure what you mean here?

This Kirklees pub case was not a precedent setting case. The discrimination claim was uncontested and it didn't go up to a higher court. Maya Forstater has written an article about this case:

https://a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/

The problem with the Brook case for advocates of “trans inclusive single sex spaces”, is that it disagrees with the judgment in Green v Secretary of State for Justicece 2013 (which went to the High Court and thus did create a precedent).^
The Green case involved a transwoman prisoner (convicted as Craig Hudson for his part in the torture and murder of his wifefe and of perverting the course of justice). It wasn’t about single sex services as Green was held in a men’s prison but the question of whether Green, who had a male appearance and genitalia was discriminated against by being denied tights, a wig, prosthetic breasts and vaginas (the prison governor argued that these items are a security risk), as well as difficulty in obtaining other items such as concealer make-up, sanitary towels, hair removal products and outsize women’s shoes and clothing.^
The judgment is relevant because it considered whether in a “gender reassignment” discrimination case the appropriate comparator was a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. Comparatorsrs_ are frequently used in discrimination cases as a means to test whether a person was treated less favourably than a similar person without the same protected characteristic. Judge Richardson found in the case of Green that the appropriate comparator was a man who was not transitioning/transitioned:^

“He is in a male prison and until there is a Gender Recognition Certificate, he remains male. A woman prisoner cannot conceivably be the comparator as the woman prisoner has (either by birth or election) achieved what the claimant wishes. Male to female transsexuals are not automatically entitled to the same treatment as women – until they become women.”
So in the actual case law which went to the court of appeal a GRC was relevant to the treatment of an MTF prisoner.

There are hundreds of posts like this. Nothing we say will change your mind. You know that, we know that.

This is more recent

www.ft.com/content/dffcf7b0-2c64-4dde-ad96-b29e6858a711

In November’s Ipsos Mori poll of Scotland, these were the top five most important issues:

1. Healthcare/the NHS (41% mention this as an important issue)
2. Inflation/the rising cost of living (28% mention this as an important issue)
3. Education and schools (23%)
4. Scottish independence/devolution (23%).
5. The economy (21%)

The number of Scottish voters who put reform to gender recognition as the most important issue was statistically insignificant.

In which case OP isnt being goady at all.

Yes, it does require two sides of an argument. So here you are - why not actually present an argument rather than just chanting the usual mantras such as 'you don't believe that trans people exist!!', 'it doesn't affect me so I don't mind!!' etc etc.

The 'echo chamber' you talk of seems to consist of women giving reams of information and links to answer the OP's question and being met with...well, nothing.

So as I said, here you are. You're not being blocked or deleted or ignored. This isn't Twitter. We can't block replies or 'only mention' you. Here's your chance to change minds and influence people.

It is absolute madness to suggest that we do not accurately record material facts.

Exactly. I honestly cannot understand how we got to this place, it's like all the lessons of the Enlightenment fired out the window. 😵‍💫

You are welcome to say what you disagree with. If convincing people will respond to that.

Yep.

Transwomen occupy mass in time & space, they demonstrably exist

They’re not women though , they’re transwomen i.e men

Echo chamber with the copy and pasted insults, disingenuous comments,.faux naive questions and personal attacks until you cave and leave them to it.
Not a debate or discussion at all, well unless you agree of course.

Of course we are allowed our own point of view (clearly I'm expressing a very unpopular one on here). But seeing other mums (and parents in general) struggling with all sorts of very major economic and political issues day to day I find the monomania regarding trans issues in the media and social media worrying because I feel other issues get missed in terms of proportion

Despite the NHS being in utter crisis thrh were recently taken to court by trans lobbyists wanting to guarantee non medically necessary trans surgery is available on the NHS within 18 weeks

Despite having a major issue with domestic violence, raping and murdering women, failing to prosecute 99% of reported rapes, police forces all over the country are spending £hundreds of thousands in Stonewall training that instructs them to prioritise the feelings of sex offenders over the safety of women and children.

Despite the women’s prison estate Ben g dilapidated and desperately in need of renovation and expansion so fewer women have to share cells , allegedly £500k+ was spent on installing single occupancy en suite cells so that make born trans people can be accommodated in womens prisons.

Despite women being actually raped and sexually assaulted while in hospital directly due to the self id policies for trans and non binary people (they can all just choose their ward), there is huge resistance to changing the policy to make vulnerable women safer.

Despite all the knowledge we have of teenage behaviour, schools across the country are rushing to make their toilets mixed sex to cater for trans students.

And you accuse us of focusing on this too much.

I will accept the trandwomen but they are not men.

They do exist, well done for being so gracious

No it isn't.

The relevant section: "from sports to mixed sex toilets to retail changing rooms and being gaslit over the sex of a healthcare provider."

If you really can't understand the obvious implications of these and other situations, I don't think I'll be able to explain it any further to help you understand (although there are many, many threads on here that you could look up).

I presume you're against the concept of ALL separate toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons and healthcare based on the sex of the user (and, in the case of the last one, the provider)? Pointless in having different men's and women's spaces in the first place?

The madness of it is that it completely erases trans people too, if they are recorded as the opposite sex then there is no data to be used to help provide a case in issues that disproportionally affect trans people.

I’m with you OP. The number of men who decide that living as a woman, accepting the mockery, abuse and shunning from the majority of people around them is a good way to get access to women to rape them/assault them has to be minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Your daughter is far more likely to have this go on with the friendly, adored CIS father of one of their friends.

I had infertility and 2 IVFs. 90% of the doctors etc were male, and a lot of their work was in intimate areas. Heart attack, doctors accessing where they needed to without a word, at speed. I don’t think any of them got their jollies. Or the male nurse who looked after me in high dependency cardiac care.

sadly there are perverts, abusive men and rapists everywhere. They are merrily doing their thing very easily on the most part without having to ‘pretend’ to be a woman. I hate the accepted transphobia on MN. And the way if you dare post anything but bile about the issue you’re jumped on, ridiculed and bullied and MN does nothing.

And I don't believe that anyone who abandons most females

Who do you imagine is abandoning "most females"?

It's not women who don't want penises in toilets and changing rooms, because polls demonstrate that most women agree.

It's not women who don't want the GRA to be opened up to even more men than currently can apply for one, because polls demonstrate that most women agree.

It's not women who want the age for a GRC to be over 18 only, because polls demonstrate that most women agree.

It's not women who want males kept out of women's sports, because polls demonstrate that most women agree.

In fact, acceptance for "trans rights" is going down, not up, as people wake up to what exactly is being demanded.

Maybe they should change the labels on facilities from 'men' and 'women' to 'dick' and 'no dick'

If you truly want to be a woman cut it off. That removes the significant threat of a penis in womens single sex facilities. While it isn't all trans women are a threat same as not all men are a threat there are those who would seek to harm women who can now just walk in and nothing can be done to stop them.

A lot of places have unisex multi change with stalls which removes this issue but many older leisure centres still have single sex changing facilities without stalls and these should be a penis free zone

My friend is a nurse and said they had this come up recently at work. An individual with a mans name, a beard and looking entirely male said he identifies as a woman and wanted to be put on the womens ward. She said no but under the new rules she would have to say yes. In what universe is that right. Women have been fighting for their rights for so long and now we just have to bend over and let men do what they want with no consideration of how it makes women feel. A board is told they have to have a female board member for representation. In front of them they have jessica a 30 year old married woman and bob, a 30 year old trans woman. Lets hire bob - we can tick the diversity box, have a woman on the board and she isnt going to go on maternity leave - result.

What about the considerably large religious communities in the uk where women aren't allowed to be in a state of undress around men - their rights no longer matter.

Soon female sports teams will be full of Lia Thomas lookalikes because then they can win

I have two boys, i am relieved i don't have daughters.

Why would there be any mockery? You don’t need to do anything but declare it to be a trans woman (oh, and to be male).

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2a58f174-9902-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=51cc190e62095381b1443a5d3141eb0e

“I know gender criticals won't agree with me, and maybe some trans people who feel very strongly”

gender criticals

Do you often dehumanise people you disagree with OP?

Having watched posters in the past who dehumanise women who disagree with them by using dehumanising language like ‘the gender criticals’, ‘GCs’, ‘the gender crits’, then go on to dismiss violence against women of that poster considers the women one of the ‘gender criticals’, I wonder whether you realise the effect.

Once you dehumanise a person by using language in this way, they can then be dismissed as not being worth caring about.

If any person used ‘the transes’ or other terms that detach trans people from their humanness, MNHQ would very rightly delete that post.

It is the same effect of the language such as ‘anti-trans’.

The use of ‘anti-trans’ over recent months has become very prevalent. It is such a significant phrase. On one hand it carries authority, even though it application is false. On the other hand it shows the self-centredness of that movement.

Which is fine. Movements are supposed to be centred on that particular position. Except that in this case, it ignores that there is, in fact, a conflict with another groups rights. While ‘pro-women’ actually conveys the message about prioritising women and girls, it doesn’t frame it as one group ‘hating’ another. As ‘anti’ does.

The term is as polarising as it is hyperbolic. It is as emotive as you can get. It shows that no compromise is acceptable or tolerated by the people using the term. It reflects the intolerance that is driving trans rights activists.

It nicely encapsulates the trans activist movement for what it is. I don’t think they thought it through though.

It will certainly convince some people, but only those who are only superficially aware. As they get more aware, they will see the term for what it is.

A cue to the totalitarian aspect of the movement that will accept no compromise yet expects the people, women and girls, to simply accept that conflicts in rights and to give the group all they demand.

I guess whoever uses the term must then also accept that if they wish to frame the issues and the people discussing the issues as 'anti-trans', it is then appropriate to frame extreme trans activists and their demands as 'anti-women'.

Quite.

What I have a big problem with is denial of scientific fact. It's a slippery slope and what my history tutor would have called "the thin end of the wedge". I really worry about a future where obvious facts are ignored and the opposite of fact is held to be the truth. It should be concerning to everyone.

That is because it is MN. In real life, most people would agree as suggested by this article

He's downplaying it for his audience. In reality, that report showed a different picture:

When it comes to practical issues most people recognise that sex matters:

•	57% think that men who identify as women should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. This has increased by nine percentage points since 2018. 
•	The proportion of people who think “trans women” should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms and toilets falls sharply when they learn that identifying as a woman does not necessarily entail “gender reassignment surgery”. 
•	Only one in four think that males who retain male genitals should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms, and less than one in three think they should be allowed to use women’s toilets. 
•	The majority of Britons do not believe that children under the age of 18 who feel distressed about their sexed body should be given hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgery.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/response-to-more-in-common/

Overwhelmingly 98%+ of all sexual assaults are carried out by males. Biological females are vanishingly unlikely to be perves. There just no comparison.

The census showed us that transwomen are five times more likely to be convicted of sex offences. That doesn't give you issue for thought?!