I have copied this over from the derailed JKR vs IW thread where correlation between countries allowing gender self ID and countries ranking highly in this survey for men/ women equality was highlighted as somehow very significant and proof of something or other by suggestionsplease1.
Several posters pointed out that what is being measured in this survey in terms of women’s equality in terms of economic participation and levels of education has NOTHING to do with the effects of self ID on women’s wellbeing in areas affected by the ability of any man to identify as a woman and insist on acceptance in female only spaces.
suggestionsplease1 · Today 13:53
“Nowhere am I claiming causation, I don't need to.
The GC argument on the other hand needs to show that self-ID is detrimental to women.
They should be finding that the countries who have put in place self- ID are falling down the league tables for women's equality and well-being after introducing it, not staying at the top, which they are presently doing.”
What they “should” be finding depends very much on WHAT is being measured under the category of women’s equality and wellbeing.
Trans access to women’s single sex spaces, support schemes etc is unlikely to have ANY effect on women’s pay, maternity rights and so on.
But what needs to be captured is the gradual erosion of women’s place in sports, women’s ability to self-organise without biological males present, or the discomfort in having to use mixed sex changing rooms and toilets. Making the world a bit crappier and more stressful for women in these areas is unlikely to be measured or captured in the usual “key indicators” for women’s equality.
And you were certainly implying some sort of causation by linking the two things in the first place. Or why point out the apparent correlation?