Misgendering.

My apologies for the cat typing.

No one cares what you call yourself. It is the insistence that others submit to your demands because your validation depends on other people's obedience to you where the red flags for abuse start flying.

What do you call a genderfluid person who is whoever they say they are on any given day? Big red flag right there.
Trying to convince women who have experienced domestic abuse that the validation of the perp is something they need to commit to is
a bug mistake, Gronky.

With the greatest of respect, Ereshkigal, I'm trying to, through a discussion. If that is not in keeping with the nature of this forum then I will cease to discuss.

Regarding you being a DV survivor, I'm very sorry that you have had to endure such abuse but I would have hoped that you would understand how important a sense of self and validation of your identity from others is to mental well-being. I appreciate your efforts to educate me on the harmful enforced use of traditional pronouns but I respectfully disagree that it's fair to dismiss newer pronouns out of hand.

With the greatest of respect, Gronky, I don't think you grasp the issue.

I agree that walking on eggshells is unfair but, when misunderstandings are accounted for, it doesn't seem like bullying in the way enforced use of he and she does.

Well it might not to you, no. I think the whole concept of non binary is unmitigated nonsense perpetuated by confused teenagers, controlling narcissists or people with other mental health issues. I am not sure, as I have said, why my feelings and distress about coercive control as a DV survivor would be less important than their need for validation and control.

it doesn't seem like bullying in the way enforced use of he and she does.

What bullies enforce the use of 'he' and 'she'? Who bullied Shakespeare? Austen? The Pankhursts? Victoria Wood?

I'm not an expert on transgender issues but my understanding is that it signifies a separation from binary gender options, in other words, both recognising their differences without encroaching on biological female space.

I agree that walking on eggshells is unfair but, when misunderstandings are accounted for, it doesn't seem like bullying in the way enforced use of he and she does.

I would much rather be socially obligated to occasionally have to address biological males as if they were biological females and, at the same time, demand that (males in particular) not use terms such as darling or bird to address or describe me.

Wouldn't that be great?

Progress so far shows new derogatory pejoratives have been devised to use against women who are transphobic if they object to being called cis or terf and women are expected to do as they are told with regard to preferred pronouns.
8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

Along that line of reasoning, what about other pronouns, like Zie or Xir?

I don't think anyone should ever have to walk on eggshells around narcissists. It's manipulative controlling bullying. What possible reason is there for calling yourself those pronouns, and why would other people have to go along with it?

It's not an either or situation. I'm not anyone's darling, so nobody has the right to call me that.

This. It's completely different.

Thank you, I think I understand the difference now. Along that line of reasoning, what about other pronouns, like Zie or Xir?

I would much rather be socially obligated to occasionally have to address biological males as if they were biological females and, at the same time, demand that (males in particular) not use terms such as darling or bird to address or describe me.

It's not an either or situation. I'm not anyone's darling, so nobody has the right to call me that.

Female means something. Just because some males want everyone to pretend that it doesn't, doesn't make it true. As previous posters have said, being forced to call someone something they are not can be a sign of an abuse of power or forcing others to be part of a fetish.

I'm very sorry for not being as precise in my wording as I could have been. What I should have said to less ambiguously reflect my feelings on the matter is that I do not see it as a problem because the alternative (everyone being free to address others as they wish) is, in my opinion, much more harmful to women.

I would much rather be socially obligated to occasionally have to address biological males as if they were biological females and, at the same time, demand that (males in particular) not use terms such as darling or bird to address or describe me.

Out of interest, would you prefer a situation like we had some 20-30 years ago where you have to endure being addressed or described in derisive terms in exchange for being free to use whatever terms you want and, if not, how do you justify what seems to me like a double standard (If it's not, I'm genuinely interested in why it's not)? I understand that people have differing views on the matter but what I've read so far just describes why enforced protection against misgendering is unpleasant/potentially harmful, not how it differs from the aforementioned example.

If a man wants to be addressed as 'darling' because that genuinely makes them feel comfortable, I don't see the problem.

I can understand that you do not care. What I cannot understand is the claim that you do not see the problem.
Give a moments thought to the cost to women of this kind of conditioning to obey men.
If you still do not see the problem, please read this.
yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/

It does make you wonder what’s in the backgrounds of the most handmaideny of the handmaidens (the human shield contingent that the activists call on) that makes them willing to take on that role.

In contrast, most women are not used to prioritising themselves and other women, so often it doesn’t even occur to them that they may be harming women by going along with these male’s demands, even though they are women themselves. To prioritise women over men means going against female socialisation and internalised misogyny, I think this explains, to a large extent, why many women empathise with these men over women and tend to indulge these men to women’s detriment.

YYY. Spot on.

I don't like the assumption by many that women's feelings about coercion and abusive behaviour are unimportant and that people's "identity" must be pandered to at all costs and it is reasonable that this should be enforced.

Absolutely this.

I think sadly many women are so in the habit of prioritising men over themselves and other women, that it is automatic for many to empathise with how they think men may feel, and they are extra careful about not upsetting them. In contrast, most women are not used to prioritising themselves and other women, so often it doesn’t even occur to them that they may be harming women by going along with these male’s demands, even though they are women themselves. To prioritise women over men means going against female socialisation and internalised misogyny, I think this explains, to a large extent, why many women empathise with these men over women and tend to indulge these men to women’s detriment.

Sorry R0, italics fail

Or indeed 'mistress'!

YY.

Like Hailey Heartless, the MTF "Domme" who lectured women at the Vancouver women's march about femininity and actively campaigns against women's rights and feminist organisations including Vancouver Rape Relief with pal and fellow abusive TRA Morgane Oger.

No, it's not. I didn't mean to criticise your view so much, it's your personal opinion, but I don't like the assumption by many that women's feelings about coercion and abusive behaviour are unimportant and that people's "identity" must be pandered to at all costs and it is reasonable that this should be enforced.

I'm sorry that I find it hard to draw an exact line, it's not an easy question to answer.

Or indeed 'mistress'!

If they are not bothered about men having these sexual fetishes, would they also refer to a man who liked BDSM as ‘master’ if that was how he wanted to be addressed? I fail to see how it is reasonable to force women to be part of someone’s sexual fetish under the guise of politeness.

Yes exactly! I was going to use that example next!

There's a third possibility and it applies to most GC women like me who don't like using preferred pronouns. I don't believe males are women. I don't want to pander to this worldview. I believe it's harmful, abusive when coerced, and damaging to women's rights. It's not personal.

Exactly.

It is narcissist to force someone to pretend they are what they are not, the politeness argument is their way of justifying their demands. There is no comparison with calling women derogatory terms and calling males him/he.

Also those that argue it is just polite to refer to male’s as she/her and disrespectful and mentally distressing to these men to refer to them as he/him never address the fact that it is disrespectful and mentally distressing to many women to hear a man being referred to as if he was a woman and that it feels to many of us exactly like gaslighting.

Neither do those who say it is just polite ever seem to address the issue of men who have a sexual fetish for being perceived as women and derive sexual thrill’s from being referred to as she/her. Do they think we all should just ignore that men can have this fetish? Do they think women should try to determine which men do and do not have this fetish before they agree to call them she/her? How do they propose to determine which men do and do not have these fetish motives? If they are not bothered about men having these sexual fetishes, would they also refer to a man who liked BDSM as ‘master’ if that was how he wanted to be addressed? I fail to see how it is reasonable to force women to be part of someone’s sexual fetish under the guise of politeness.