Responses to Nancy Kelly really staring to show the cracks in support of gender ideology tactis.

[lechiffre55]

I want to try and get this out there as fairly as possible. I think this shouldn't be seen with schadenfreude but with sympathy for all the people Kelly has caused such damage.
Going to split this into parts.
Link that put me onto it from the "Perm Based Lifeform" ( Ask Dennis Kavanagh )
https://twitter.com/theneonrequiem/status/1752649147818164236

Ends up at this article by Nancy Kelley
https://medium.com/@nancymirandakelley/is-the-uk-public-getting-more-transphobic-c245165f6eb

3 comments on the article. Going to repost all 3 to give the full context. Not cherry picking.

Recl
4 months ago
'With all beliefs including controversial beliefs there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging - whether it's anti-Semitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, beliefs about disability - we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that."
Challenged as to whether it might be considered offensive to compare anti-Semitic beliefs to gender-critical views, she insisted it was appropriate.'
(www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57281448)
Not sure you ever counted yourself as a 'trans-ally'. Hey, it's difficult these days. Only a few days ago I was told I was a 'transphobe', and I thought I was an ally, albeit a 'pragmatic ally'.
I'm not sure you were ever an ally though; your words, in interviews and speeches are routinely reproduced by those who now rejoice in the term 'TERF'. If you were an enemy of the trans-cause it would hard to distinguish what you would have been able to do that was different to what you actually did whilst you reckoned you were an ally.
Stonewall is in a dreadful state, the LGB Alliance increasingly seen as being representative of gay men and lesbian women; an out-and-out, in-depth anti-trans opposition has formed and no amount of squealing 'Nazi!' or 'bigot!' is touching it. At some point the lesbian and gay community are actually going to combine, and then they'll join-up with the gender-critical women (who aren't lesbians) in the fashion they did with the AIDs crisis...and then things will be really 'stuffed'.
Social media, the redoubt for the trans-cause, is now utterly lost to the GC movement. Witness the ruthless pursuit of tran-allies in any and every thread. Which leaves the ability to demonstrate and protest. But that means trusting that the black-clad-and-masked men who frequent such events aren't going to do something stupid. They've managed to do some pretty stupid things to-date, and get filmed from multiple angles doing it.
So leadership is needed, and for trans and their allies, that is sadly lacking. Hyperbole and over-egging is rife & the public has grown weary and cynical.
The minimum requirement was to avoid the impression that there was a conflict between trans rights and women's rights. Easy to do, surely? The strategy though saw tens-of-thousands of death-and-rape threats against women, particularly lesbians, who promptly record them with screenshots. The very worst possible thing to happen, did.
If the next British Social Attitudes Survey is going to see improvement, the trans community is going to need better leaders than...yourself.

Ana D
4 months ago
This from Nancy Kelley, the married lesbian who compares lesbians like me to racists for not having sex with men who call themselves ‘trans’.

Nancy implied that homosexuality and heterosexuality are caused by societal prejudice and that we should consider how society might have shaped our attractions.

The irony is apparently lost on Nancy that we would all be heterosexual if we were desperate to fit in with society more broadly. How lucky she must be to have never been attacked or lost a job for being a lesbian.

Trans activists regularly send violent threats to those who disagree with their homophobic, child abusing, misogynist, anti-reality movement.

Turns out people just don’t like what they see.

Platinum
4 months ago
An excellent article Nancy. Thank you for taking the time to analysis the data contained in the latest survey and contextualise it.
I really am saddened by how much of the media, politicians, the evangelical right and populists generally have united in their campaign to denigrate, marginalise and in some cases eliminate trans people from society.
The idea that one third of UK society is prepared to willing admit to being prejudiced towards such a small group is simply horrible.

My own comment. Here, not on that article.
I've never seen society so nastily divided on so many issues.
I believe very strongly in women having access, protected in law, to female only spaces. Both for safety and for comfort. But I don't want to other everyone who disagrees with me. They are humans just like me, and I want them to have the same rights and protections in law that I enjoy. No less, no more, equal.
From the comments copied above it's clear that not everyone on the other side believes that how Nancy Kelley behaved was the right way to handle things. I can only imagine how much better the relationship between women and trans people would be if the commenter above had been in Nancy's position at Stonewall. How Stonewall might still been seen as the de facto voice of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, alongside their new trans friends. How there would be no need for The LGB Alliance. How rape centres might still be centering rape victims as their priority.
I think we should remember that Nancy is only one person, and not everyone, in fact probably only a small minority are as extreme and deluded as she is. Let's not let this fight for women's rights make us lesser people.

Nancy can delete her post for all I care. The comments are what made me think.
End.

The idea that one third of UK society is prepared to willing admit to being prejudiced towards such a small group is simply horrible.

I thought we were all increasingly being defined as under the trans umbrella. Or about to go extinct if we weren't.

That the trans umbrella covered 40% of some demographic groups. And a good 7% of the general population.

But small, in the sense of vulnerable. But also strong for being full of anti-fa warriors, high on their own righteousness and the thrill of being crowned with laurels for expressing misogyny in public. Strong in numbers and spirit.

But somehow weak, and needing to be prioritised above all others. And prioritised because sacred and entitled to luxury communism. Which is why newspapers and broadcasters do as we want. And education. And the law courts. And prisons. And the NHS. And…And…

I hope that's clear.

People aren’t being asked if they have concerns about women’s sports, or worry about the content of relationships and sex education in schools, or feel uncomfortable with the idea of trans women accessing services for women who have survived rape or domestic abuse.

Well maybe if they were asked those things openly and allowed to give an opinion Nancy, without being called names, they wouldn’t feel the need to go to the lengths of stating they’re prejudiced, probably largely on the grounds that they can no longer say they support transactivism.

And the question “are you prejudiced” can in no way be compared to a question asking if people believe lesbian and gay relationships are “always wrong”. I bet most people who answered that they did think it was always wrong still would have answered no if they were asked whether they were prejudiced against lesbian and gay people.

Admitting you’re prejudiced is a very odd thing to do because most people don’t see themselves that way, even if they are. I think people must have had very strong feelings to actually vote that way, but I’d like to bet that many of them are actually against transactivism and not anti trans.

This. I imagine if you asked in the deep south of America during the Jim Crow era you wouldn't get 40% of people saying they were prejudiced.

If this data is accurate then it simply shows the result of a decade of telling people disagreement = bigotry and doesn't really measure actual prejudice.

Am I prejudiced? Yes, at this stage I judge people who have adopted a trans identity to be self-absorbed, mentally unwell, and possibly at risk. I judge transwomen to be at best deeply disrespectful of women, and transmen to be disrespectful of their own younger selves.

trans is misogyny

THANK YOU @lechiffre55 Following the link to the https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/bsa-40-liberalisation-attitudes and from that to the PDF of the report rewards you with this. https://natcen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/BSA%2040%20Moral%20issues.pdf and you get to see that in all other stats (e.g, attitudes to gay people, abortion etc.) we appear to remain more liberal over time (some wobbles but not huge). But Table 4 re attitudes to trans shows markedly less liberal and also strange number drop off to answer the second question shown in Table 4. This shows a remarkable 44% downward swing re. anti trans rights in this second table (from 2019 to 2022) compared to 22% in the prejudice question over the same time.

This second part of the table was not referred to in Nancy Kelley's article. Perhaps because the stats were already down in 2021 (to 32% and continuing to drop in 2022 to 30%). Its one of the headlines in the summary at the start of the report that. Just 30% think someone should be able to have the sex on their birth certificate altered if they want, down from 53% in 2019 (Difficult to miss, shocking statistic from credible research). If you look at the table there is also (unless a typo?) a curiously huge decline in people answering this second question. From 3112 to 2202 (i.e. from 2021 figure, so only the year before). No such reluctance to answer the prejudice question (3389 answered that - similar to previous years). If this is not a typo then why are 1/3 less people answering this question? (I can only think - not an expert in this field - that there would be reluctance from those who do not want to venture an opinion or are embarrassed by their opinion).

Worth noting that in 2020 the survey went online and in this report its posited that this may have made it more likely that people would answer more honestly re questions such as that about prejudice. So this may not be a new thing, just under-reported when interviewing face to face.

As an aside I love the way this report refers to the consultation on attitudes to trans rights (a comment by people who do proper randomised research for a living):
The results of the public consultation, published in September
2020, seemingly suggesting wide support for all aspects of
reform, including 64% in favour of removing the requirement for
a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and 80% in favour of removing
the requirement for a medical report (UK Government, 2020) –
although it should be noted that these results may not necessarily
accurately reflect the balance of public opinion.

For so long we have been told that pretty much EVERYTHING is transphobic.

It's ridiculous- even thoughts & dogs are transphobic. Calling someone their name or the "wrong pronoun" is transphobic act of hate.

The numbers in the survey is a direct response to the ridiculous & relentless claims, attacks & demands of TRAs. I can only imagine the next survey will "sadden" Nancy further.

Trans rights = more rights than everyone else & anyone who disagrees is a TERF/ transphobic bigot & must be attacked & silenced.

Surprisingly this tactic is starting to fall apart. Early TRA gains were incredible- following the Denton's advice worked really well & mostly by stealth they made huge gains. The way so many govt institutions, the police, NHS, schools, were all so easily captured by this ludicrous ideology was frightening & shocking and it's a massive lesson/wake up call for the entire "western world".

When we all realised what was going on, or paid attention to those shouting 🔥🔥🔥 unheard for years, questions were asked, we demanded debate. The silencing & intimidation tactics worked for a while. But you can't gaslight & intimidate the entire population into the false & unsubstantiated beliefs of a cult for too long.

Women organised, women & men fought back. We asked questions!!! (Questions of course are transphobic. Like debate - transphobic).

We now all know the emperor has no clothes. We are all the child pointing & laughing now.

TRA tactics are likely to get desperate now as their ship is sinking. The house of TWAW, built by Nancy & Co are clearly seen as the fraudulent lies & manipulation they are.

Imagine if they had just gone down the TWAM route & campaigned for acceptance within their own sex, & not tried to make everyone believe a load of rubbish that is the gender bollocks?

The responsibility for this "rise in transphobia" lies directly with Stonewall, Nancy,Pink News, Mermaids & all the other TRAs thinking they can silence & intimidate the world into submission to their ludicrous demands.

I think people are missing my point sorry.
The repies to Nancy's article are very interesting because of who they come from, and what they say.

In the same research exercise (which can draw on figures back to the 1980s) they have stats about attitudes to gay rights too. The answers (from the same set of respondents) do not reflect the anti-trans feeling. There is a high acceptance of same sex relationships (67% said these were not wrong at all, down 5% since 2021 up same as 2020). (Note that not all questions are asked every year so there are some gaps in the trans stats but this one has stats annually since).

I can’t really see who they come from as the link in your OP is to Twitter and I can no longer directly see the responses. I know you recreated three of them, but the only thing I can see is that some are from lesbians who don’t support transactivism, which is no surprise to me. I suspect many older lesbians have had their eyes wide open for quite a long time.

Can you say a bit more about what it is specifically you find interesting and why? Maybe then, you will get more thoughts on that aspect.

I thought that those were VERY interesting. Thank you for preserving them. As I am new to this whole area (only been following for last few months) I am trying to make the point in looking at the wider table that Nancy Kelley did not address that more shocking statistic at all. But perhaps this was all talked about ad nauseum before I started getting hooked on this board. I would be interested in her results (from a randomised survey at scale) about how people had switched from 'getting there' (nearly 60%) agreeing that sex on birth certificate should be changeable, to 30% and falling. The comments pick up on the squandering of goodwill by Stonewall tactics. These are not working.

Could you explain Who the replies come from, I don't recognise them

My second post that starts "Ends up at this article by Nancy Kelley" is a link to the article. The article is not on twitter, you should be able to read it. I've not read the article myself. What was most interesting to me were the replies to her article, which I then posted each as a single post to preserve them against deletion. The comments seems to come from people who one the surface might be expected to support Nancy Kelley, possibly even gender identity supporters, but very disappointed in what Nancy has done, and the fallout from her Stonewall activities. What I took from one comment is particular is it feels to me like they recognise how damaging the no debate and hysteria fuelled all clad in black violent TRA thugs have been to their cause. The effects that has had in shifting public opinion massively against their goals. Also an element of "Nancy you done fucked it all up. Are you sure you're on our side?" from people who share her views.

The question asked re prejudice is gives this definition of transgender:

"People who are transgender have gone through all or part of
a process (including thoughts or actions) to change the sex
they were described as at birth to the gender they identify
with, or intended to. This might include by changing their name,
wearing different clothes, taking hormones or having gender
reassignment surgery"

I think that this is an interesting definition. It reminds those answering that this might include changing name or wearing different clothes OR having gender reassignment surgery. Would people who object to pronouns and name changes call themselves prejudiced? 'Including thoughts or actions' was also interesting. Not asking only about 'Hayleigh Cropper' and I would assume prejudice recording would have been lower had they not used such an encompassing definition. (Which is actually quite a good and accurate one IMO). Wonder whether this question is in for 2023?

'Prejudiced' seems to be being used by some people here to mean 'inclined to be against' rather than 'having a pre-formed opinion on'. It is perfectly possible to be prejudiced in favour of a group of people. Many TRAs appear to be prejudiced in favour of trans people.

All the poll results show is that two-thirds of people don't have an opinion on trans people one way or another.

The replies are replies to Nancy's article. I have copy pasted them to preserve them. Under Nancy's name there's two icons. A clappy one and a reply speech bubble. If you click the bubble you can see the replies that I copied and pasted.

Yes the replies are very interesting.
Your comment The comments pick up on the squandering of goodwill by Stonewall tactics. These are not working. is spot on.

@lechiffre55 Noticed that you had not read the article.

The article is IMO not as interesting as the selective use of the research it references. I would have thought that Stonewall would have wanted to jump up and down about the numbers now switching opinion on pro-trans law changes. (Or perhaps there is very good reason not to draw attention to what the public actually want when researched properly during run up to an election year?)

Hoping there were interesting questions in the 2023 survey and that there will be reporting before the election this year (and coverage of this).

Quoting myself to say I hold similar if not identical prejudice about people with anorexia, a group very similar in many ways to transmen and younger transwomen.