Wednesday, June 9, 2021

No, polls do not show "consistent" support for self-ID - indeed the weight of evidence is that there is overwhelming opposition to the principle of self-ID

Note: Stephen gives preferred pronouns of they/them, so out of basic courtesy (not because of diktat from the thought police) I'm going to do my best to use those, although I do feel the need to explain what I'm doing, because it would otherwise look like a very odd use of vocabulary. I'm also inclined to wonder aloud whether there's an issue with blocking people on Twitter and still expecting them to use the pronouns you have listed on your Twitter profile.

I suspect the reason Stephen chose that particular moment to block me was because they knew where the conversation was inexorably heading otherwise - they would have asked me to supply proof that the polling evidence was not consistent, and it would have taken me about five seconds to do that.  Here, for example, is a YouGov poll from 2018, with a neutrally-worded question on self-ID commissioned by Pink News (not exactly a hotbed of 'TERF'-ism).

Do you think a person should or should not have to obtain a doctor's approval to change their legal gender on official documentation (e.g. birth certificate, passport)? 

Should have to obtain a doctor's approval: 58% 
Should not have to obtain a doctor's approval: 18% 

That's pretty much the end of the discussion right there - the result drives a coach and horses through Stephen's claim that there is consistent support for self-ID across polls and across polling firms.  Indeed, the result is clear-cut and robust enough to suggest that there is in fact overwhelming opposition to the principle of self-ID.  And contrary to Stephen's implication, gender makes no difference - the majority among female respondents is actually very slightly bigger than among male respondents.

Elsewhere, there are any number of Panelbase polls commissioned by Wings Over Scotland showing similarly huge opposition to self-ID.  Stephen would doubtless query the wording of those questions, and he might even be justified in doing so - but the snag is that the same problem applies to many of the polls purporting to show support for self-ID.  You might remember a ComRes poll from a few months ago that was leaped on by Mark McGeoghegan (not exactly a neutral analyst on this subject, given that he has "he/him" on his own profile) as absolute proof that Scotland has no truck with 'transphobia' - but the wording was just as leading as anything Wings could ever come up with.  It presented self-ID as a minor, tidying-up, administrative exercise, something that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with.

The bottom line is that Stephen is so steeped in this subject that they must be aware of the polling evidence that doesn't paint a picture that they're at all comfortable with - so why are they trying to convince people that those polls don't exist and never existed?  
Posted by James Kelly at 5:24 PM

17 comments:

  1. PeeJayJune 9, 2021 at 5:42 PM

    There's a reason why any kind of Body-Dysmorphia is treated as a mental condition.
    Nobody outside the pretend we're woman and defy anyone to say otherwise at the risk of unemployment or gaol squad agrees in the slightest with self-ID. Not when they know what it actually means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. StravaigerJune 9, 2021 at 6:35 PM

    Their argument falls flat on its face when they equate 'trans rights' with 'self ID'. The two are patently not the same thing. I'm all for trans people having rights and being treated fairly and equally, but I'm not a supporter of self ID. Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
  3. PeeJayJune 9, 2021 at 6:46 PM

    James, James, James... https://digital.nls.uk/chapbooks-printed-in-scotland/archive/104184200#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&xywh=-812%2C-1%2C2834%2C2101

    A link to the NLS and their online copy of Jeanie Deans and the lily of St. Leonard's.

    That's where he got the name from.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ian MJune 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM

    They exploit the basic decency of people who overwhelmingly agree that everybody should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of gender. So of course most people will support trans rights.
    As you say, that is patently not the same thing as supporting a major change to legislation which will change the definition of 'woman' as well as the long fought for protection of women's spaces. Try that out in your polling and see what it yields.
    Being generally supportive of human, and thus trans, rights, as everybody from J K Rowling to Joanna Cherry is, does not equate to complying with Stonewall's demands to change everything in public and workspaces, gaslight and harangue lesbians, try to get people sacked for disagreeing and refusing to countenance civil debate and discussion about major changes to the law and people's lives. Nor does it support the thought police approach to opinion and discussion which has taken over the public space, and approved of by our obsessed leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nally AndersJune 10, 2021 at 10:23 AM

    Can we maybe begin with what I consider the red herring of Trans rights? The fact is that Trans people have Exactly the same rights as everyone else, as enshrined in the Equalities Act 2010.
    There is not one right that I have that they do not, except of course protection under the recent Hate Crime Bill.
    As far as polls go, you are dead right James. The poll that Wings commissioned did in fact show that women were broadly supportive of ammendments to the 2004 GRA until of course we learned that we could be changing and showering alongside male bodied people in women's gyms (and no, most of them do not have cubicles) or competing alongside male bodied people in sports. The issues are many and varied eg. Girl Guiding has been captured and are now trans inclusive.
    Prisons are a huge area of concern.
    Of all the sex offenders self ID'ing as Trans women and currently residing in the female prison estate, I have very serious doubts that any one of them is genuine.
    Abusers will always use whatever means at hand to gain access to their victims.
    That is the problem with Self ID, all safeguarding to Women (and girls) single sex spaces will be removed and we are genuinely fearful.
    One last point then, odd that the gradulist Nicola Sturgeon doesn't take the gradual approach on this one issue alone and odd that instead of gifting £3mill to cash strapped Gender Identity Clinics, the money went to supporting the Media industry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scottish SkierJune 10, 2021 at 12:28 PM

    My focus is on independence, so GRA comes way down my list.

    I prefer mixed sex / gender neutral toilets & changing faculties as they offer more comfort and privacy due to their self contained, floor to ceiling cubicle nature. No need for shy folk to grapple with their slipping towel and undies at the same time. Likewise one can get on with a number 2 in a much more private throne room.

    Also, I think I cross paths with about 1 trans person every six to 12 months. I've yet to be accosted by one in the street and likewise have never e.g. encountered a naked pre-op transman flashing their boobs at me when changing at a leisure centre. I imagine the probability of the latter ever happening reduces every day as old single sex facilities are replaced by the more modern private mixed sex / gender neutral versions described.

    Thinking back to my school days, I would suggest mixed sex private cubicles would have been a godsend. Many young boys preferred to use the toilet during class so they'd not end up be bullied by much older lads when they tried to go at break time. The toilets were a favoured hang out for bullies having a fag etc.

    And I am happy to say I self-id.

    As Scottish. Until I get my passport, it's all I can really do in terms of being a Scottish national, particularly if abroad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FelixJune 11, 2021 at 4:45 PM

      Do you self-id as a crashing bore because you should have no problem gaining acceptance.

      Delete
    2. Scottish SkierJune 11, 2021 at 5:31 PM

      Seems you find what I write interesting enough felix; hence you reading and replying to my posts.

      Delete
    3. FelixJune 13, 2021 at 10:21 AM

      Well I can't avoid reading you as you use every blog to spout your love of Nicola and hatred of Rev Stu as well as your delight in using mixed loos. Men's toilets not good enough for your sensitivities? I don't believe your much talked about French wife exists - I think it's you in a frock

      Delete
  7. Nally AndersJune 10, 2021 at 4:58 PM

    SS
    You are perfectly entitled to your own preferences on toilet and changing facilities and you are of course entitled to lobby on behalf of young males who feel bullied in men/boys toilets BUT is that really any reason to unleash the bullies into girls spaces too?
    See the attached BBC report on rape culture in schools.
    There are 8000 reasons why mixed sex toilets are a really bad idea. Won't affect you of course, so that's OK isn't it?
    BBC News - School abuse: 'Rape culture' warning as 8,000 report incidents
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56558487

    ReplyDelete
  8. Me Bungo PonyJune 11, 2021 at 4:35 PM

    For myself, it is clear that gender is not wholly determined by what genitalia you happen to be born with. It is a reliable indication that you are massively more likely to be the gender almost universally associated with that genitalia, but not a slam dunk. The fact is, almost 2% (in some surveys) of the world's population are intersex. That is, they have at least vestigial components of both male and female genitalia. In some cases it is so extreme that it takes months for medics to finally plump for one gender over the other, and eventually the choice is made for the individual by radical surgery. In most cases, the person will be unaware, and will probably never be aware, they are physically intersex.

    But genitalia is only a physical manifestation imposed on an individual by their genes during its development in the womb. Gender is so much more than that. It is not a binary thing as the "Gender Critical" (a clumsy, confusing title but I suppose every group must have its badge) argue. It is more a sliding scale, again dictated by genes, which happily for the vast majority of us provides an unambiguous result as we clump at either end of the scale. That is, zones where genitalia and psychology match up. However, in some cases it does not. Some people are "hard-wired" to be female but, by some accident of nature, have ended up with male genitalia (and vice versa).

    This happens because nature is messy. It is not exact. It is not something produced in a clinical environment. It is the product of millions of years of evolution where bits and bobs and processes have evolved, become redundant, remained, become vestigial, mutated and myriad other outcomes. Which is why men have nipples and some people have vestigial tails among other physical manifestations. The Gender Critical appear to believe nature is exact in the case of human gender, based on observing genitalia, and call it "science", when in actual fact it is the antithesis "science".

    The GRA seeks to give those who are in the position of "looking male" (ie they have penises) but whose every fibre of their being tells them they are female (and vice versa) the rights of those of us who are lucky enough to have unambiguous gender. It is NOT taking any rights from women.

    The main argument seems to be that women will be put at risk by this Act. It hinges on the belief that, without the GRA, sex offenders will be prevented from entering women only spaces by some sort of invisible force field; that the GRA will disable this force field leaving women vulnerable. However, there is no such force field and sex offenders will have no more incentive to access women only spaces than they had before. The fact is, transgender people have been benignly accessing women only spaces for as long as sex offenders have been accessing them malignly. That won't change whether the GRA is enacted or not.

    The bottom line is that the GRA will only decriminalise transgender people who access women only spaces, not encourage sex offenders. The Gender Critical argument is largely one used against legalising homosexuality. The one that said legalising it would lead to more people being homosexual and putting heterosexual people at risk, when in actual fact it only decriminalised homosexuality and heterosexual people went about their lives as they always had done.

    That was a lot longer than I meant it to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scottish SkierJune 11, 2021 at 9:20 PM

      That was a lot longer than I meant it to be.

      Story of my (blog post commenting) life.

      Delete
    2. FelixJune 13, 2021 at 9:36 PM

      What a load of tripe! The 'fact' is 1 in 50 people are intersex ACCORDING TO SOME SURVEYS!!! How does that make it a fact? And which surveys are these? The ones you've scoured the Internet for to support your opinion? You're not one of Skier's alter egos like Madame Skier or Mr Scientist are you? Please spare us any more of this anti-science insanity - we get more than enough from our resident 'scientist' with the imaginary wife.

      Delete
  9. Scottish SkierJune 11, 2021 at 7:05 PM

    OMG. This is awful. How shocking. What is the UK coming too!

    If Scotland goes down this route, it just can't be independent, like Wings says.

    'Mixed sex / gender neutral' toilet and changing facilities at an Asda

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)