Results of YouGov Survey Dec 24 (for Sex Matters)

[Justme56]

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/poll-shows-support-for-sex-meaning-sex-in-equality-act/

I couldn't get far. I could feel the brain cells melting.

[edit] My own, I meant. But I suppose it applies both ways.

On the list of related threads, there's one asking why cis criminals are never misgendered. I'm not opening that for fear of my brain exiting via my ears in protest at the garbage input.

Oh dear.

Alas.

The delusions and exaggerations are astonishing, but I suppose they shouldn't really be surprising.

On that Reddit thread lo245 said "I’m feeling like the world is starting to be a very unsafe place for all LGBT+ people! Last night on the moral maze (radio 4) they’re were discussion about the breakdown of society due to the cult of individualism and that that traditional Nuclear family. Give kids the best I’m becoming scared to even start to talk to people about my transition".

Did anyone on here listen to that episode of Moral Maze?

Oh here's a good one from that reddit link...

"There is no nuance for "trans women are women and therefore don't count as men accessing women's spaces". So ignore this worthless pile of shit. "

Reminds me why I avoid reddit!

There is no nuance for "trans women are women and therefore don't count as men accessing women's spaces". So ignore this worthless pile of shit. "

no, there is no "nuance" for that because it's a lie.

In Sex Matters' introduction to the question, the following phrasing seems problematic:

a transgender woman is someone who was biologically male at birth, but now identifies as a woman. A transgender man is someone who was biologically female at birth, but now identifies as a man

The use of the past tense in relation to their biological status generates a suggestion that their biological status has changed, and may reinforce the idea in some respondents' minds that a trans person has (perhaps even by definition) completed some sort of biological transition.

I wish they had said:

a transgender woman is someone who is biologically male by birth, but now identifies as a woman. A transgender man is someone who is biologically female by birth, but now identifies as a man

Is that how YouGov originally phrased it in the previous surveys though?

I guess the introduction would have to be the same across every iteration of the survey, but it is a shame that it was worded like this in the first instance. Perhaps not within Sex Matters' choice/influence?
EDIT: Sorry, i was assuming the poll had been commissioned by Sex Matters from its first iteration but I think this was wrong of me.

The questions are the replica of the original questions which have not been changed in any way since the first questionnaire

No, not yet. But this reminded me about this old episode of the Moral Maze (2017) a blast from the past that I remember listening to at the time. With deep frustration.
S Whittle, J Fae, H Brunskill-Evans and James Caspian.
Will have to listen to that again now to see how it sounds from where we are now.
(And look-up the new one mentioned too)

Sharing, in case anyone else interested too:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b09dz416?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

EDIT: Sorry, i was assuming the poll had been commissioned by Sex Matters from its first iteration but I think this was wrong of me.

Yes, Sex Matters didn't exist when the first of these polls was carried out.

Happy to be wrong 😃:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/topic/Transgender

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/SexMatters_Gender_241219_ZMwbM2T.pdf

Yay! Thank you Ellen!

Brilliant!

Helleofabore

Or they believe the ‘we (male people with trans identities) are beaten up by men so can never be with the men’ line and believe these male people most certainly should not be with men.

I think you're definitely onto something there. After all, many people are still going on about how they're the most vulnerable and oppressed group, faf more likely than any other to be assaulted \ murdered etc (aye, right!).

I think Arabella is also onto a good idea, re "They must be vulnerable and really in trouble, men rarely ask," and probably thinking that they need refuge, they're victims, s where's the harm? And factor in that large numbers believe that they have has genital surgery, when we know that the opposite is true.

I'd be interested to know the breakdown voting by sex, well. Are men more likely to have voted for them to access sports, refuges etc.

Edited for a typo....

I'd be interested to know the breakdown voting by sex, well. Are men more likely to have voted for them to access sports, refuges etc.

Previous surveys have found the opposite.

In every category males were more strongly in favour of denying access than females.
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/SexMatters_Gender_241219_ZMwbM2T.pdf

I suppose that's the baleful influence of #bekind in action.

In every category males were more strongly in favour of denying access than females.

Yes, I know, sorry, quote fail. Was quoting @SinnerBoy

Partly female socialisation, and partly that males often have a clearer understanding of male mentality. I think a lot of women find fetishism very very hard to understand, for example.

Only 11% of people truly believe that TWAW and that sex does not matter.

That's important when you have questions about a law which may effectively erase the difference and disadvantage women in any situation.

Saying that biological sex doesn't matter is not true and does not have public consent.

Everything else collapses in the face of that. It means that backlash is ultimately inevitable at some point.

Belatedly spotted this. Good as ever to be reassured about the existence of the sensible majority. I suspect the sports figures are because this is very visible and absolutely flaming obvious. The lower figures for refuges are because fewer respondents will have personal knowledge of those/will have thought through the implications.

11% of people truly believe that TWAW and that sex does not matter.

How has this absurdity that is only supported by such a small number become codified into law and regulations?