Why are the public still not engaged with the gender debate?

[MillyTheKid]

Why do you think people beyond the TRA and feminist bubble are not talking about gender issues? It's regularly been in the papers, on television and is always on social media and yet it seems that the average person in the street is still not engaged with the topic.

prunemerealgood sums it up perfectly.

Why do you think people beyond the TRA and feminist bubble are not talking about gender issues? It's regularly been in the papers, on television and is always on social media and yet it seems that the average person in the street is still not engaged with the topic.

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one, the majority of people can easily understand this, by not being affected by trans rights in any way themselves.

because they don't live in an anti trans echo chamber.

because they know or are related to someone who has come out trans and can see the actual reality of what an oppressed minority has to deal with.

because they have empathy and can understand complex ideas, and listen to what trans people are saying and going through, instead of handing out unqualified diagnosis' like the 'gender-critical' types tend to do.

because they understand how toxic it is to have your gender, appearance and identity policed and shamed by people who have no right to do it.

because maybe the majority of people are decent enough to understand that when a minority says 'please don't say this, it is offensive' they are happy to do this..... and include trans people as one of those minorities, instead of knocking up 'spartacus' threads, or 40 pages complaining about the owners of a forum.

because people see you.

*sorry its currently at 54 pages complaining about the owners of a forum. 2 threads now!

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

I hear this 'harming no one' quite a lot and I wonder if it is true. Does the inclusion of trans women in AWS harm no one? Does the election of trans women as women's officers in various organisations harm no one? I think it is possible to argue that this kind of 'progress' harms women who have grown up with female biology and socialisation and need to be represented politically by - or to be political representatives for - women who have experienced the same kinds of material disadvantages.

If people aren't engaging with the gender debate, I suspect it's because they aren't examining whether there is any harm here.

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

Tell that to Bridget Lalonde whose chances of a college scholarship are affected by boys identifying as female running in the girls races.

Tell that to the high school that Lila Perry in Missouri attend. The school organised a third space for Lila to get changed in for PE but Lila won't accept anything other than the girls locker room. The other girls are not transphobic to want the girls locker room to be penis free.

I know that these examples are in the US but US trends tend to eventually reach the UK.

Because they have no idea how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.

They are unaware of trans ideology...they think they know about the subject but actually have no idea what is being peddled. They don't realise how rapidly it is being taken on by the younger generation or how the numbers claiming to be trans are dramatically increasing.

It's regularly been in the papers, on television and is always on social media and yet it seems that the average person in the street is still not engaged with the topic.

The slant on what’s previously been in the papers is heavily biased. It’s tended to be biased towards suicide stats (debunked) and the idea that transwomen are facing very high levels of violence in the UK. The latter statistic was explored on a previous thread and it turned out that 8 transwomen had been killed over the last decade. Of those, two could be classed as being killed simply for being transwomen.

Two women a week in the UK are killed by partners in DV incidents - ie killed for being female. Statistically then, transwomen are less likely to be killed than women.

So that’s those two slants debunked.

The media coverage has tended to be of the fawning ‘look at this nice teenager, validate them or they will kill themselves’ type. It is only in the last few weeks and months that a more critical and balanced stance has started. Man Friday for example was reported pretty well in the DM without the usual language of ‘feminists’ and referring instead to ‘women.’ That’s a definite change of tack.

I think the reporting will change. Right now people see it as either;

Twatty metropolitan elite stuff that has zero relevance to the real world
Irrelevant to them
Part of the entirely legit LGB struggle and thus something to not oppose
That transgender people are all of the gender dysphoric/postop type.

I think the tide is turning as more people realise that self ID will have numerous negative effects on women and children’s safety.

The latter statistic was explored on a previous thread and it turned out that 8 transwomen had been killed over the last decade. Of those, two could be classed as being killed simply for being transwomen.

Two women a week in the UK are killed by partners in DV incidents - ie killed for being female.

Just as an aside, what makes you say all domestic violence victims are "killed for being female"?

But there can be no other context in the killing of a trans woman in order for her to have been killed for being trans?

I didn't see the other thread; if you could link it I'll happily head off over there with my questions.

"because maybe the majority of people are decent enough to understand that when a minority says 'please don't say this, it is offensive' they are happy to do this..... and include trans people as one of those minorities, instead of knocking up 'spartacus' threads, or 40 pages complaining about the owners of a forum."

This. Those threads were and are a gender critical own goal.

As others have said many people assume transwoman means no penis. There are even some people who think men can actually physically change into women, get pregnant etc. They then equate trans people with gay rights movement, most oppressed people etc.
It’s based on a lot of mistruths and misunderstandings
I think that’s why when people come on here they start peak transing!!

Because the "battle lines" eg access to womens spaces, womens bathrooms, the trans sex offender in womens bathroom bogeyman etc aren't really compelling enough to grab the publics attention, or make it a real issue.

Activists should make more effort on publicising transwomen competing and winning in womens sports, convicted male prisoners transitioning into womens prisons etc

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

IME IRL people think it's so obvious dangerous, unfair or out there they think it's not really happening/going to happen so can be ignored for now.

Most people are reasonable and courteous they expect that from others. I think there is a slow erosion of tolerance happening with the current activities and I think reporting is starting to reflect that.

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

Self ID will. Just one example.

• it will allow transwomen to self identify into female prisons. Right now this is done case by case and it’s still causing issues. There was a case the other week where a transwoman prisoner with intact male biology had been sleeping with female inmates. So already there’s insufficient segregation.

If self ID comes in, there will be no mechanism to do case by case. To be very clear, the female prison population is small and there is NOT enough space or resource to have all these identified in prisoners kept in separate wings. They will be in with the general female populace.

Prisoners serving time is their punishment. Most of these women are extremely vulnerable to begin with - how can making them shower and share space with a male bodied person be justified? It cannot.

Do you feel this is ‘no harm to anyone’ - if so, I’d like to ask why,

Those threads were and are a gender critical own goal.

I doubt it, they were what opened my eyes to women's sex based protections being erased and led me to feminist chat. I'm sure there are many like me.

Gibberty, I think those threads are great actually, tons of women explaining why they reject the colonisation of the female sex being promoted as a cure for a number of disorders listed in the DSM.

The hilariously implausible contortions of biology, language and law won't stick, it's too full of holes and contradictory for even the most ardent of cult victims to explain.

You seem terribly disappointed. 😥

because the progress of trans rights is literally harming no-one

Do you really think that people are questioning this because they are mean, nasty bigots?

People are defending women's rights, they are not just being anti-trans.

If it were all about progressing trans rights rather than assuming women's rights then no one would have an issue and would be absolutely cheering on the cause.

Self ID will. Just one example.

• it will allow transwomen to self identify into female prisons. Right now this is done case by case and it’s still causing issues. There was a case the other week where a transwoman prisoner with intact male biology had been sleeping with female inmates. So already there’s insufficient segregation.

If self ID comes in, there will be no mechanism to do case by case. To be very clear, the female prison population is small and there is NOT enough space or resource to have all these identified in prisoners kept in separate wings. They will be in with the general female populace.

Again this is the equality act, not self-id gra, and there is in fact an independent prison authority that does this on a case-by-case basis, and that will not be changed.

Regardless, this may be of interest to people in prison, I think it is a huge leap to suggest 99% of the population not in prison.... use prison conditions as a barometer of what minorities to afford human rights to.

Also the public at large is far more aware of the individuality of trans people, that certain outlets who seek to paint everybody within the minority as the same as the lowest example is transparent.

rat it’s a good point. I’d class DV killings as femicide. Just as I’d class the killings in ciudad Juarez as femicide and the killing of First People’s women in BC as femicide. They are killed because they are women. DV to me falls into this category. It’s born of a male- female dynamic where a male is violent towards their partner because they are physically weaker. These men are not killing their bosses or male authority figures. DV when it’s Male on female and results in death is femicide.

I will have a look for the link but it’s going to take some googling - the figure of eight was posted. Of course EVERY one of those deaths is inexcusable. And it makes me uncomfortable to even start comparing the ‘worthiness’ of a death. A violent death is always abhorrent. Of those, the poster said a couple were killed during work as sex workers and a couple during non - DV type altercations. Two were killed and the only motive ascribed was pure hatred of who they were as transwomen.
But let’s say all right were killed as a hate crime. Women still experience higher levels of murder. But this is denied and used as leverage

It’s horrible I should even be having to point this out. I am absolutely NOT saying that one life is worth more than another. But it's in response to the claim I hear that transwomen are being killed daily and face constant violence. The stats don’t seem to bear that out in the UK.

It’s a pattern of using it as leverage that’s the issue. It casts one group as ‘worthier victims’ than the other and tries to shut down debate. It’s the same tactic as saying that the alternative to puberty blockers is suicide. It’s manipulative.

I think it's because, barring women's sports, there are only a small number of circumstances in which it will matter in practical terms and the women it will affect are vulnerable, marginalised women. It will affect rape victims who need female only spaces for support, domestic violence victims who need female only spaces for support, women's prisons and closed mental health wards. So it's all too easy to take an "I'm alright Jacky" attitude to the debate (especially since most people believe that the average transwoman is an individual with dysphoria who has had or is waiting for surgery - Stonewall's extension of the trans umbrella to cover cross dressers just isn't on most people's radar).

David Aaronowitch in today's Times comments with regards the limiting of discussion about the implications of the GRA:
(extracts)

"But wouldn’t you also say that if ever there was a case for an “open debate” this was it? You can’t just make a change like this without arguing it through and hearing the other side.... continues

"An organisation pledged to argue against the changes, Women’s Place UK, and some of its leading lights, have been subject to what might be called private persecution. Its meetings are abusively picketed, organisations that let venues for its events are targeted, its speakers are “no platformed” at universities, and its leading lights are abused and threatened.

I don’t even know what my own view is of the GRA, but what I can see is that one side is trying to stop the other from expressing its opinion. It is doing this in the first place by characterising any expression of belief that biological sex is important, as being — and I am not joking — akin to fascist violence....." continues

thread with share token access to the full article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3277408-David-Aaronovitch-comment-in-Times

Thanks R0wantrees.

I'd say the fact that a large % of the country is religious in some way, even if not a regular churchgoer contributes. I assume it would be more likely they believe in the concept of a soul, which could - in theory - be born in the wrong body.

I find a lot of people believe literally in "born in the wrong body" or the idea of a lady-brain. Because as with the suicide stats, they are shared as facts.

I think one factor is that the issues are really nuanced and I haven't seen a sufficiently nuanced explanation of the GC position in the mainstream media. Even where brilliant women have been on the today programme or Jeremy Vine or Any answers or whatever, the time allowed is simply not enough to adequately convey the GC position. I have understood what they are trying to say but only because I spend a lot of time lurking on here. I think if I wasnt already familiar wth the issues I'd be petty confused to be honest.

I guess some people may believe God made a mistake. Most, I would think, would not believe it wasn't God who was wrong.

The Guardian have posted an article about mumsnet's new rules today.

The comments on Facebook under the article generally suggest that people just don't get it, and the fact that it's being discussed primarily on mumsnet seems to be a massive issue for a lot of people who dismiss mumsnet as a load of bored middle class mummies, who therefore have nothing of value to say on the matter.

This issue is important, but I'm not sure that it is happening primarily on the mumsnet platform is actually helping. Which is very disappointing for all sorts of reasons, but also demonstrates why it is so important that women feel they have safeish spaces in general to discuss feminist issues.