Public want trans women kept out of female sport (Times, 16/6/22)

[BettyFilous]

The Times is reporting on research undertaken by the More in Common think tank. The article covers multiple domains, not just sport.

^Only 19 per cent of Britons supported allowing trans athletes in women’s sport against 57 per cent who did not. The report found consistent opposition to biological males in women’s sport in every group surveyed, even among groups who backed transgender inclusion in other parts of
public life.^

(snip)

Support for trans women using women’s lavatories and changing rooms depended on whether they had undergone gender reassignment surgery. Those who had were twice as welcome in single-sex spaces as biological males who identified as women. But it was the question of sport that proved to be the “red line”.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4d010462-ece3-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=3725b577b2d58b381a2773f04ce1f860

This is where I was in 2017 when I was still walking through flat fields, before I started exploring an unusual looking path which was leading uphill.

It's not that difficult to understand really. We often alter our way of speaking to take account of other peoples feelings and social conventions, especially when actually in conversation. I think we alter our way of thinking too after a time, without realising it. (That's how attitudes and beliefs change over time.) Especially when we don't think about it for long. I was happy that tw were a kind of woman in a social cultural sense, but not female in the biological sense. I still would be happy with that position if there wasn't a requirement to never ever mention that they are not female, and to give up our ability to articulate the difference when we need to.

I struggle with the polite fiction part. I grew up in a LGBTQ+ movement that emphasised PRIDE in who you are and who you love, pride in your unique journey that has made you the person you are today. It was an anti prejudice movement, and it celebrated diversity. It certainly didn’t seek to sweep difference under the carpet. TWAW seems to run counter to that ethos.

There's much nuance and disagreement and varied perspectives here, and all based on compassion and on wanting equality and access that works for everyone. This is the rational and balanced viewpoint.

What the papers and journalists are starting to dip their toes into is the uncomfortable fact that the 'polarisation' is actually

group 1: Absolute unconditional compliance

group 2: the rest of the universe

Which means it is impossible to even try to make plans that involve group 1. They cannot do so without leaving group 1.

I think that people’s attitudes are conditioned by their lack of personal experience of the phenomenon. Most people have never met one of the people in question, the headlines and controversies just don’t strike much of personal chord. When they see the 6’2” broad shouldered person trouncing the 5’6” curvy persons, and then smirking on the top step of the podium, it becomes an issue on which people can form a personal judgement.

I believe that when people start to come into contact with this, in schools when it affects their own daughters, in ‘public’ spaces when it affects their own wives and girlfriends and friends, attitudes will start to change. That’s why it is so important for rape and sexual assault by these people to be covered up by the determined use of female pronouns.

Not too long, I hope.

Is the actual report available online? Its not linked in the articles.

Is this it?

Link to Stonewall website

Yes, the TWAW statement is seen as a social nicety. Pronouns and nodding along.

As soon as they realise it means they are actually women, along with a lady penis, a complete re-writing of sexual orientation and rapists attacking women in prison, it all goes out the window.

“This is not for any ideological or philosophical reason, but a simple instinct for fairness,” the report said. “That men have physical advantages over women means that for very many people the inclusion of trans women in women-only sports is not fair and will lead to an uneven competition, and in some cases may not be safe"

See, that's already guaranteed transphobe status, accompanied by threats and fury, because they're calling them men.

It's not 'nuanced and kind'. It's not being in full possession of the facts. Yet.

I don’t agree with trans in womens sports, for no other reason than it gives them an advantage.

I've found it. Links here to report and tables.

www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/

craggyisland is absolutely right. If you interpret the survey results accurately, rather than believing the Guardian spin on them, then it turns out that the majority of the public believe with the evil Terfs. That is, they don't think trans women should be allowed to participate in women's sports, and they don't think that trans women who haven't had surgery should be allowed in women's changing rooms.

The organisation that carried out the survey, More in Common, was clearly determined to find out that the general public was much more tolerant of trans people than the nasty feminist activists, and the quote from the report's author tries to claim this is what the survey found:

'"From the toxic debate across social media you’d assume the country is split into trans activists and transphobes. But when you speak to ordinary people across the country you realise that nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, most Britons take a nuanced, compassionate approach that is rooted in society doing what it can to make trans people feel accepted but which also balances inclusion with fairness.” Others could learn from ordinary Britons, he added.'

But this is nonsense. Ordinary Britons take broadly the same view as gender-critical feminists. And yes, that view is "nuanced" and "compassionate".

As we have seen time and time again, the toxicity and the viciousness comes from trans activists who routinely use death threats and rape threats towards feminists, as well as getting feminists thrown off social media, reporting them to their employers, removing invitations to speak or display their work, trying to get their meetings cancelled, shouting offensive, misogynistic abuse outside their gatherings and on occasion resorting to physical assault.

I agree, I find it odd that it's often so sloppily written. It's not anyone's status as trans that is an issue, it's their sex.

Hold on a second ladies, the report is done by Stonewall. Initially I had not realised that. I’m sure it’s an oversight that no question about trans identifying men in women’s prisons or hospital wards was asked.

I think many people aren't really aware or don't understand the implications of twaw.

I have a very liberal friend who is probably twaw, 'let them do what they want' until I said to her 'you do know M&S let self declaring men in the female changing rooms.

She changed her mind as she hadn't really considered the reality (reaction was 'ew').

I think this report will give both 'sides' figures they can use for their own purposes depending on how they present them.

What it should tell the trans rights movement is:

-that people say (and possibly believe in an abstract sense) that trans women are women / trans men are men. But they don't personally think of trans women as actual women. If they genuinely thought of them as such there would be no questions to answer about where they should be included.

• that many people think of 'trans women' as post op, and their desire to include & accommodate trans people, is actually a desire to accommodate transsexuals.

The problem for the trans rights movement is if it tries to genuinely explain what it wants it will fail because it's not actually possible for the population to start believing that male people are female people. If they drop the ontological aim of making it true that twaw, and focus on getting ppl to accept policies for trans ppl as trans, then they will be tacitly accepting that different treatment is possible and that tw are in fact not w. Some within their ranks will violently oppose it.

It will be interesting to see where the movement goes.

I suppose men will feel less strongly than women?

Luke has done a thread on this. Interesting observation.

it usually turns out that women are ‘kinder’ and more supportive of transgenderism than men. Women are used to shunting over and making space for others.

I have to agree, despite all the good work getting the question "what is a woman?" on everyone's lips only 2% think it is one of the country's "top issues"

The middle aged people I know who haven't been following this on social media mostly are still under the impression that transwomen were previously effeminate gay men who have gone on to have surgery, don't have penises any more and are sexually attracted to men. When I explained no, a lot don't have surgery, retain penises and are sexually attracted to women, one said, "but that's a (other t word we can't use) and that's different" and I had to explain that they are also now included in the one word 'trans', and the term - and in practice - no longer distinguishes between them in terms of surgery or sexual orientation.

It’s not by Stonewall - it’s by More In Common, a think tank set up by Brendan Cox.

The author is Luke Tryl, who was Head of Education for Stonewall but left in 2014 and has since held positions in the DofE and Ofsted and research agencies / think tanks.

As soon as they realise it means they are actually women, along with a lady penis, a complete re-writing of sexual orientation and rapists attacking women in prison, it all goes out the window

yes. It’s really hard to get our visitors here to talk about actual specifics.

women have been raped in prison who wouldn’t have been raped if no men were sent to women’s prisons

and the answers will be ‘well, women commit sexual violence too’, ‘everyone should be safe in prison’ etc etc

no engagement with the real world, because in reality, no man is a woman and pretending they are causes massive safety risks to women

India Willoughby nailed all this years ago on Big Brother, when India said something to the effect of you could get people to say all the words you wanted to hear, but you couldn't make them believe it. And India knew and understood they were saying it to be kind and supportive, but they didn't believe what they were saying.

On a 1:1 basis most are perfectly happy to be supportive of an illusion an individual may prefer. But it's all been pushed far too far, and this 'please be kind' cannot be used to destroy female rights, female sports, to wholly stamp all over the equal needs and challenges of half the human race. Driven to the discourtesy is a thing. And a group that were genuinely caring about equality and about identifying as women would manage to give some reciprocal care and interest and keenness to compromise and support women's needs alongside to find a way to make this work.

The evidence that this is not the case is now piled high.

The headline caption misrepresents the figures. 2% said it was one of their top 3 isdues. 98% said it was not one of their top 3. They did not rank them.

I would have been in the 98% too.

1 in 50 people think it's in the top 3 most important issues out of all the issues. That's a lot.

The question is where would they rank it?

Brighton is one of the towns where the survey was held. I suggest that heavily skewed the results. Try repeating it in Bradford. I doubt whether 25% of residents there are personally acquainted with a trans person.

The argument that its the most important issue is a difficult one to get across. You could say it's more important than many of those because unless we can name reality, and base policy on empirical evidence, we are fucked on all of the others. That's why I find the issue si disturbing, but it's a rather philosophical second order discussion.