Worrying Increase in Transphobia

[PorcelinaV]

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/09/transphobia-uk-press-media-negative-coverage/

An increase in transphobic sentiment among the British public has been fuelled by hostile coverage of trans people from the right-wing press, argues data journalist Ell Folan....

Unfortunately, newspapers still have a great deal of influence on the public and political agenda in Britain, and nowhere is this more obvious than in how perceptions of trans rights have changed.

As recently as Feburary 2021, an absolute majority of British voters (51 per cent) agreed with the statement “a transgender woman is a woman”, including 6 in 10 women. Just 34 per cent disagreed. But after years of negative coverage from the press, those numbers have changed.

In April this year, only 33 per cent of voters agreed that trans women are women, with 47 per cent disagreeing....

It is clear that the media plays an important role in shaping public perceptions, and unless their negative coverage is corrected and refuted, public opinion will continue to worsen.

On holiday with my (very right wing) mum we observed a trans woman go to the toilets. I asked my mum which she thought she should use. She obviously said the mens then asked me. I said the womens. Then we got on with our lunch. My mum tutted as she went into the womens toilet. People disagree on things and perceive things differently. It’s fine. It’s a shame that the far right are taking this over and that’s probably what’s increasing anti trans sentiment. They do own most of the media after all. I don’t think a bunch of terfs in an echo chamber really makes much difference. If the right were pro trans my mum would have said the womens…

@Billi80 - you're ignoring the fact that many (if not most) of the feminists on this board have been left-wingers all our lives and are dismayed that the only people who appear to recognize that women are adult human females are right wing parties.

Of all the things that never happened, this didn’t happen the most.

I don't remember this YouGov poll. Has anyone here been polled about this subject. Tbh it's the GC dream to be polled about it...

Whats with their numbers

373 babies
343 single. (347-4)
2 death
28 multiples

7 babies each by 4 multi- birthing persons
How?

even if 7/8 babies are home births
so 20 babies by 4

Where is my maths off ??

And 81 births or 1 in 5 are emergency c-sections

as someone who works closely with politicians in this country and abroad I can assure you there are people with opposing views on this particular topic across the political spectrum. My point is that the right wing funded media has the power to shout the loudest. It could even be one person.

Imagine a birthing human who has an opinion that birthing humans should have any special birthing human spaces!!

Like, an actual opinion!!!

Its sheer luck that the right wing media agree with hoildays other wise you birthing human would not have been at lunch.

A sharp letter to the editor is needed

I’m very happy for other people to have an opinion, I just don’t necessarily always agree with them.

Agree

Lolz

As far as I can see here are the issues

1.- What is transphobia? When everything is deemed transphobic, even discussing the issue, then nothing can understood to be transphobic. No other movement has demanded people not believe their own eyes. Gay people didn't demand society view them as straight, they said we're different, get over it.

2.- What is a woman? What is the definition? How do you, in law, say that human is a woman and this human is a man? Is there a genetic, physical marker or is it a psychological feeling. Again, in law, how is this defined? In inherent makeup, what makes a woman? If you don't like dresses and heels are you a man? How can transwomen demand to be seen as the same as women when their experiences are so different? How can you identify in to something that you've not lived and can opt out of the next day if it should become inconvenient? Think racial, cultural identification etc

3.- Do "women" (however they are defined) have the right to women only spaces, sports, shortlists, groups etc. Why is this needed in our society, do women have the right to say no?

4.- With regard to children when does "affirming" become a safeguarding issue? If a child believes themselves to be a bird we wpould we let them jump off the roof? We have age restrictions on smoking, drinking alcohol but are encouraged to let pre pubescent children take drugs that have life long consequences that they can, developmentally not yet comprehend?

5.- What rights do trans people need? How do we actually protect those in law and in society who are vulnerable? To me, is trans women fear being attacked when sharing intimate spaces with men, they should absolutely understand why women want women only spaces and should champion for A their own spaces B the rights of women for the respect and dignity of all

Oh, so you’re happy to condemn those who try to get women with those different opinions sacked? Who scream, send rape and death threats, who threaten parents who have those different opinions with the loss of custody of their children? You’re happy to accommodate the different opinions of the women in prison who don’t want to be assaulted by penis-owning sex offenders who’ve been moved to women’s prison by saying the magic words? You’re happy to accommodate lesbians wanting a lesbian-only event?

No, I’m guessing you are “happy” for others to have a different opinion but you’re still going to impose yours on the rest of society through control of government policy and other institutions?

Crack on, then.

Applauds @WandaWomblesaurus

Well, ever considered that that there is something deeply wrong with politicians and perhaps yourself? I dont particularly credit your political nous as you seem to be totally unaware that the left is the establishment, one clue is the relentless and hysterical raising of anything RW as the bogeyman.

My (extremely left wing) mum would agree with your mum on this topic as would I. Perhaps because it has nothing to do with political affiliation, just common sense and empathy for women and girls?

It's hard to define transphobia when the concept has undergone such an inflation that pretty much everything is deemed transphobic except for complete capitulation to any demands gender identitarians make, however unfair.

This is dreadful because it leaves us with no terms for those who actually do hate transgender people and assault or harass them.

On the changing support for the assertion that trans women are women etc.:

Few of us may have originally realised that this assertion was to be taken seriously, which meant that 'women' could not have anything to do with being female, given that trans women are not female, yet are to be defined as women.

I now suspect that the goal of the gender identity ideology is to completely colonise the demographic group consisting of female people, by forcing new language on us (menstruators, vulva people), by altering women's history (transing famous dead women), and by changing the basis on which someone is viewed as a member of this demographic (nothing to do with being born female).

These changes will make political organising for issues women have always shared very difficult, and the way 'women', the more oppressed sex, is now being turned into 'cis' women, the more privileged subset of the newly created feminine-identity-based colony, makes it seem as if sexism and misogyny no longer exist at all..

@Billi80 What also strikes me about your story is that, unlike others on this post, you admit that you both could tell at a glance that this person was male. You are aware that many women feel uncomfortable with males in their spaces or even have to self-exclude and yet you still prioritise males over females. Did you explain to your mum why males are more important? That, coupled with your startling admission that you don't believe your mum could have formed her own opinion, makes me think you have some pretty effective internalised sexism/ageism going on. Something to think about.

I’ve heard of a back labour. Never heard of a frontal birth.

That’s not the only instance of inaccurate use of language in that graphic. Look at the numbers.

211 vaginal births + 162 c sections = 373 births.

Two babies lost.

The graphic describes that as “371 babies born”. That’s not correct.

373 babies were born, and of those: 371 were live births and two were stillbirths.

The two babies who died - whether in utero, during delivery, or following the birth - those babies were born. It’s offensive to exclude them from the total number of babies born. The graphic should either say 371 live births or 373 births. That’s worth a complaint in itself.

Also the wording of “347 people have chosen to have their babies with us”.

That’s 26 fewer mothers than the number of babies born.

Perhaps they exclude the 7 or 8 home births from the “people” having “chosen to have their babies” with them. That’s still 18 fewer women than births. There were 4 sets of multiples. I guess it’s possible that each one of those women had either quads or quins but it seems unlikely.

Or perhaps some women were transferred from other maternity units which didn’t have enough beds / staff to cope with the number of women in labour and those women don’t count as having “chosen” this trust/hospital.

And of course the use of “people” instead of “women” or “mothers” introduces a lack of clarity in another way. A baby has two parents. Once you start talking about “people” choosing to have babies, it begs the question: are you talking about couples or about mothers?

But if I’ve missed something really obvious in those figures, please point it out.

I notice it was 56% boys and 44% girls. Is it normal for there to be that difference over the course of a year?

It’s not your maths. The numbers don’t add up.

But if you zoom into the graphic, the wording on that heart symbol is that 347 “people” have “chosen” to have their babies with us. All I can come up with to explain it is that the unaccounted for mothers must be the home births and transfers in from other trusts/hospitals, and that they are excluded from the “chosen” stats. They should have explained it somewhere on the graphic though.

There’s also an issue with them excluding stillborn babies from the “babies born” figure. See my post. (I hadn’t read as far as your post when I posted.)

And also using people instead of “mothers” as that raises the question of whether they are referring to couples choosing to “have their babies with us” or to the pregnant woman.

Yes, the far right are well known for caring about women's rights and safety.

“I don’t think a bunch of terfs in an echo chamber really makes much difference”

who says that (presumably) we (the terfs) are the ones in the echo chamber

that implies that we’re manufacturing our own narrative, justifying ourselves to ourselves based on nothing but the reality we’ve created.

no @Billi80 , this is common sense, this is science fact, this is biology. You can’t change sex, and safe spaces for women and girls needs to be kept for those who are female only. Men can’t fail in sporting endeavours, decide to call themselves Fiona and take medals/records/a woman’s place in history.

what’s going on will be looked at in utter horror in time.

@PorcelinaV

the challenge is their are idiots and people who abuse.

so there are examples here that people are using where people have done wrong hiding under the trans flag being used to excuse discrimination of others.

self identification is the issue.

the trans movement are silly to support that but together either things like mental health provision this country voted for a Tory government and the Brexit bunch that hurt such provisions.

two wrong don’t make a right and therefore no one should support trans discrimination sighting examples of bad behaviour as why.

these are not real trans people.

they are the most gentle souls around .

No, the problem that the left wing media, such as it is, does not adequately report on this problem. Any story involving trans people is deliberately spun to promote a pro trans angle, and those on the opposing side are dismissed as bigots or worse. (See, for example, the Guardian and other left wing coverage of the Let Women Speak events where Posie Parker is portrayed as an anti trans campaigner with links to far right groups and the fact that it is actually the trans activists showing up to these events with weapons and balaclavas and assaulting women is completely glossed over.) Stories which are simply too difficult to spin in a pro trans light are frequently not reported at all.

Why is this?

Is the left wing media simply choosing to report (or not report, as the case may be) in this way? In which case they absolutely do have the power to influence the public to their way of thinking and this has been going on for a very long time. Or are they being banned from doing so? If so, by whom?

You cannot blame right wing politicians or the right wing media for the fact that left wing politicians and left wing media have, for reasons best known to themselves, decided that the wants of a small group of male born people who believe they identify as women trump the rights, dignity and safety of all female born women and girls. All the right wing politicians and right wing media are doing is taking advantage of that.

I hate the Daily Mail, but it was frequently the only news outlet actually reporting on really important stories. If you want to read Cheryle Kempton's testimony of what it was like to be assaulted by Karen White whilst they were incarcerated together in a women's prison, you have to read the Daily Mail. Why did the Guardian not run that story? What is it they don't want people to know, and why?

“Billi80 says “I don’t think a bunch of terfs in an echo chamber really makes much difference”

The disparagement intended in this statement is clear. But it shows a lack of understanding, or it is just thrown out as an empty derogation.

A ‘bunch of terfs’ are active and have raised awareness among the UK population of the impacts of self ID and the needs of women. You acknowledge that women prioritising sex over gender is across the political spectrum. Great.

So why do you believe that you, Billi, a left wing person by your self description, are to be lauded for prioritising male people’s demands over female people’s needs?

they are the most gentle souls around .

No they aren't. They are just people, like any other people, and the male ones pose an equivalent risk to women as other male people.