What a weird article. Makes sweeping conclusions like “women are fine with trans” issues, casually ignoring the ~50% that responded unsure or negatively.
The numbers are generally evenly split positive-to-negative and whilst, yes men are between 5-10% or so more likely to respond negatively, phrasing it in a way where you treat men and women as monoliths isn’t very helpful to addressing the goal of trans positivity.
The numbers are generally evenly split positive-to-negative
For men they are (43% vs 44%). For women a majority (54% vs 31%) believed transphobia was a problem in British society.
treat men and women as monoliths
This is an article discussing demographic based polling data.
I’ll be honest I’m not the biggest fan of most headlines period. In this case, what they’re trying to convey here is that it is not women (as terf rhetoric would imply) who are driving transphobia in the country.
It depends “Is transphobia a problem” is not the same thing as “Are trans people a problem”.
For one thing trans-women seem to get far more hate than trans-men, which could sway things. Also being less exposed to progressive attitudes could also blind people to what trans people face (which would affect men more).
All this to say that the question asked in the study and what the article makes of it are very different things.
Also the spreads put up as evidence are no where near large enough (2/3 points each way) to push the idea that “cis” men are driving the issue (the study didn’t mention gender identity, the article just assumed).
All in all this article feels more like rage bait than anything that would push the discussion on trans rights Vs women’s rights forward in any reasonable way.
It depends “Is transphobia a problem” is not the same thing as “Are trans people a problem”.
I don’t think I understand what point you’re making here.
Also the spreads put up as evidence are no where near large enough (2/3 points each way) to push the idea that “cis” men are driving the issue (the study didn’t mention gender identity, the article just assumed).
There is not a single polling question that shows a difference of 2 or 3 points between men and women. The smallest gap is 5 points. With most being over 10. Further we can be relatively certain how trans men are likely to answer these questions. Why is cis in quotes?
All in all this article feels more like rage bait than anything that would push the discussion on trans rights Vs women’s rights forward in any reasonable way.
The article is a remarkably straightforward reading of the polling data. Why are you framing the discussion as trans rights Vs women’s rights? I know you are not a native English speaker so I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt but this phrasing is concerning.
I think the click baity title jinxed any discussion here.
I’m all for trans people having the right to live as their chosen gender and be left in peace to use the toilets of their choice, but the article clearly slanted it to be a case of “let’s ignore JK Rowling and co and bring this back to being a man problem”. This is from the first paragraph that gives the lens you’re supposed to read the data through.
Now, just to clear up on my origins, I’m a British expat so English is my native language but I’m also painfully aware of the scourge that is the Tory party and the havoc they’re wreaking, and I broadly agree with /u/crypticcoffee regarding the fact that there isn’t really a gender devide when it comes down to who is pushing the war on transgender people, it’s transphobes Vs the rest of us.
The revised title is much cleaner and frankly I agree with what it says, men are generally less accepting of trans people than women.
The article does no such excusing for prominent transphobes, male or female.
In this case, what they’re trying to convey here is that it is not women (as terf rhetoric would imply) who are driving transphobia in the country.
One cannot draw that conclusion from this data. There are still >30% of negative female respondents.
I’m not saying terf rhetoric is correct, just that this data is unrelated.
One cannot draw that conclusion from this data. There are still >30% of negative female respondents.
A 23 point gap with a majority is a completely different ball game than a 1 point gap. The data is absolutely strong enough to draw those conclusions.
Edit: Title has fortunately been changed from the original clickbaity and somewhat misleading/offensive title it originally had.
Why is this being shared here? Anti-trans folk are toxic. There are many toxic women and men, and we should dislike them for their views, not who they are. I’ve fallen out with anti-trans friends, but I’m a cis-male so I guess I’m the problem?
I was curious about this community, but I think I’ll be leaving if this “feminist” “Men’s Liberation” community is for bashing men. Would have expected better from a mod.
Rule 9 is against “Negative stereotyping”, surely this is a breach of that. This article takes some folk, makes a generalisation for the whole population. If you flipped groupings, it would be wholly wrong, and it’s wrong here.
This response to articles about polling and demographic data will never not strike me as extremely weird. Nobody is, by any means, generalizing men any more than the data itself would show. Note the article does not attempt to establish or perpetuate any stereotypes about men as a group, it is a fairly straightforward reading of the polling data. If it’s the headline that bothers you I have to ask why? It does not make any generalized claims about men that are not backed up by self-reported polling. I hate to keep having this fight, but this is increasingly becoming an issue and poses a threat to constructive discussion.
EDIT: If you are not certain why it is notable that men are the drivers of transphobia in this instance it is because most of the transphobic rhetoric in the country relies on claims of protecting women’s rights and spaces.
Removed by mod
“If you are not certain why it is notable that men are the drivers of transphobia in this instance it is because most of the transphobic rhetoric in the country relies on claims of protecting women’s rights and spaces.”
Are you from the UK? Are you aware of the stuff JK Rowling puts out? Did you follow the Tory leadership and the anti-trans views put by Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch? Not familiar with Rosie Duffield’s anti-trans nonsense?
I understand it’s more digestible to boil down complex issues to simple conclusions, but it weakens and cheapens the debate and serves no benefit in tackling issues.
Is your point just that most of those bad actors are women? I think we are in agreement on this fact. That’s what makes the polling data interesting, that the popular demographics do not necessarily match the demographics of the talking heads.
I’m not going to simplify it’s just women. There are a number of high profile anti-trans women campaigners that are absolutely a problem. With that, I’m sure there are many male public figures who are just as toxic.
I think it’s very easy to assume a lot of this comes from bad intentions, and some of it will. I think some of this may be somewhat innocent, but ultimately unhelpful. For example, cis males may be protective of their partners and daughters, and may be concerned because the risks have often been misrepresented, for example in the case of bathroom sharing. Obviously this is paternalistic, and many would construe this as patronising. Many women are confident and don’t see that issue, and don’t feel they need that protection. My feeling is part of this may come from a good place, intentions wise, but be completely misguided, and open to negative influence from people who are peddling negative and toxic views. I think this problem is quite complex, and as a result any one single approach will not work to solve the problem.
Edit: I noticed my other post got deleted. It seems ok to insinuate something about my motives, but when I reasonably respond and ask them same question, it’s censored and mod powers are used without hesitation. I don’t think rich debate can be had here and it’s not a place I want to be part of.
Your other post was removed because it was composed largely of ad hominem attacks against myself and logical fallacies used to claim this article excused transphobia by women.
If it’s the headline that bothers you I have to ask why? It does not make any generalized claims about men that are not backed up by self-reported polling.
Is legitimately a question looking for an answer. I did not mean to imply anything about your intentions.
Removed by mod
I think this is a solid comment with a lot of insight. Thank you for sharing. You absolutely could have lead with this and it would have been the most well thought out and intentioned top level comment here.
Edit: It is worth noting however that the reasons you’ve listed are exactly why it’s important to flip the traditional terf narrative on it’s head. By claiming they are protecting women’s rights and spaces they are able to convince a large number of likely well intentioned men of hateful ideas. It is useful to point out that women as a demographic largely disagree so as to help them see the errors in that line of thinking.
“You absolutely could have lead with this”. You respond to the quality of information you get. The headline was clickbait rubbish, and yes it is triggering (because it is laced in prejudice). I think one of the worse problems as a man, is you’re regularly blamed for the sins of all other men, even if you are absolutely opposed to that. Being stereotyped based on your gender is not fun, and I think everyone needs to move away from that.
I think if you wanted to discuss the contents of it, you were better off changing the title and warning of the clickbaity cheap title. High brow titles don’t usually warrant low brow and nuanced responses.
you were better off changing the title and warning of the clickbaity cheap title
This is good feedback. I do hem and haw over titles quite a bit. I tend to worry that if I change them too much I will be accused of misleading folks. At the same time, I think you’re laying it on a little thick about the title. “[Demographic] drives [trend]” is a very normal headline and does not need to be taken as a personal attack. I will absolutely grant that those titles nearly always require qualification but I had hoped that this community would be exactly the sort of place where the contents of the comments could provide the depth and context the article needs to be useful in a broader discussion on masculinity.
From the article:
It’s become common for politicians to act as if transgender rights and women’s rights are inherently contradictory and conflicting.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak blocked Scotland’s gender reform law citing “potential concerns around safety of women”, while Labour’s Anneliese Dodds has ruled out self-ID for trans people and vowed to “defend” single-sex spaces.
But, research shows that when they take these positions, Britain’s political class are not actually speaking for women. Far from seeing transgender rights as encroaching on their own, most British women in fact favour rights for trans and non-binary – it’s men who are the most vocal and determined in opposing them.
Removed by mod
I’m locking this thread as it has been completely derailed by conversation about the title of the article. See my post here for how this should be handled in the future: https://slrpnk.net/post/1480010
