Misgendering.

Meanwhile in South Korea, women have marched in protest over spy cam ‘porn’, and self-harm in teenage girls has doubled over the last 20 years.

Damn it, worded that badly. The self-harm increase among teenage girls relates to the U.K., not South Korea.

I don't believe we are living in a gold age free from abuse but I do believe that things are better now than they were. I can remember being openly asked about my intentions regarding pregnancy. I also acknowledge that it's possible that, because I'm an older, less attractive 'target' I now experience less abuse.

In a lot of ways I think things are getting worse, not better. Do you think discrimination is somehow better because it’s now happening on the quiet rather than openly?

www.openaccessgovernment.org/bosses-discriminate-against-women-in-fear-of-them-becoming-pregnant/47905/

I can think of two recent cases where a woman has died as a result of violent sex games, supposedly ‘consensual’, but that’s the word of the people who killed them. Likely just the tip of the iceberg. Violent porn is rife on the internet, and it’s worrying that certain TRAs, who are vocal about eroding women’s boundaries, are steeped in it. Again, NAMALT and NATALT, but the fact that I even have to state that is telling in itself.

Meanwhile in South Korea, women have marched in protest over spy cam ‘porn’, and self-harm in teenage girls has doubled over the last 20 years.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/self-harming-by-teenage-girls-doubles-in-20-years-x2vbzm87m

Better? Really?

I also recommended the book for this reason.

Thank you very much for that link. Looking at the umbrella, I can't see where it mentions people aroused by being treated as the opposite gender (but presumably still identifying as their biological gender).

There it is!

Did a light just switch on?!

Gronky
you said upthread that you weren't especially expert in transgender matters.

I can recommend this book by Dr Az Hakeem (who is)

TRANS: Exploring Gender Identity and Gender Dysphoria (Pulling the Trigger) published 2018.

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B079NHQ5H5/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1&tag=mumsnetforum-21

He has written the introductory chapters and explains the differences between people who are transgender including those that Datun likely refers to. Its very accessible and is intended for everyone.

Also in pictures the Stonewall umbrella for reference.

How would it be policed?

There it is!

How would it be policed?

Have you accidentally stumbled across an actual feminist argument?!

Datun, I'd like to read the exact definition from the source (I couldn't find anything on their site that mentions the definition of transgender and arousal but I'm not great with Google) but, assuming your description is accurate, if they openly announced it then surely it would constitute sexual harassment and, if they didn't, what is the practical difference between that and someone who's sexually aroused by being addressed by conventional, biologically directed pronouns? How would it be policed?

gronky

What about my example of pronoun usage for someone who gets turned on by it?

In that case, it seems there's something one of us is missing here. Thank you for the discussion.

Nope, still haven’t got a clue what you’re getting at. Still looks the same to me, do as we say or else. For example
Transwomen are biological women
No transwomen are biologically male
Die in a fire TERF SCUM!

I'm not going to waste any more time on sea lioning.

What ‘pitfalls’? The exploration you seem to be making is nonsense for a number of reasons which have already been brought up and which you haven’t responded to.

This.

Potential pitfalls, e.g. approaching it from a standpoint of purely personal freedom rather than freedom from harassment (highlighting the importance of presenting forced biologically incompatible pronouns as a form of abuse in itself). If you don't think misogynists are capable of turning what seems like straightforward option into a trap then you underestimate how much they hate women.

I don't believe we are living in a gold age free from abuse but I do believe that things are better now than they were. I can remember being openly asked about my intentions regarding pregnancy. I also acknowledge that it's possible that, because I'm an older, less attractive 'target' I now experience less abuse.

What ‘pitfalls’? The exploration you seem to be making is nonsense for a number of reasons which have already been brought up and which you haven’t responded to.

The use of biologically accurate pronouns is not equivalent to abusive and offensive language, and the mythical golden age you are suggesting we are living in in which women are free from abuse does not exist. Women are routinely discriminated against as a result of their biological sex on a massive scale. See the number of bosses who will avoid hiring women of childbearing age for one stark example.

If an effective differentiation can be made then that seems like a good way to avoid the trap that's potentially being set.

HotRocker, an exploration of the potential pitfalls of a line of reasoning is not a threat. I'm going to assume good faith but rewording what I said to make it inflammatory feels uncomfortably close to gaslighting.

Absolutely hotrocker

What Gronky seems to be saying, is that if we refuse to obey men and address them as she, it’s our own fault if men call us whatever unpleasant misogynistic name they like.
Sounds very much like a veiled threat to me.
Basically do what we say or else > now look what you made us do.

Men are still free to use incredibly dismissive language when talking to women. It happens all the time, apparently without censure, up to and including doxxing, and death and rape threats.

terfisaslur.com

A number of male journalists have commented on how little abuse they receive compared to their female counterparts.

Using biologically accurate pronouns is not the same thing as abusive and offensive language.

where men were free to use incredibly dismissive language when talking to women.

I don't understand your equivalence with words like bird and love.

Those aren't factual epithets.

He, is.

Gronky

According to Stonewall, the definition of a transwoman now includes a man who is aroused by the thought of himself as a woman and gets a sexual kick out of getting people to call him she.

Would you still feel that it was a question of manners, in those circumstances?

Regarding giving evidence in court, it seems like a no-win scenario because doing either could potentially prejudice proceedings in some way because each carries with it a specific set of beliefs (right or wrong, scientific or unscientific).

My concern coming into the discussion was that I've seen similar calls from the alt-right (e.g. Jordan Peterson) who aim to use the cloak of personal freedom to throw us back to the days where men were free to use incredibly dismissive language when talking to women.

In any case if you’re not that knowledgeable about the issues as you say then it’s pretty important to establish what the stakes are beforehand, isn’t it? So were you aware of the examples in my previous post, even if, in your opinion, they weren’t immediately relevant to the post I quoted?

What’s your take on them?

Sorry for the confusion and the resulting time spent composing your post.

No time wasted at all. I’m happy to do it and I think it’s always important to remind people, lurkers included, why this is important. Thanks for the apology though.

From the outside I used to think pronouns were a stupid battle to fight, that it wasn’t important in the scheme of things. It took recognising that much of transgender ideology is in fact massively misogynistic, and that it is an act of oppression for a member of an oppressing class (that of men) to identify into an oppressed class (that of women). Pronouns are the thin end of the wedge.

Do you for example think it’s acceptable for a court to demand that Maria MacClachlan (sp?) refer to the person who assaulted her as ‘she’ when she was giving evidence?

How about a hypothetical rapist and their victim?