Beyond Opposition research project?

[Wanderingowl]

Does anyone know anything about this research project being run in the UK, Canada and Ireland? I followed a promoted link to it from Reddit and have read through some of the website but feel very suspicious about what it's setting out to find.

beyondopposition.org/faq/#WProjectAbout

the website looks detailed & sensible. they have ERC funding which is v v hard to get, so that implies they are respected researchers

if you want more info on what the project leader (Kath Browne) has published before, you can look at her record here
scholar.google.com/citations?user=OWZxuHUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

This link doesn't work: beyondopposition.org/ethos-of-the-project/

However, there's a reasonable overview of the ethos here:

beyondopposition.org/about-the-project/

Would it be worth contacting The Countess to see if they know more about it and if they have an opinion?

thecountess.ie/

I took part because the initial info put support for women’s single-sex rights in the same bracket as opposition to things most feminists support, such as abortion rights and gay marriage. I was surprised anyone would make that mistake, as feminists obviously support women’s rights.

I hadn’t really understood, at first, that the researchers’ background was in queer theory. The odd slant of the questions make more sense to me now. Feminism, based in material reality, is a threat to the fantasies of QT and genderism.

I hope Beyond Opposition is a genuine attempt by QT believers to understand feminists’ concern for single-sex rights.

I decided not to take part after I found out that one of the researchers (Dr Elizabeth Ablett/Liz Ablett) had signed this letter calling Women’s Place UK an anti-trans
campaign group which have “propagated ignorant and harmful narratives through the use of offensive stereotypes, drawing a false dichotomy between trans rights and women’s rights, and misrepresenting both empirical research and current laws. The group has thereby played a role in creating moral panic about trans people’s role in public life, and contributed to atmosphere of fear and shame among trans people.”

openletterbristol.wordpress.com/

This is what it says in the link in the OP

This project seeks to explore the everyday experiences of those who do not agree with some or all of the changes to sexual and gender rights in the 21st Century in Ireland, the UK and Canada. This includes people who have concerns about, or who object to, recent social and legal changes like same-sex marriage, transgender peoples’ rights to access single sex spaces, gay couples having children, abortion and other developments.

They are confusing women's concerns about males accessing women-only spaces with issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gay couples having children.

If they can't see the difference between concerns about males accessing women-only spaces and the other issues, I don't hold out much hope for any research they might be doing on this. 'Men are not women' is not exactly rocket science.

If people like us don't contribute, and the only ppl who do contribute object to abortion access & gay rights aswell as self id, then the project will find that the best way to understand objections to tw access to some female spaces is to see it as part of a traditional social conservative pov. Their findings will back up the thing that we disagree with. If they get a lot if feminist responses, then their findings should reflect that there are objections from a feminist/liberal position. If lots of feminists & some gay couples with children who think access to safe abortion is important filled in the survey explaining why they don't agree with the other thing, it might have an effect. It would make it harder to ignore at least.

I assume the purpose is to try and understand where ppl are coming from so that they can learn how to counter the objections, persuade ppl and bring them (us) with them. That's how it should have been working all along, rather than Denton tactics and no debate.

I am probably being naive.

Dont know why but I get a creepy vibe from that webpage.

From "who can take part":

Initially, we are looking for people who have concerns about, or who object to, same-sex marriage, transgender peoples’ rights to access single sex spaces, gay couples having children, abortion and other recent changes to the law in Ireland, the UK and Canada. Later in the research we will include those who are supportive of these rights.

The "and" rules me out.

What a silly mistake to make to assume that people who object to one of those things will object to all of them.

They are confusing women's concerns about males accessing women-only spaces with issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gay couples having children.

That would be intentional. They are trying to frame it as something most people would think unreasonabe to object.

It shows their bias

I share a lot of the concerns other posters have shared. The wording makes it clear that they want to hear from people who they already seem to have decided are misguided/bigoted. That being GC is the same as being at least somewhat homophobic and pro-life. But I also share the same feeling as @Manderleyagain and wonder if I/we should participate to point out that they are equating very, very different things. But I also have a fear that it's something else. The whole thing about saving emails and IP addresses for a short period of time, while probably normal, makes me feel like I'd want to use a fake email address and a VPN.

This doesn't fill me with confidence.
Prof. Kath Browne

Professor Browne is the PI on this research and she is a professor in Geography at the University College Dublin. Her work investigates sexual and gender equalities, most recently through exploring how these are resisted by what she and Professor Nash have described as ‘heteroactivism’.

What are all the references about checking for ‘possible harm to yourself or others’ about? How might they judge that you answering some questions could cause possible harm? Is this a normal research caveat does anyone know?

Just got to first actual question.

'How do your concerns about issues relating to sex/gender, sexualities and abortion affect where you go in your day-to-day life?'

Not exactly subtle in what they are about!

• being anti abortion, concerned about impact of gender > sex, against gay rights etc comes automatically and inevitably as a package.

• it would be good to understand more about the people who feel like that, in more depth.

Note. That question. The grouping of issues.

When it comes to reporting the results of surveys, individual comments are not generally included. If they are it's those who agreed to it and not many.

The report will show the question which has different topics lumped together.

And they have a lot of leeway in how they report the answers. Enormous amount. And I guarantee they will not tease out different opinions on different topics when specified by respondent.

It's unusual / very rare for a survey to have so many open questions right from the start. Rather than yes/ no to very carefully written specific questions.

How do they intend to even start analysis and report results? Any way they fancy is the answer.

They say it's USA UK Canada because laws changed. What about Malta, Germany, Ireland? Why restrict at all? They ask where from can simple exclude responses from countries not of interest. With a note as to which countries, how many respondents, reason for excluding.

As zammo said. Just say no! And don't bother.

Other point is as usual it seems to stem from a USA perspective with no considerations whatsoever of the massively different cultures, social attitudes, history etc. It screams USA Christian right as the things linked are all on their agenda.

So it's totally useless.

Not thought about the point above, analysis difficult and open to interpretation, it's an online survey so vulnerable to bad actors/ trolls etc. And they must know that the subject leads to wide sharing on Twitter between those with certain views.

Don't touch it with a bargepole.

Oops another look. Dublin. Not is USA.

Very interesting.

What are all the references about checking for ‘possible harm to yourself or others’ about? How might they judge that you answering some questions could cause possible harm? Is this a normal research caveat does anyone know?

I assumed they meant they would retain personal details until they've read that person's submission for safeguarding purposes so that if they needed to contact the police or social services because you said you've got a body in the basement or are at risk of domestic abuse something, they'd be able to report it in a useful way.

It didn't ask me for personal details at beginning. Just country and over 18 I think it was. Email address optional.

I didn't go all through but would be surprised if details collected at end as loads would spend ages answering open questions and then pull out at end. That would be an extremely unusual approach.

Has anyone seen the end?

It said they record IP addresses so I guess they would give those to the authorities if there were a safeguarding issue they needed to report.

Or mean they could trace those who gave certain answers.

Cynical view.

And obv that info can be concealed.

There was another thread on here recently about biased 'research' questions that assume feminists are bigots, after university phd researchers came onto Mumsnet pointing links to some awful questions. this is obviously the tip of the iceberg and they're all funded FFS.

Kent University and Reading University posted their ill-informed poorly scoped survey on Mumsnet. thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4406835-University-of-Kent-survey