Pronouns

If I'd seen Rachel Dolezal in real life I would have assumed she was black, too. Does that make what she did Ok? Just because she was able to 'pass'?

I don't think this is a face to face issue we're debating. It's political and it's theoretical.

I don't think many men would mind a female person who passed as male using their restrooms. Women are physically, generally not a threat to men.

A man who 'passed' using a female restroom is a different thing because men are, by their nature and biology, something of a threat to women, and even if their behaviour and character are exemplary, this doesn't mean they couldn't be a threat if they decided to behave badly.

It is very sad for those men who are not an actual threat to have to be considered a potential one. I feel very sorry for them as I said before.

I don't think that makes it Ok for them to use women's private spaces, though.

You wouldn't call a particular 5ft 10, flat chested, deep voiced, bearded member of my family 'she'. It wouldn't occur to you to do so. You'd see him, and refer to him as male.
10 years ago he was still having to present as female, and sad as fuck for having to do so. He's now happy and settled.
You'd only be able to purposely use the wrong pronoun on someone who hasn't yet been able to transition fully, or whose body has been too badly affected by hormones.
I think the problem here is the unknown collective 'they', as used against any group we wish to 'other'. Yes, there may be some troublemakers amongst those, but it does not give anyone the right to dismiss and demean all of 'them'.

magical that's why I asked HQ for more clarification. If MN is referring to all minority groups, then it is an internal policy decision, whereas if it's only those groups of individuals which share protected characteristics, then it is their interpretation of the law.

So if a few more trans-black people came out of the woodwork then, everybody would be expected to respect their self definition and pretend that they were black, because this was now a minority group?

....they're just getting away with it on a bigger scale, and using scare tactics to bully others into toeing their line.

I would suspect that many individuals at MNHQ agree with us, but it is very hard when you are constantly under threat of litigation from these men.

And let's face it, women and a women's website will be an easy target legally.

The problem here, is that there really is no difference between what Dolezal did, and what transgender people are doing.

rebecca can I clarify, too?

Do you mean a group of individuals that share a "protected characteristic" as defined by equality legislation, or any minority group?

What is malicious misgendering?
Posters who discuss transgender issues seriously and call male individuals "he" aren't necessarily doing it to be rude. They simply base their pronouns on sex, for clarity.
There are many here who do not believe in gender and lady brain and such things and it feels like we have to lie.

Also, men who brazenly claim to be women and to speak for women without even having modified their body may also really offend women and makes us think they're taking the piss.
There is also individuals I think most of us, no matter how polite, wouldn't want to call "she", ever - like Stephonknee the adult man who identifies as a 6-year old Lolita.

Rachel Dolezal is an individual whose actions have been was widely criticised

The difference is individual vs group

So we should refer to Dolezal as black then?

Okay.

Given that, is it correct to say that if there was only one person fighting for transgender men to be recognised as women, we could call them anything we liked on here?

I suspect MN see them as very different because they are taking their lead from mainstream media.

Which is utterly depressing.

Well, to be honest we see these as two very different cases. Rachel Dolezal is an individual whose actions have been was widely criticised.

Eh? They both involve people of one sex/race identifying as another sex/race. Couldn't really get much more similar!

In fact the only difference I can see is that Rachel Dolezal never told anyone she is used to be white. And everyone knows Anna Lee is used to be a bloke.

So is it about disclosure? Is that all? Because I don't think Rachel Dolezal would have been accepted into the black community had she declared her white beginnings from the off, and still insisted on being regarded as black

Do you?

Plus what was she criticised for?

Answer: pretending to be/identifying as a black person and taking on a role supporting black people.

What is Anna Lee doing?

Answer: pretending to be/identifying as a woman and taking on a role supporting women.

Can you not see the parallel there

Thank you but could you elaborate, perhaps?

I don't follow the argument there at all. Is it just about whether something or someone has been 'widely criticised'?

Anna Lee has been widely criticised too. But somehow they're exempt because there are some trendy neo liberal media institutions people who are on their side?

We don't even know if Racel Dolezal represents a 'minority group' of white people who identify as black.

It never got that far, did it, before she was so utterly vilified in the media that she disappeared from it completely.

Oh and by the way, if the answer is something along the lines of a) then what exactly are the trans lobby getting so upset about anyway?

I mean it's not a racial issue for them either, is it. Its only a matter of what sex you are.

And if this matters vastly to them, then it's available for mattering to us on an equal basis. And it does, very much.

Thanks, Thomas.

I wonder what the actual difference is tbh

Could it be

a) being black is different to being a woman, because of the prejudice black people have faced over the years being more serious than that faced by women (I don't know enough about history to judge whether this is the case or not)

b) it's less offensive to pretend to be a woman than it is to pretend to be black, again, who decided that and why? Both are aspects of a person's biology that cannot be altered, both carry a burden of prejudice and deserve protection from those who oppress

c) it's trendy to support trans rights at the moment

I would really appreciate hearing your reasons, MNHQ, if you have a moment.

Each thread and post are a judgement call, we continue to review this at MNHQ and it's always good to hear your views on the topic.

Good to hear. I do agree with this -

Are you suggesting, Rebecca/MNHQ, that we would have to discuss her as a black woman in posts regarding her?

Because of being 'civil and respectful'?

Or would you be more concened about being civil and respectful towards the black people who may find her behaviour/self identification issues wholly offensive?

Why is this different?

But for now, to see that you're not having a blanket rule, and are assessing posts individually, is good.

Thanks for the reply.

Oh well let's base everything on 'rounding stuff up' shall we Soupdragon?

That would work

No one's addressed my analogy with Rachel Dolezal

Are you suggesting, Rebecca/MNHQ, that we would have to discuss her as a black woman in posts regarding her?

Because of being 'civil and respectful'?

Or would you be more concened about being civil and respectful towards the black people who may find her behaviour/self identification issues wholly offensive?

Why is this different?