I don’t know if other people feel that this is useful, but following on from the scientists thread, I thought that at the heart of the trans and gender debate is there is a ‘reality’ which trumps feelings. Evidence and real life incidents such as sex offenders in women’s prisons.
However I notice that the trans argument is mainly saying there are zero harms from GRA or denial of biology. No harms to women. No harms to society. That the only harms are their feelings. Therefore anyone opposing GRA or the non biology must be transphobic, because what else could it be if there are no harms to women but ‘feelings’ harms to trans people? I’m relatively new to this debate but this is what it seems like from the outside.
So I thought I’d collate some of the evidence. Because for me, as a scientist, is that in a debate it is the real testing of what is actually happening which should lead the way, as objectively as possible. On both sides, so we can really shine a light on it. And by that I mean good evidence which is:
- good objective studies. Not small surveys especially not from lobbying groups as these are not generalizable and have researcher bias. Large scale, robust and well designed, might be included.
- census and data figures
- real life incidents that have some verification, such as those reported by main media
These can be categorized as:
A - those that relate to GRA and using single sex spaces such as hospitals, changing rooms, toilets, prisons, sport
B - those that contravene National safeguarding policies which are evidence based, and the actual policy detail they contravene
C - biology vs non-biology argument
D - harms that are real life incidents verifiable such as death threats, violence, job loss resulting from speaking non discriminatory language that that doesn’t align with gender philosophy
E - trans wishes and the evidence of harm to them of not having GRA or seeing the word ‘woman’ in things like the Lancet