Compelled speech.

[FloralBunting]

The recent guideline changes and various discussions on all social media about 'misgendering' have been interesting to observe, not least because of the subsequent shifting of goals.

As predicted, once the TRAs achieved the objective of controlling one aspect of expression, the move began to cast the net more widely.

It was always going to be a straightforward move from being told what not to say to being compelled to say something else.

This is obvious from the practice you can see in various media of repeating the mantra "Transwomen are women" and demanding that the targeted individual repeat the phrase to appease those making the demands.

Those of us who have remained since the guidelines came in have complied with the initial rule to not use specific gendered pronouns for people who object to them by sticking to the use of names and neutral pronouns.

I've noticed this is the next line of pressure - complaints about this reasonable compromise, insisting that neutral is not good enough and that the perceived correct pronouns must be used.

Those that are pressing for this know that if such speech is compelled, it will not mean that those being compelled have changed their views.

But it will do a number of things. It will control. It will humiliate. It will silence dissent and distort the entire narrative.

This is why the language used is such a battleground, and why it would have been very helpful for MN mods to do the course on this kind of controlling behaviour.

[TheresaMayIsATory]

What is the end goal? This looks like it is bigger than trans ideology.

[Bespin]

who as been asking for that to occur Ive not seen it I'm happy with name and gender neutral pronouns being used. I have notice though in the last week or so that there as been more misgendering than there had been before and again this could be down to new people joining the forum and not reading the rules. is there examples of people asking for this?

[Fienda]

Yes there have been explicit and repeated calls for this, both from posters and people on Twitter.

Snappity started a thread on it a week ago. I'm fairly sure I've seen similar things from Daimbars and Garam too.

[UpstartCrow]

Compelled speech has been used in at least one court case. There has also recently been the demand that we are banned from using 'they'.

Coercion is also a form of compelled speech. We see it in women being self effacing, apologising, and removing posts on social media.

[FloralBunting]

Bespin, the most recent example that I've seen was on a thread where India Willoughby was in reference.

There has been an influx of people in recent weeks, yes. Most people coming to this for first time have no idea that calling a male bodied individual 'he' is the worst wordcrime to the TRA and it won't be the first thought in their mind when discussing people who have attacked women and children.

[Bespin]

Well you have my support in keeping they and them and names totally. I'm sure floral you will be pointing out to the new people that maybe they need to check there pronouns and that in the civil discussion we have here that it can be seen as disrespectful to people 😉 (or a total war crime)

[LangCleg]

I'm still waiting for the mutually acceptable collective term for [we all know what group of people I mean] that neither offends them by referring to their sex nor offends me by referring to my sex.

Answer came there none.

[FloralBunting]

Bespin, as it happens, I already mentioned this morning to someone who had a post deleted that it was probably through their use of 'he' rather than 'she'.

But if you think I shall be an ally in shoring up the first steps of coercion when this thread is about the fact that one concession will never be enough, you're going to be disappointed.

[Bumbungo]

There is no need to advise new posters about their correct use of pronouns but happy to point out errors to those who say they are concerned with inaccuracies.

So, it's 'their' not 'there' Bespin

You're welcome.

[UpstartCrow]

Coercion starts with compelled speech then moves on to compelled behaviour one small step at a time. It stops feeling friendly even when they are smiling and winking at you, and it starts to feel feel uncomfortable but you go along with it to be nice.
Then you go along with it for a quiet life, because they get nasty if you don't.

By the time it gets serious, your lives are enmeshed and it's difficult to leave. You've become so blinkered by fear of getting it wrong that you've forgotten how to run, you can't see where else there is to escape to, and you know they'll come after you anyway so what's the point.

No one should enable coercion.

[OvaHere]

Then you go along with it for a quiet life, because they get nasty if you don't.

A bit like this.

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

Compelled speech is verbal abuse and coercion.

[Ereshkigal]

But if you think I shall be an ally in shoring up the first steps of coercion when this thread is about the fact that one concession will never be enough, you're going to be disappointed.

THIS

[MsMcWoodle]

So mumsnet is instrumental in coercively controlling us?

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

So mumsnet is instrumental in coercively controlling us?

Yes that's what the complaints about the policing of language were about

[ballsballsballs]

The goal shifting is very reminiscent of my abusive ex husband.

[stealthsquirrelnutkin]

Yet another reason why the refusal to consider coughing up £12/moderator for the Freedom Programme is so very worrying.

[LaSquirrel]

I've noticed this is the next line of pressure - complaints about this reasonable compromise, insisting that neutral is not good enough and that the perceived correct pronouns must be used.

Yes, I noticed that too. Infuriating really. But it is all 'thin edge of the wedge'. Once the thin edge is in, the pressure is applied until the entire wedge is in place.

Can also be described as shifting the goalposts too. All coercive behaviours. Once you have seen them, know them, they are an easy spot.

(Generally speaking, from the DV framework) this is where abusers claim to outsiders, who unaware of the tactics, that the target/victim is "being unreasonable". It is a naive position, to believe that every issue is a 50/50 one, particularly when one side is strongarming the other. Well-meaning 'bystanders' become complicit in enabling the abusers. Read Lundy Bancroft's "Why does he do that?"

[TheBatPig]

Compelled speech is really controlling someone's thoughts is it not? Before you speak words, you have to think them. So it is in my opinion an exercise in mind control. That is an abusers tactic or so I thought.

[Bespin]

So, it's 'their' not 'there'

Bloody spelling nazis's lol

I'm really suprised anyone in here can let people spell she wrong it must drive people daft when they drop the s.

[FloralBunting]

Bespin, I know snark is great fun, use it myself quite a bit, but was there anything other than that you wished to contribute to the thread? Besides encouragement to comply with diktats?

[Indierockandroll]

It was me who got a rap over the knuckles for calling somebody who self identifies as non-binary 'he'

This person presented outwardly as male and I'd previously been watching that person on Sky News with a nephew who had asked what sex that person was.

I won't do that again on here. I will comply with the rules. On here.

[Indierockandroll]

But I must thank the person who reported it as it will save me from making mistakes and therefore able to post still

[FloralBunting]

Indie, tbh, it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Because we all understand the rules of language, and have to make a concerted effort to circumvent them to deny the evidence of our eyes.

The fact that this wordcrime has been built up to be the very worst thing someone can do is evidence of nothing more than the unreasonableness of narcissism, really.

[Indierockandroll]

Quite! I used to laugh at the concept of thought crime in 1984...