Sunday Times GRA Survey

[FloraFox]

I may be being dim in this but I can’t find the results of the survey the Times has been running this week. Last I saw the vote was 98% against the question of whether anyone who self-identifies as a woman should have access to women’s spaces. It said the results would be published in this week’s Sunday Times but I can’t find it. Has anyone else found it?

Also, they are clearly generating a lot of interest, every GC article gets a lot of reader comments. I think they are very aware they are one of the only media outlets that is GC so they want to keep their coverage going I’m sure. If 10k responded, people are very engaged in this topic.

Thanks avery I see its attached to the original article from 7 October so not coming up as a new piece.

Bam in that case we’ll need to disagree on the value of readership polls.

I’d like the Guardian and Independent to run the same question. Would be interesting.

Anyone who thinks the majority of us oop north think humans can change sex, whether they read The Times or not, needs to get out more.

98% sounds pretty accurate to me. I'm a bit worried about the other 2% though.

LOL, I love TRA logic. 27 people surveyed? Totally applicable to the rest of the population, if the correct result was obtained. 10,000 people surveyed? Sample size too small, clearly irrelevant, and also biased because the nation's most prominent broadsheet clearly does not in any way reflect British opinion.

The room they're standing in could be on fire and they'd be standing there going "this is fine, I'm perfectly comfortable".

I agree with the Times readers but the poll is unscientific regardless of the number of respondents and the overwhelming margin. Self-selecting polls shouldn't really appear on serious news sites, if at all. I wonder if the City of London Corporation also used a similar methodology? In 1936 the Literary Digest in the US sent out ten million ballots, not just to their own subscribers but readers of other publications and lists drawn from phone directories. More than two million people responded. The magazine thought it would confidently announce that the Republican candidate would easily win the election. Not so - ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9805

Personally I strongly suspect most Times readers are GC but an online survey like this isn't very useful. Just a bit of fun.

98% sounds pretty accurate to me. I'm a bit worried about the other 2% though.

A couple of our own dear ladies did admit to hitting the wrong button by mistake...so that could explain the 2%....

It's 3% so about 300 people.

R U OK, those 300 people?

My opening line when out with my FPFW leaflets yesterday was 'did you know the government thinks we can change sex?'

worked pretty well - I had a lad who'd overheard come up to me and chat for quite a long time about it

Personally I strongly suspect most Times readers are GC but an online survey like this isn't very useful. Just a bit of fun.

It's extremely useful when TRAs are insisting that everyone agrees with them except for a small group consisting of a few hundred bigoted dinosaur terfs.

Look at the reaction to the Metro ad - it must be bankrolled by the American right, gender critical women can't possibly have paid for it themselves, there aren't enough of them.

This thread really worries me.

I'm not a TRA. I fully, fully support the rights of women in this. I did the consultation, I have distributed Fair Play for Women leaflets.

Some of us disagree on polling methods. That shouldn't be a cause for rudeness or over reaction.

I want all women to engage with this issue. That's not going to happen if we fight among ourselves, or shut down anyone with a slightly different view.

The thing is most people are in support of trans rights, but they are not in support of self ID, there is a big difference.

The TRAs who think it's a small group are not understanding the difference.

Thing is, the Times survey is just telling us what the YouGov survey Pink News commissioned told us, just a bit more vehemently (probably because the issue has been in the news more so more people are aware of the problems).

Of course most people think Self ID is a bad idea. It's barmy, and would inevitably be taken advantage of by predators. So going all "oh but this survey wasn't scientific" is silly - it wasn't meant to be, it's just The Times wanting to test the waters a bit.

The idea that The Times is somehow deeply unrepresentative of the British public remains odd. No one paper is going to represent everyone, that's why there are lots of them, but if you were to try to find the closest match to public opinion then it's likely them and the Daily Mail (as unenthused as I am about the latter).

Bam you’re the one who jumped on this for not being scientific when no one suggested it was or that it should count for anything in particular. The TRAs are always saying everyone agrees with them that TWAW. This poll is interesting because it is a straightforward question asked by a national broadsheet with a sizeable response. No one here has suggested that means 98% of the entire population agrees with the poll. I’m just surprised they didn’t run an opinion piece referring to it. The extension of the consultation seems like an even more important reason to run a story on it and if you think newspapers hold back because they don’t want to influence government policy, you have a very different view of the UK press than me.

If you don’t want us to fight among “ourselves” perhaps don’t pick fights on threads with fairly straightforward questions.

'The TRAs who think it's a small group are not understanding the difference.

Yes, spot on I think.
They are constantly repeating to each other that terfs hate them and don't want them to exist. Most of us really want to defend women's rights and are concerned about the sterilisation of children.

Existing in itself is not the same thing as showering next to my teenaged niece at the swimming pool, or forcing me to accept you giving me a cervical smear test when I asked for a woman HCP.

BamBoooooo

It’s ok to disagree on minor points you know, we don’t all have to agree 100%. As for rudeness, we are all adults and I’m sure can handle a bit of direct conversation, not a fan of tone policing.

You raised a point and it was challenged. As the OP said, nobody said it was a scientific, accurate national poll, it’s a specific reader survey. It should be judged on that basis. Sorry but you raised a point that was never being made here, that’s all.

The problem with taking polls like this too seriously is this: it justifies say the Guardian polling their readers, and if they come up with a pro-GRA reform view, then the Guardian and its readers taking that seriously.

I don't see what's wrong with making that point. I think we need to continue to "go high" with regard to facts and statistics. The fact that TRA statistics are so ludicrous, and can be contrasted with rationality on our side, is a big contributor to convincing rational, open minded people.

Existing in itself is not the same thing as showering next to my teenaged niece at the swimming pool, or forcing me to accept you giving me a cervical smear test when I asked for a woman HCP.

This this this.

What counts as taking the poll “too seriously”? Thinking it might have been given a discussion piece in the paper that ran the poll? Thinking it provides some evidence that the polls presented by TRAs don’t reflect the views of the nation?

The problem with taking polls like this too seriously is this: it justifies say the Guardian polling their readers, and if they come up with a pro-GRA reform view, then the Guardian and its readers taking that seriously.

You see, I don’t think that’s true. I think the Guardian are shit scared of doing a readers’ poll on the subject because it would match the Times’ one. Whenever there are comments allowed on trans articles they are overwhelmingly GC/pro women when you look at which comments get the most recommends. Examples are

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/07/womens-equality-party-politics-sophie-walker

And

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/dolls-dresses-no-proof-not-girl-pink-v-blue#comments

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/anti-trans-rhetoric-homophobia-trans-rights

But have a look at their “Transgender” tag:

www.theguardian.com/society/transgender

It’s telling for two reasons when you see all the articles lined up like that. Firstly it highlights how few articles they allow comments on, and second, it highlights how much their recent Reverse Ferret is taking the piss when you see all the woke bullshit they’ve published over the last 12 months. I’m pretty confident that if the Guardian did a readers’ poll it would still be against self ID, even if not as overwhelmingly as other papers.

Also, opportunity for comments on the latest Mermaids Butterfly episode if anyone’s interested.

If the Guardian did poll its readers and got to result the editorial team was hoping for (which it wouldn't, or they wouldn't have to mod the hell out of trans articles), so what? A Guardian poll is not a legally binding demand the government has to implement.

This is the oddest derail I've seen in a while.

Flora, you were very clear that a readership poll was unrepresentative, but some of the other earlier comments weren't.

Not bad, yes I agree with you that might be the case, but it still would probably show a higher percentage in favour of the GRA reform than the population as a whole, and this could be used to show that proper lefties support the reforms.

I thought the Times said the survey would close on Friday with results published on Monday?