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.

If gender self ID is such a major threat to women why have the countries that have introduced it stayed at the top of the international tables for women rather than dropping down these tables since introducing it?

Hey women.... bin collection is a bigger issue than male people being included in single sex spaces, which includes rape crisis, refuges, prisons, female hospital wards, same sex health care professionals, sports, changing rooms and toilets, and a huge range of everyday needs for female people.

Bins!

And again. Female head's of state, including traditional monarchies, have a greater weighting on the gender gap figures.

That you cannot acknowledge this seems to be a bit of a concern.

It's very 'wheesht for Indy' misogynism.

You see it all the time - 'We'll get around to those woman-y issues you keep wittering about, just wheesht just now dear. You keep on making the teas, stuffing envelopes, and leaflet dropping etc and we'll get to it when we get to it!'

La la la

Hmmm, just had a thought, Corrie has a plethora of gays but no trans, how long before one appears do you reckon?

But that renders it meaningless for the purpose of illustration or drawing meaningful conclusions. If it’s not “because of” it can equally be “despite”.

I don’t have a very big pension, but I live relatively well. This is not because I’m short of money, but despite it. Similarly, my diet leaves a lot to be desired in the way of healthy eating; I remain fit and healthy despite my diet, rather than because of it.

And was a very deliberate action by the lobby group Press for Change. The use of a woman to play a transwoman in Coronation Street was a very specific choice.

This is an intellectually dishonest and inconsistent point of yours.

The SC confirmed that a legal right has existed throughout, yet that right has been denied in practice over a decade plus. You wave it away because of paper rights.

But you don't do the same to your own preferred causes. Look up the UN declaration of human rights and you will see that the things you say are more important causes are all written right there. So, nothing to worry about. Silly you.

The Women, Peace and Security index does not consider female heads of state in its analysis.

I don't think about it at all when watching a program with a trans person but my friends all love drag race, I've never seen it so can't comment but it's a big topic of conversation I feel I'm missing out!

It is misogynistic indeed that women and girls are being told that they need to wait until the 'bigger issues' are fixed before their needs are met.

The disconnect between 'the laws are there already' and the reality of years of misinterpreting those laws to have policies in place that breach that law is very telling.

No women... you got what you wanted now with the law being clarified, now SHUT THE FUCK UP, it doesn't matter that it will take sustained effort to force the policies to follow the law.

But the 'gender gap' does.

Because the index doesn't measure that. Where's the gotcha?

In fact, in so far as self-ID is directly relevant to the metric, we should expect self-ID in any meaningful quantity to uplift a country's ranking. Why? Because in practice the index measures degree of female disadvantage. If you start counting advantaged members in the disadvantaged group and vice-versa, what direction will that move the index in? Upward, even holding underlying conditions constant.

So if you are looking for how self-ID can distract from other issues, you've found one. Permitting self-ID distracts and masks from the issues you claim are more important.

Are you switching sides now?

You are aware that trans people score poorly in all areas that are measured on these indices aren't you?

Not aware, no. It may well be true. But that is not relevant to the point either you or I am making.

I feel you are shifting the ground because you don't have a very sound intellectual grasp of the arguments you are making.

It depends on how you define “major threat”. There are many threats and disadvantages to women; not all have a discernible effect on overall measures. Take maternity care. The majority of women giving birth seem to be reasonably well cared for and have a good or satisfactory experience, according to what can be inferred from reports. However, a minority have unsatisfactory or catastrophic experiences. Yet the UK is still a good place for women. Using your logic, how can this be?

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/performance-of-maternity-services-in-england/

As an autistic woman, and as the mother of autistic daughters - I'd like to have the right to a research base into autism in females that isn't completely skewed by allowing Dave who transitioned socially to Davina (but kept little Dave in his pants) at the age of 57 to identify into the study and completely distort it into the usual "little boys lining up trains" male-experience of autism.

I'd like them to have support and any therapy needed on an evidence base actually based on the evidence of the lives of biological autistic women.

I'd also like my two friends who were murdered by husbands back alive - but resurrection is asking a bit much.

I turn the TV off if it's pushing the trans narrative down my throat in an unexpected area - I get sick of sitting watching something like the Antiques Roadshow and then all of a sudden it's UNEXPECTED SAUSAGE IN BAGGING AREA and all about their trans-journey. Feck that.

So when you talked about advantaged members being included in the disadvantage group and moving the index upwards you weren't speaking to this issue?

It’s not being rammed down anybody’s throat you can chose not to watch and teaching at school is for representational purposes and the hope that today’s children live in a world which is mote tolerant, accepting and inclusive which is desperately needed looking through this thread

You seem to be under the impression in making this statistical point that: i) self-ID is only available to trans people, and ii) all (or at least, substantially all such that the exceptions can be ignored) trans people are male, i.e. are trans women.

You are mistaken on both counts. This is another example of where I don't think you've thought your points through.

That's even if I grant you that the average person availing themselves of self-ID in the stats is less advantaged than the average person not availing themself. I have no data on that, and if you do, please feel free to share it. It would surprise me if such granular data is kept.

It doesn’t matter, women weren’t the ones banging on about the “right” to self ID as the opposite sex. It’s not exactly a shocker that women’s rights aren’t top of the priority list. The point is a level of support has in the past been claimed for “trans rights” that simply doesn’t exist, and has actually dropped when people became aware of how unreasonable the things being demanded were.

Sometimes conspiracy theories are mental, the idea that ITV employed a trans comedian to star in a sitcom is all part of a conspiracy to privatise the NHS. Seriously?

Tolerance does not mean prioritisation of that group's demands over another group's rights though.

If the discussion about the needs of female people being prioritised when sex matters causes you concern. Is it because you have the view that if a group demands access to another group's protections they should get that, because that to you is tolerance?

For example, do you think that girls in school should have single sex spaces that excludes all male people and fair sport where no male student is included in their event if it is a 'girls' event? Or do you think that your definition of tolerance means that male people should have access to those provisions and that girls need to tolerate that?

I’m fed up of it, as a Dr Who fan the last episode* I watched was the one where they shoehorned in the grown ass adult trans identifying male who was apparently supposed to be a teen. I was so confused about why he kept talking to the young lad, I’d no idea they were supposed to be friends, I assumed it was a child babysitter arrangement but still weird. The whole thing was just a confusing propaganda mess.

*’The Star Beast’