70% in favour of self-id

[MaMaLa321]

does anyone know how this figure was reached? Apparently it was quoted in an article in the Sunday Times.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-bristol-53265725?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5f12eedaa86da506633a70e2%26Trans%20rights%20protesters%20take%20to%20College%20Green%20in%20Bristol%262020-07-18T15%3A14%3A33.988Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:9b01788c-cecc-482b-949a-5f4a2d3ee257&pinned_post_asset_id=5f12eedaa86da506633a70e2&pinned_post_type=share

They only asked three people?

From the link:
A spokesperson told the BBC: "On 14th June 2020, the Sunday Times reported that, despite 70% of responses to the recent consultation on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act being in favour of self-identification, the UK Government intends to scrap the GRA reform and roll back the hard-won rights of trans and non-binary people.

It was 70% of responses to the gra consultation. Apparently it was obvious a huge number of the pro responses were single click type ones obviously promoted by transgender activists.

As others have said, consultations aren't referendums, a few good arguments pointing out harms in a reform should be taken seriously.

70% of an entirely self-selected group.

70% of a politically engaged group, many of whom will have a self-interest. It won’t be representative of society as a whole. Many people had no idea the consultation was running, or what it was about.

We won't know until the data is formally given, but the belief is that it was the same as the Google attempt recently - lots of submissions of pre-written online forms, which could have been submitted from anywhere on earth, too. It doesn't necessarily reflect thoughtful, considered views from people feeling strongly after looking into something. It could just reflect someone clicking on a page.

It's nice that the young people protesting in Bristol feel strongly about what they see as compassion; that's always a good thing, but they're not exactly informed about both sides, are they.

Oh, that. Stonewall & Gendered Intelligence were churning out the one-click replies. Given how much power Stonewall has nowadays, & that the feminist resistance was starting from scratch with grassroots, crowdfunded groups, I think we did bloody well to get 30%.

The Guardian wrote, in June:

"According to the Sunday Times, about 100,000 responses to the public consultation were received with an overwhelming majority – about 70% – in favour of allowing people to self-identify as a man or a woman.

Officials were said to believe that the results had been “skewed” by an “avalanche” of responses generated by trans rights groups, although transgender people, including non-binary people, are estimated to make up about 1% of the UK population."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/trans-rights-government-reported-to-be-dropping-gender-self-identifying-plans

It's also a consultation not a referendum. Even if the comments not agreeing were fewer, if they make points about why the change would be detrimental then they should be listened to. With regard to any issue, not just this one.

The yougov poll of this stated that 2/3 thought a medical diagnosis should be necessary, more people opposed GRA than for it by a long shot, self I'd was not popular, this was in last couple of weeks but outside of various bubbles general public opinion is not in the same place, most people still think biological sex is a reality and it is noted as a biological reality at birth not assigned in some arbitrary way, just like people can be in Brexit bubbles not knowing anyone voting for Brexit so you can be in gender bubbles without realising that it is a bubble and not a reflection of general thought.

Personally I think the whole thing is really deceptive.

I wonder what the response would be if the questions were rephrased.

Do you think fully in tact male bodies should be allowed to change alongside your daughters etc

Bet people wouldn't be quite so happy then.

The GRA consultation wasn’t exactly publicised to the skies. I would imagine 99% of the british public has no idea it was even happening. I didn’t until WPUK posted about it on twitter

Meanwhile stonewall et al had already prepared their cut & paste responses for their followers & activists to use. This is btw completely normal behaviour in the voluntary sector. Most government consultations receive next to no responses other than from interested lobby groups. Civil servants are well used to seeing identikit responses to consultations

Which is why the government will also have looked to the wider coverage of the issue and the public’s response

And weren't these organisations targeting children too? Encouraging them to return one click submissions.

Catch 'em young.

I am glad I spent the time to answer as an individual.

Individually completed, carefully considered responses will always carry a lot more weight. They demonstrate that someone cares enough to do that, and that they've considered the area under consultation, personally.

Me too testing. About a dozen family members and friends each sent personalised replies too. I sat with them and discussed the issues. Each response was tailored to that individual through their life experience as a female.

Some were older women who didn't relish the prospect of receiving intimate care from males or being in hospital in a confined space with males.

Another had an abusive ex and had previously used a refuge - the thought of men accessing this women only safe space naturally filled her with fear for vulnerable women.

Another just stated the obvious that she doesn't want males in her spaces or competing against her daughters. That the reasons for sex segregation are valid and reasonable.

When I was handing out flyers in my home town I spoke to a number of BME families and they had real concerns too.

Among all the wide range of people I approached, not one was in favour of the GRA reform proposals and not one person knew about it because this was supposed to be slipped through silently.

That's what creeps me out the most, even more than these captured organisations and their cut and pastes, their lies and aggressive, expensive marketing campaigns and lobbying, that the powers that be would try to pass this by stealth by making out it was just a little change, a bit of paperwork that only impacts a few people who self identify as transgender.

When you're protesting outside a seat of power that's literally flying your flag, it may be worth having a think...

Great (and unsurprising) to see the protest faced zero intimidation or attempts to stop it going ahead, unlike every event organised by GC women in Bristol.

Here's one of yesterday's speakers giving 'cis women' their orders:
mobile.twitter.com/galaxaure/status/1284526406530150400

And here's the same person blocking Dr Heather Brunskell Evans from speaking at Bristol Uni: www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/protesters-filmed-interrupting-talk-transgender-2247064.amp

This large survey shows the vast majority of people don't want to share single sex spaces when you spell out what it actually means:
wingsoverscotland.com/transforming-the-question

Stonewall were encouraging children to send in their 1 click response! Via a CBBC presenter!

It doesn’t take much sifting to go ‘oh most of these 70% are identical - best pay closer attention to the 30%’

Besides, a government consultation isn’t a democratic vote - it could’ve been 99% in favour but if the 1% pointed out something that that government realised was insurmountable, that would be enough to influence the official response.

How was the question worded?
How much information were respondents given about implications?
We need our own survey, which includes questions about prisons, sports and prizes, and which makes it clear that male genitalia are intact for for >80% of transwomen.

This is about the design of the questionnaire (as well as recruitment to fill it out).

does anyone know how this figure was reached?

By presenting the consultation as only of concern to LGBT people. By not asking other stakeholder groups for their views. By writing it in a way that presupposes a belief in transgender ideology in respondents, therefore making it all but incomprehensible to anyone not steeped in it. By allowing responses to a proposed reform of a UK law to come from outside of the UK.

That responses were mass generated by email campaigns is neither here nor there - if it suited them, the recipients of such consultations have previously disregarded responses because they were of that nature and they have disregarded individual replies (see the survey on London's single-sex spaces for that tactic).

Looking at many other consultations on law reform, they aren't about quantity alone. They are about quality, too. Otherwise there'd only be a survey to fill in. They invite opposing views and arguments, because those writing law proposals can't think of every possible consequence when between them they may not have the necessary experiences.

Such as my friend who was responsible for the Equality Impact Assessment about changes to the out of hours GP service provided by our local health board. She organised many public and private meetings with stakeholder groups to solicit their views. By talking to them and answering their questions. Those of just one deaf blind local had a huge impact on her, because that was one patient group she had no experience in, and both the issues and proposed solutions were unknown to her.

The government did not organise such meetings, neither the UK one nor the Scottish one. However, the latter did organise such meetings on the proposed new Hate Crime Bill. I took part in one of them. The Law Commission organised public meetings seeking views on the proposal to reform the law on surrogacy.

To name but two law reform proposals treated very differently by the government.

That they did not do this for the GRA one, speaks volumes.

As someone else said, consultations are not referendums, they are a means for the public to raise potential issues about a policy change. Technically, it doesn't matter if 99% of people are in favour of something, if 1% raises an issue that no one else had thought of and could potentially cause problems then that will be noted. And they said that a lot of that 70% was just templates generated by Stonewall etc with no actual meat on the bones, whereas people (myself included) who raised the issues with GRA reform did actually raise some serious potential pitfalls of any change.

Also, I think it's worth saying again. Trans people already do have the right to change their legal sex on their birth certificate. So in effect they have the right to legally falsify their birth certificate, where someone who was born male can get their birth certificate changed so that it says they were born female. This is a legal fiction that no one else has the right to make. It's just that at the moment they do have to jump through hoops to create that legal fiction: there is gatekeeping to ensure that people who do this are genuine. The GRA reforms were to allow anyone to change their legal sex on their birth certificate, to be allowed to legally falsify that document, with no checks whatsoever.

I really think its important to continue to get that out there, because there is so much emotive language around this issue, I don't think most of the general public even know what the GRA reforms even mean.

That article has so many inaccuracies. The BBC aren't a news organisation, they are spreading propaganda.

Fair Play For Women (sorry don’t have link) have done an interesting analysis on a survey, not sure if it is the same one. Sport was pretty clearly no to self ID in Sports from practically all respondents, and although the concept was broadly agreed with, as soon as people were asked if this applied to men without any SRS , women especially were not in agreement. We want to be kind, but not that kind.

We want to be kind, but not that kind.

Bring kind’s great. Bring a mug isn’t.

Being, not bring 🤦‍♀️