Does the general public want to watch programmes about Transwomen?

[TiredOldHen]

Media like The Guardian, Independent, BBC…etc really seem to push and promote any programmes with a very prominent transwoman/transwomen content. I just wondered how popular they actually are with viewers. For example there was lots of Trailers and ‘You must watch this’, ‘Essential viewing’… for What it Feels Like for a Girl. Do viewing figures reflect the same level of interest amongst viewers for programmes launched like this or Drag Race. I would genuinely like to know if they are satisfying a demand. Most programmes for young people now seem to have at least one trans person. It’s hard to tell in my bubble how interested people are outside the GC/TWAW debate.or if it’s just (in a Dr Who way) pushed upon them as something they should be aware interested in.

Is the right to a single sex space really worse to you than the current situation? With the rich getting richer and richer, sowing division in society, and exploiting us?

Maybe it’s just me but I’d rather focus on the fact that my daughter will never be able to buy a house, and will have to hope she doesn’t get seriously ill because she won’t be able to afford childcare. I’m more concerned by the fact my children are facing an education system that’s being stripped and stripped, than by changing rooms.

Those charts and the video of KJK. Wash rinse repeat.

I'm somewhere between gay & bi (almost 50 and still not sure!) and I can still remember seeing the first w/w kiss, same sex storyline, watching QueerAsFolk etc and feeling just a little bit less weird and hopeless. If having a 'trans' or GNC character helps make some other confused kid feel a bit less hopeless then I'm all for it.

People then hated that gay/lesbian content was 'being rammed down their throats' but in all honesty, it was a miniscule amount of content compared the heteronormative stuff I saw all day every day growing up.

I 100% don't believe people can change sex and I think SS spaces / sports are important or that healthy bodies are somehow 'wrong' but I do believe people can be confused about what society expects of men / women and how to navigate that and clearly some kids are struggling. Living/ presenting differently is important for some people.

From a gay perspective, non-heteronomative content served as either a mirror for people (me) who felt some similarity with the person portrayed or a window into that experience for someone who was straight and had never faced those problems and perhaps that helps grow tolerance.

I don't share the beliefs of a <insert religion> person but I'm still interested in stories with a religious character for example.

How do we ascertain what people want to watch.....other than by asking them directly?

People tend to watch what is put in front of them, and if their favourite soap has introduced trans characters then that is what they will see and view. I suspect the only clamour for such characters comes from trans activists themselves......who believe that if only the public were exposed to these characters then they would get used to them and thus become less 'bigoted'.

Have you missed all the high profile cases where women have had to go to employment tribunals because their rights are being taken away, simply for stating that men are men?Small issues can become big issues very quickly. We can tackle the most pressing issues that need immediate attention, without ignoring what you consider to be small problems. It’s also worth remembering that the big problems faced by society, such as poor housing, low wages, zero hour contracts which lead to poverty, always have a bigger impact on women, so if you remove any of other rights we will be in even bigger trouble.

Arguably it's all driven by the same "the wants of the individual override the impact on society" narrative. You just have to stop buying into the myth that 'gender ideology', particularly it's iteration in North America and Europe, is in any way progressive.

I didn't think I would be quoting Toby Young. But here we go.

Well, um since setting it up about 5 years ago, um we fought over 4,000 cases and where they've come to a conclusion we've been successful about 80% of the time. And in our case database on Salesforce, um by far the largest category is sex and gender, about 40% um of those 4,000 plus cases we fought over the past 5 years uh have been defending um uh gender critical women um who've complained about having to share bathrooms, changing rooms with biological men who think they're women. Um, I mean, when I set up the Free Speech Union, I thought, you know, um, I'd end up defending people like me for the most part. Um, you know, male, pale, and stale Tories. Um, but actually the front line, the people who find themselves cancelled more often, the people who find it more difficult than anyone else to kind of, uh, express how they feel about something, um, even if it's perfectly lawful..

If women have all these rights being respected, why are there so many court cases involving women defending those rights?

Do you not think it is because all these women have pushed through court cases that perhaps we are where we are now? So this set of questions "Can you name a right you don’t have today that you had a year ago? 5 years ago? A decade ago? " pretty much dismisses the significant effort of women in getting to the point where you can dismissively ask them.

It's every major and respected index on international comparisons between countries isn't it?

The Women's Peace and Equality Index, the Global Gender Gap Report, the Gender Inequality Index. I have provided the charts for the 3 major indices. Can you find any respected international indices on women's equality, rights and wellbeing that show a different picture?

This sums it up completely. MN users are obsessed with a GC view of the trans issue. When 0.5% of the uk population identifies as trans and they’ll likely never have a single meaningful encounter with a trans person in their entire life. Most normal people couldn’t give a shit either way. This comes from a GC person (although I don’t hate trans people and I believe in gender dysphoria..I’m just against all these ‘trans trenders’ jumping on the bandwagon & I don’t believe you can change your sex) I’m just looking at the reality of it for the average person in society. I thought what it’s like for a girl was great though!

This is an excellent post.

You still have those rights, in fact the Supremer Court affirmed you have those rights.

Meanwhile our healthcare, education, local authorities, adult social care, even our bin collections, are being stripped to the bone in order for the rich to get richer. But I guess that's just not that important.

When 0.5% of the uk population identifies as trans and they’ll likely never have a single meaningful encounter with a trans person in their entire life.

NO. I don't know how many times I have to explain this but this isn't about 0.5% of the population. Gender ideology says that anyone who identifies as the opposite sex has the right to be treated as the opposite sex. In other words, any man who says he's a woman has the right to be treated as a woman: to enter women's changing rooms, women's prisons, women's rape crisis centres, women's sports, jobs reserved for women. In other words, every single man in the country has the right to identify into women's spaces if he wants.

Just ask yourself one simple question: which kind of man is most likely to want access to women's spaces, women's sports and women's jobs?

That's why it's a problem.

Ok then. I think my answer is nobody knows if trans centric programming gets good viewing figures. Thank you 😊

Interruptaron incoming.

@suggestionsplease1
I suggest you go and live for at least a year as a woman in Nicaragua or Namibia or even Malta. I can guarantee, without the slightest hesitation, that you won't come back quite so full of bullshit about their gold star equality and women's wellbeing status. I've lived in two of them so I actually know what I'm talking about. Go on, go and live the dream. I double dare you.

I think a lot of us can think about more than one thing at once

"Is the right to a single sex space really worse to you than the current situation? With the rich getting richer and richer, sowing division in society, and exploiting us?"

"Maybe it’s just me but I’d rather focus on the fact that my daughter will never be able to buy a house, and will have to hope she doesn’t get seriously ill because she won’t be able to afford childcare. I’m more concerned by the fact my children are facing an education system that’s being stripped and stripped, than by changing rooms."

You have the freedom to choose whatever political aims you wish, many of us share those concerns mentioned. However, to dismiss the valid concerns that are unique to women and girls though, when their aims don't match yours can be considered an act of misogyny.

The issues that we discuss actually cover things such as the ability to gain financial security to buy or even just rent houses, and health care access and to gain an education in a safe and secure space. That you choose to dismiss the impacts is your choice and you do you.

Why do you think you should be able to dismiss and shame others political interests the way you have? Why do you think you have any right to tell women what they should be turning their efforts towards?

Is it only on Mumsnet where people, women, aren’t able to care about more than one issue, all at the same time? Wild.

It is designed to create a belief in the collective conscious that trans women are everywhere, that they pass, that they are persecuted and that they do not present as a threat to women, who readily accept them as women.

Look for the portrayal of trans men in the media and compare...

@suggestionsplease1 Your stats are interesting but are no kind of gotcha.

What you've observed is that the UN's list of five index items doesn't include self-ID. Are any GC feminists suggesting it does? No.

Then you want to know why the correlation. The obvious answer is that self-ID is common in rich, Western, liberal countries. Again, I'm not sure any GC feminist would disagree with that assertion.

What do you think you data is disproving?

There is plenty of discussion of why this effect. It's not a new observation. Listen to any Helen Joyce podcast. Plausible theories include: i) the institutional gay-rights movement found itself without a cause, and so moved onto this rather than scale down; ii) self-ID is a comparatively cheap/easy way for governments and corporations to appear to tackle discrimination or injustice, so in countries where the public expects and demands that, it gets supplied.

I think this is reflective of one of the many DEI fails that have arisen in recent years.

If people are watching the Antiques Roadshow they want the content to be driven by interesting antiques and surprising monetary value, they do not want less interesting content in the interest of representation. If the content is interesting, they don’t care whether the people on the show do or do not have protected characteristics.

If people are watching a drama, they want diegetic consistency whereby all elements of the show fit the world of the story (e.g cast, dialogue, costumes). If a person with a protected characteristic (actor or character) is wedged in for representation purposes and this doesn’t cohere with the rest of the drama, viewers are pulled out of their immersion in the show and it becomes less enjoyable.

This is blindingly obvious, but some people believe that the cost to enjoyment is worth it for the gains in representation. However, those with this view tend to overlook people being resentful that their enjoyment is being diminished and that in some cases this can lead to resentment towards people with the protected characteristic who is being shoe horned in.

I am dismayed by the damage that social justice warriors have done and struggle to manage my contempt for their wilful ignorance towards how their misguided actions have paved the way for increased intolerance.

Yes we had those rights and yet oddly enough every government body, every media outlet, the NHS, universities, political party etc etc completely ignored this fact in favour of kow towing to men LARPing as women. Even though the SC had confirmed the law all of these bodies are having to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually complying with the law. Women are still having to fund legal cases ti enforce our rights.

what I take from that is 1. The governing classes are either so stupid they can't tell the difference between men and women or - and this is worse - are prepared to fragrantly lie if it's politically expedient

and 2 that if we can't define things properly men, women, children, free, private public and all words mean whatever we want then too it is incredibly easy for the governing classes to lie about what is going on

you cannot tackle anything on your long list of problems if words are literally meaningless depending on who is using it

abd if you can't see how the word for 51% of the population being redefined to include men isn't part of this wider problem then 🤷🏻‍♀️

Hmm, no mention of (for example) medical misogyny, or the gender pay gap, or the buffer zones around medical buildings which provide abortion services. All of which I have taken action on and have talked about on these boards.

As well as (for example) the erosion of single sex spaces which has meant that women in my home city have been harmed (and that's a quote from an independent review) and have self excluded from rape crisis services.

I notice that, predicatably, you mention changing rooms (makes a change from toilets I suppose). No mention of prisons, or rape crisis services, or domestic abuse refuges, or hospital wards etc etc.

You been doing much about the issues you mentioned above? Or are you just focusing on the scolding of women on here?

I see. So the lack of protection for the female staff and service users should be dismissed because you are saying that we should side line those and focus only on the macro level.

Why can we not do both?

And Fuck! even fucking bin collections should be concentrated on first, because apparently the law just being there is good enough for you. Forget the fact that the law is being breached and dismissed by a huge % of organisations. Including but not limited to: healthcare, education, local authorities, adult social care.

So, if women reject the NHS, education and local authorities as an employer and women and girls reject them as service providers... well.. that fixes your macro level issues doesn't it? Or not....

THIS 👏👏👏