Telegraph: growing prejudice against transpeople

[Queenofscones]

Very dodgy article in the Telegraph about the British Social Attitudes survey, a survey that has been held annually for the last 40 years. The questions asked was whether people were 'very prejudiced', 'a little prejudiced' or 'not prejudiced' against transgender people. According to the results, twice as many people declared themselves 'prejudiced' against transgender people as did in 2019. But the question is appalling — it assumes that having questions about the validity of a belief system that actively seeks to destroy women's rights is prejudice, when it's a rational response. The authors of the article seek to blame it all on JKR...

Link to the archived version here:

http://archive.today/yOlJF

You've just reminded me of this prick

I take it you put quotation marks around "prejudice" because there is nothing remotely irrational or unreasonable about objecting to queer theory.

The thing is, in the utilitarian concept of "the greater good", the harm is supposed to result in a greater good to society in general.

Self ID doesn't result in a greater good to society in general. It results in zero greater good to any female people, who do not benefit from self ID in any way and indeed are actively harmed by it, or to the majority of male people who do not identify as something other than men, on whom the impact is probably neutral. It only results in a greater good to a very small group of people who want it, including the people committing these hypothetical murders.

There's literally no benefit to self ID for women. Nothing in it for us whatsoever. Even the women who claim to be in favour of it don't personally stand to gain anything from it, beyond perhaps the warm fuzzy feeling of being on the right side of history. Not one of those pick me girls is going to be stripping off in a single sex changing room thinking, "I would feel so much more comfortable if there were some trans women here."

So by saying it's acceptable for a few more women to be murdered for the greater good, they don't mean for the greater good of society. They mean it's acceptable for a few more women to be murdered so that they personally can have what they want. They're saying that what they want is more important than women's lives.

Yup. 'Prejudice' is another word seemingly with a new, floating and fluid definition, along with 'hate' and 'phobia' and various latin-derived terms.

Awareness of the contents and applications of queer theory inevitably lead to its rejection.

It all comes back, again and again, to a belief that women are non-human resources that should properly be available to men's use and needs, up to and including destruction of them.

And a belief that good women are co operatively enthusiastic about this.

I am not going near incel articles and thinking, but what little I have been unable to avoid becoming aware of would suggest that there would be a heavy correlation.

God forbid the TRAs take any blame for their rabid Twitter/X posts and treatment of women (and some men) in their efforts to get their own way. That would be too grown up.

Far easier to blame a well-known and loved author for truthfully stating the bleeding obvious.

Self ID doesn't result in a greater good to society in general.

But given that people clearly conclude that it does, the conclusion must be that they must be weighting people in society differently.

Societal good = Sum over population [ (Good to person i) times (Weighting of person i) ]

And then all you have to do is set the weighting for women to somewhere near zero, and the weighted societal good works out in favour of Self ID.

It was something of a shock to me to realise so many people valued women at zero, or very close to it, but the mathematics are inescapable.

It was something of a shock to me to realise so many people valued women at zero, or very close to it, but the mathematics are inescapable.

What I suspect is happening, is that women's distress is being "weighted to zero", because if you assume the "trans rights" perspective then women's objections can only be misguided, exaggerated, or just a blatant violation of human rights. So a woman’s unreasonable distress isn't given weight.

For the most part, they aren't even going to get so far as to "balance rights" or looking at "overall wellbeing".

Didn't the Bristol City Council consultation response more or less admit as much?

"There were objections from several groups, mainly women and ethnic minorities, but we did not take them into consideration as they are clearly unreasonable."

There is a powerful dehumanisation aspect.

Someone under the TQ+ umbrella being distressed is a serious problem requiring empathy, support and care, and immediate alleviation of distress.

A woman being distressed needs to shut up, get over it, abandon her faith and culture, have no feelings, see and think what she's told, or die in a grease fire.

The massive disrespect for women and mother figures in particular is hard to miss in terms of the pathology.

Yet we're women and you're not no matter how much you try. Who's laughing now?!🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭

Thanks for dropping by Gerald,enjoy the rest of your evening.

Yes, I am the Queen of the Babylonian underworld. You can track me down but I may smite you. Half term getting boring is it, "y'all"? Theythemmayhem sounds like "you don't have to be mad to work here, but it helps". Irredeemably naff.

Did they throw a 'amirite?!' into the 'y'all' mix too?

If prejudice is pointing out other people's needs and rights matter too, then <shrug>

Yes, people are losing patience. They are seeing through the marketing. They have pattern recognition.

Wailing that they're being phobic is not going to help that situation in any way. Changing the poor behaviour and respecting other people might.

Nice of someone to pop up to demonstrate live why people might be getting tired of the tantrums and self obsession of trans rights activists.

Threatening to dox people? that isn't the right side of history, mate.

Even if someone has used their real name on here, allowing you to "track them down", what exactly do you plan to do with that information?

Who uses their real name as their mumsnet name?

I do!

Mr R O G Critic

I do. It's Margot Bamborough, obviously.

Complete coincidence that Margot Bamborough also happens to be the name of a character in one of my favourite transphobic books.

Glad MN took the threat to dox people seriously when i reported it.