Survey on culture in the UK - 'trans rights' questions

[ArabellaSaurus]

New survey

19% of people say 'trans rights have not gone far enough' in the UK.
39% say 'trans rights have gone too far'.

That's a really big change in the past five years.

'The proportion who say transgender rights have gone too far in the UK has more than doubled since 2020, from 17% to 39%, though overall there is still no public consensus on the issue, with 19% now saying transgender rights have not gone far enough, 27% saying they’ve gone as far as they should, and a further 15% not giving an opinion.
The proportion of people who say transgender rights have gone too far has doubled among all age groups – even 16-24s, where one in five (19%) now feel this way, compared with around one in 10 (9%) in 2020. However, young people are still more likely to say transgender rights have not gone far enough (36%).'

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uks-sense-division-reaches-new-high-culture-war-tensions-grow-study-finds

Article:

https://unherd.com/newsroom/growing-number-of-britons-think-trans-rights-have-gone-too-far/

And it's also possible to produce articles and books arguing that men's and women's brains aren't wired differently.

Gina Rippon
www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/05/the-gendered-brain-gina-rippon-review
Cordelia Fine
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine

However even if you take the line that men and women have different brains, where does that leave people who identify as gender fluid? non-binary? a-gender?

Are you going to test trans people to find out if they are really trans? Are you going to tell somebody with dysphoria that they just have to suck it up after all? Are you going to test everyone's brain and decide whether it is male or female?

You will always be left with the conclusion that while it is essential to define sex, gender identity is a vague subjective concept with limited application.

So you've absolutely no idea - not remotely surprised because 'news flash' there is absolutely no way to do this which is why we keep all men out of women's spaces whether they are my lovely DH, a man in a spinny skirt or Pete the plumber

all men need to stay out

The true believers don't change their minds even once they do understand the implications though.

I have spent many an hour debating Schedule 3 issues with TW friend, to no avail, because 'it's more complicated than that'.

So I switched the question. If I could prove harm (injury and unfairness to sportswomen, crime or fear of crime in prisons or changing rooms, exclusion of religious women from public life), would TWF accept Schedule 3 restrictions (or, in the alternative, 'trans-inclusive' and single-sex services existing side-by-side)?

The answer is no. TWAW, it's just the way it is, and the necessary consequence is that they must have identical rights to women, even if there are unfortunate downsides. And the religious women are just bigots, so don't need accommodating.

In some ways, this seems more intellectually coherent because it doesn't rely on denying the attendant harms. But, of course, it ignores that Schedule 3 is needed because of the physiology underlying those harms (when I mention this, the argument goes right back to 'it's more complicated than that'). And it ignores the fuzzy boundary between TW and other men (answer: 'there's lots of science! Anyway, we are tiny in number and so vulnerable')

TL:DR It's a quasi-religious belief shared by fewer than 20% of us, so no point trying to argue them out of it.

We've never progressed to debating S158-159 or Schedules 9, 12, or 16, and at this rate we never will.

Can you explain the way you tell a violent man from a non violent man?

I don't believe in magic.

Just as I don't believe that a holy man saying a magic spell can turn biscuits into meat, I don't believe that a man saying the magic words "I am a woman" turns into a woman.

And That is where you and I do not agree; trans women are women.
The vast majority of SAse are committed by cis men. You are far more likely, statistically, to be SA by a cis man than a trans woman if either one was alone with you.
I also believe when a SA victim goes to get help they should be able to see a cis female, if only for their own comfort and to respect what they have gone through.
That's not anti trans, thats understanding a victim's needs.
That does not mean we should suspect all trans people.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/
https://hudson.org.au/news/written-in-dna-study-reveals-potential-biological-basis-for-transgender/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3
It's not magic words, it's scientific fact.

Do you realise that by saying trans woman should be allowed to use a lady’s toilet that that creates more dangerous toilet designs for everyone don’t you?

It means there is a huge economic cost to venues to create toilets that are more dangerous for anyone who has a medical emergency, that have been scientifically shown to be less hygienic (more cleaning and ventilation problems) so you are more likely to catch pathogens, and are particularly dangerous for women and children.

Changing toilets to the mixed sex design means they have to be fully private and sound resistant (they lose the ~10-15cm gap at the bottom of the doors/partitions and the space above it). They need a sink and hand drying facilities in them. This is costly and requires more maintenance. They need monitoring more. There are less toilets per person and people spend longer in the cubicle washing hair, doing makeup but also inappropriate things too. ‘Sex, drugs and rocking the bowl’ as one toilet researcher put it.

Toilet design absolutely affects everyone at their most vulnerable. It affects children, those with disabilities and long term health conditions, those having a health crisis (mental or physical), elderly and people of certain faiths the most.

Trans people are not immune to being medically vulnerable. They are also safer in single sex designs. But their presence in the toilet of the opposite sex, means the toilet design has to change for everyone.

I look at toilet fatalities and assaults and single sex public toilet designs that have door gaps are the safest and healthiest design. These still need to be the default design. But it means you need a single sex space in front of the cubicles. It means everyone sticks to the toilet of their own sex.

I want everyone to be safe.

Even if this was true (which it isn't), what we are talking about is male bodies not men's brains or feelings.

People with male bodies, regardless of any body modifications or feelings, need to stay out of female spaces.

The brains of transgender women ranged between cisgender men and cisgender women (albeit still closer to cisgender men)

I don't think this study says what you think it says.

@Gnasher1981

"It's not magic words, it's scientific fact."

It is not scientific fact that I can turn into a giraffe by saying "I am a giraffe" and it is not scientific fact that a man can turn into a woman by saying "I am a woman"

If you try to redefine the word "giraffe" into meaning "giraffes and things not are not giraffes" you should expect people to disagree with you. Also when you you try to claim that the word "women" should mean "women and men."

So I reiterate my earlier question to you. If TW are literal women should they not bother with prostate exams?

They have not 'stolen' anything from cis women, they are fighting for their right to exist.

Nobody ceases to exist because they use a facility provided for people of their sex, or an alternative unisex facility.

Exactly! There's nothing on earth that changes the pelvis on the left to the one on the right

trans women are men and sometimes that doesn't matter eg on my local quiz team and sometimes it really does eg ensuring they get a prostate exam once they're past 50

They have not 'stolen' anything from cis women, they are fighting for their right to exist.

hyperbolic twaddle. They clearly exist as they are a mass occupying time and space. What they are not is women. Why on earth should women hand over their hard won spaces, places, prizes and programmes to a man performing female stereotypes?

There are many reports of women and children being sexually assaulted by men in toilets. Unisex toilets are of particular concern as they are private and give a man a legitimate reason to be there. He can hang round as long as he likes.

To use the words men and women for clarity: I have examples of men assaulting women and children, men who want to be women assaulting women and children, and men pretending to be men who want to be women assaulting women and children.

The common factor is they are men.

The only possible acceptable reason to allow trans people to use the toilets of the opposite sex is one of dignity. They believe themselves to be the opposite sex and are psychologically hurt by this being queried.

Surely it’s hard, even if you believe this, to deny that many if not most women disagree that transwomen are women, as this survey once again shows (there have been many such surveys before this, and they are all moving in the same direction now people have had more exposure to the issues). Why is it that the psychological pain of transwomen having to share toilets with people that they perceive as being the opposite gender is important, but the psychological pain of women having to share toilets with people they perceive as being the opposite gender is not?

The only reason anyone can put forward is because those women are all wrong to feel that way and that it is completely justified to override their objections.

Do you believe it is completely justified to ignore the objections of the majority of the female population, Gnasher?

Hubris is such a good word.

I have been in many unisex toilets and there have been zero problems, including with cleanliness.
To say you're worried about trans people transmitting pathogens is ridiculous.

I have been in the men's and there has been a lone woman in there cleaning, on other occasions there have been women using the men's without any problems; i feel these show it's not about being anti biological men but being anti trans.
Who washes their hair in public loos?
And why on earth would you would want gaps in the loo doors?

You are far more likely, statistically, to be SA by a cis man than a trans woman if either one was alone with you.

No, the opposite is true.

..... when a SA victim goes to get help they should be able to see a cis female, if only for their own comfort and to respect what they have gone through. That's not anti trans, that's understanding a victim's needs.

Actually that is anti-trans according to mainstream TRA thought. ERCC (women-only rape support) refused either to do this or to signpost clients to an alternative provider who would. Because refusing a TW rape counsellor is bigotry, and people who thought that way still do, despite losing a tribunal over it.

The only reason anyone can put forward is because those women are all wrong to feel that way and that it is completely justified to override their objections.

It is a woman's responsibility to ensure that male egos are not threatened.

Men must be kept calm.

Who knows what will happen if a man feels undermined by a woman, even a man who has been judged to be a 'non man' by his fellow men.

Same old same old.

God I don't know how you all have the patience for this shite

rather than try to be understanding of the matter

This is very revealing of Gnasher's starting point. Most people would talk about trying to understand the matter. But instead, "trying to be understanding of the matter" is used: trying to be understanding is prioritised over trying to understand, in other words we must concern ourselves with emotions rather than material reality. Unfortunately, only some people's emotions seem to matter.

When we look at facts, we see a serious overreach by activists. The Equality Act 2010 is a valiant attempt to balance everyone's rights and interests. If we value transwomen's feelings over women's feelings, we lose all sex-based protections for women (the same applies in reverse with transmen and men but men are affected far less as we have never needed much in the way of sex-based protection).

Should sex be a protected characteristic? (Rhetorical question.)

To say you're worried about trans people transmitting pathogens is ridiculous.

Not clear how you could read that post about the different hygiene resources required to clean shared use cubicles and single occupancy facilities and understand it as 'trans people transmit pathogens'.

I have been in the men's and there has been a lone woman in there cleaning, on other occasions there have been women using the men's without any problems; i feel these show it's not about being anti biological men but being anti trans.

The signs warning people about opposite sex cleaners rather suggests the opposite - that people do care and require a warning and the opportunity to use different facilities.

Again, your posts suggest you haven't given this much thought.

@Gnasher1981 what in your opinion is the criteria for a person to be a transwomen

Do they need to be taking cross sex hormones?
Do they need to have surgery?
Do they just need to say they feel like a women?

If you wrote down a list of my attributes and how my brain works, you’d almost certainly say man. But I’m not a man, I don’t identify as a man, I have a vagina. But equally I don’t “identify” as a woman if we’re talking about gender, nor do I identify as non binary, as I think sex is binary and not something you identify as (same as I don’t identify as white, I AM white. If I had to choose the ethnicity I most identified as, it’s probably Japanese, but I don’t have a single Asian ancestor).

So please tell me - what am I in your rules of classification?