A third of Britons don’t know that transgender women were born male

[RoyalCorgi]

Really interesting piece of research from Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM), asking people if they knew what a "transgender woman" was. They found that 35 per cent wrongly believed that a transgender woman was someone born female, or they were unsure. Apparently, they're even more confused about the term “trans woman”, with 40 per cent either being unsure or believing it meant someone who was registered female at birth.

In other words, when pollsters ask questions like "Do you think trans women should be allowed to use women's toilets/take part in women's sport/be housed in women's prisons?" a huge chunk of the answers are from people who think that trans women are biologically females.

[[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/

I think eresh it just highlights that the parties that have successfully shut down any discussion about this have left their members without the information they need to make informed decision.

I still will get to look at the data, but football has my attention right at this moment !!

Maybe they were asked in a public place such as a busy shopping centre and they were worried about being overheard by the people who do really think men can magically become women just because they wake up one day and decide they want to.

But even the article uses transwoman and transgender woman to mean bio male, to me tw is male but the second surely means a bio woman who is trans so a tm?

I think a lot of people possibly share that view and it might be contributing to the misunderstanding here. I personally don't distinguish between the two as I don't either use "transwoman" or "trans/transgender woman" to speak about male people.

I suspect this doesn't stop at lib Dem voters.

A similar poll of political representatives would be revealing...

I've been on Mumsnet 15 years. I don't think there's ever before been a topic where posters aren't allowed to give their own opinion in a general discussion.

I expected my post to be deleted, you have to laugh, it just proves the point of the thread (and gives a useful indication of who is on Monitor duty). The person I referenced frequently claims they were born female and they have a cervix, but that’s not as offensive as calling that person by the pronoun of their sex. So we have to lie about that person. And we wonder why people don’t know their trans women from their trans men?

Among Londoners, only 43% understood that a "trans woman" is biologically male.

“A similar poll of political representatives would be revealing...”

that would be very enlightening!!!

This. Also reminds me of those surveys showing that there were more trans people in Brent (was it?) than Brighton, explained, it was thought, by a higher proportion of immigrants and people who didn't have English as a first language misunderstanding the census questions on sex and gender (which were terribly drafted IMO). Not deliberate obfuscation in that case (I hope), but again shows what happens with a lack of clarity about language.

This is from the talk guidelines for the sex and gender part of the site:

it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but our moderation team will most likely delete these expressions if we feel they're being used in a deliberately inflammatory way.

https://www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

I'm fascinated by the difference between people's interpretation of "transgender woman" and "trans woman". In London nearly 20% more people understand that a "transgender woman" is male than a "trans woman"! I have never thought of it as anything more than a shortened version.

No offence, but a third of Britons don't care

i don’t think that’s quite the whole picture though. id think at least a third (likely more) don’t think it will ever matter to them, and are Live and Let Live about the whole thing.

right up until we have an incident like the Sheffield Swimming Competition. then people get what it actually means. Viscerally. Once we get a critical mass of these incidents, White Van Man will wake up and wade in. White van man isn’t feminist, and his beliefs don’t align very much with feminism, but he has a powerful sense of fair play, and will defend and women in his care. (Probably more from a sense of ownership, but his reasoning is irrelevant here)

More to the point, he isn’t going to wank about on Twitter when, as he sees it, some bloke in a wig wanders through the changing room his daughter is in. He will go in there and remove said bloke by the throat.

all the activists, and scolds who come on here, and who claim to be on the side of the sweet, gentle Transwomen we know and love should be gatekeeping transhood like fuck to prevent this happening. Because WVM won’t give a shiny shite if it is a sweet, sad womanly soul trapped in a man’s body.

i think the reason it hasnt happened yet is that swim parents aren’t usually in the WVM demographic. But it’s only a matter of time.

The whole point is to confuse people.

Which is why they don't want us to be clear about anything.

I guess the Monitors are going to need a safe healing space for their button pressing fingers this evening.

Not deliberate no, but designed with the intention of not offering the trans rather than being clear and unambiguous particularly for non native English speakers

*offending

@Ereshkigalangcleg thanks, that does put it in a different light.

'Should a man wearing a dress be allowed into female only spaces'?

Not much room for confusion there.

No need for the "wearing a dress" part. It's all about the ladyfeelz, remember.

Yes I think this is exactly what is going to have to happen.
The normal man or woman on the street need to wake up to what TWAW means and how it will affect them and their children. I can't see it ending well.

Yes. The question should be 'Should a man who thinks he's a woman be allowed into female only spaces?'

I forgot about the ladyfeelz.

Silly me.

I think the reason for the lack of knowledge is the subtle way this issue initially was pushed into society - I feel this action has been deliberate and a way of gaining a foothold. Sadly it has worked - many people only now are realising the true situation and how our society has been impacted, the portrayal of those who disagree with this agenda is manipulative.

The whole thread about the MN rules rests on the point about clear communication.

I said on that and I'll repeat on this thread: the average reading age of adults in the UK is nine.

Plain English is essential to good health and communication. Poor communication costs does harm.

The thought terminating cliche transwomen are women is a deliberate device to hide the truth and hinder communication.

You can not properly consent to various things if you have failed to understand the terms used.

This has particular effect on people with lower educational levels. Or on people who have deliberately been misinformed. Again transwomen are women is a political device to deliberate increase misunderstanding and misinformation.

Word salad to restrict and control language very much is part of the conversation here. Women are being told that they should be educated. Thats elitist and discriminatory. The default position needs to consider that you have to cater to the education people have and be inclusive of that rather than acting in an exclusionary manner by using a language which isn't universally understood.

Time and again you see the same pattern of 'inclusive' policy actually being blind to disadvantage or different lifestyle or socioeconomic issues to the point that they are so blinded by their own pompousity that they end up being exclusionary m

I said on that and I'll repeat on this thread: the average reading age of adults in the UK is nine.

Really? The average 9-year-old reads as well as the average adult? That seems extremely unlikely. Do you have a source for this statistic?

(Not the point of this thread, or the other one, but I like to see statements like this backed up with data.)

A simple question that requires no clarification.