Twitter bans misgendering and deadnaming

Yes you do, and the suggestion that I will be banned shows you think that everyone else should care too. TRAs obsess over thoughtcrime

I really don't. People at the beginning of the thread were pretending not to know why it would be banned/why are Twitter being so ridiculous, so I said why it would be and what I thought.
Though it now seems people do know really but just don't want to.
Fair enough then.

Oh, have we wheeled back round to compelled speech again? What a huge surprise to see that raised once more.

Also, my refusal to see someone as ‘she’ isn’t a sign of ‘intolerance’ any more than my refusal to say the world is flat.

I am not part of your religion. I do not respect your blasphemies and your heresies.

I don't care what you do or don't do.

Yes you do, and the suggestion that I will be banned shows you think that everyone else should care too.

TRAs obsess over thoughtcrime.

What advantage is it to me, or any woman, to pretend that men can be women? I am not a bit part in their fantasy.

Indeed.

I don't care what you do or don't do. Just saying why it will be banned - if you don't want to see them as women no-one can force you to, but don't be surprised if people think you're intolerant towards transpeople as a result of you not wanting to see them as she.

What advantage is it to me, or any woman, to pretend that men can be women? I am not a bit part in their fantasy.

Dr Nicola Williams (Fairplay For Women) on India Willoughby:

'Thank you India Willoughby for showing us once again why women perceive some transwomen as male'
(extract)
"While I was waking up I switched on the TV and flicked through the channels. Then I spotted none other than my old sparring partner India Willoughby – back on Good Morning Britain again – being introduced by Piers Morgan. India will also be giving her views on the Women’s Aid story. This time up again an expert in the field; Karen Ingala Smith is the head of an amazing organisation called nia that provides services for women and children who have experienced male violence. (continues)

Straight off India started to derail the discussion by suggesting women’s fears are about a predatory man dressing as a woman to gain access to women. India was also claiming women are fear-mongering that transwomen are some how a danger to women. No. If you listen to what we say India this is about vulnerable women who want, deserve and need a female-only space to recover and heal from the trauma of male abuse. Like it or not, a woman seeking refuge with her children does not want to be confronted with someone she perceives as male, no matter how they identify. This is about the needs of a woman seeking refuge being prioritised over the needs of a trans-identifying male seeking employment.

Suzanne Reid tries to bring the conversation back to the topic, but India is straight in there again with the old chestnut ‘but what about the lesbians!’ India was now claiming that because some women will be abused by their lesbian partners that women staff should be barred. At last Karen is allowed to speak. “A woman and her lesbian partner would of course not be allowed in the same refuge, but statistically we know that when we are talking about sexual and domestic violence men are much more likely to be the perpetrators and women much more likely to be the victims”.

I often hear the argument thrown in by men that lesbians should be banned from women’s toilets, changing rooms etc etc. This is based on the false premise that women are at risk because both men and lesbian women are sexually attracted to women. Sexual and physical violence against women is not because perpetrators are sexually attracted to them – it is based on power, aggression and dominance – the same power and dominance that is embedded within and encouraged by the patriarchal system we all live in. (continues)

That social conditioning affects us all as women – we see it in Karen, the expert in the room no less, as she waits for her turn while the males speak. I felt it inside me as I sat in the studio not wanting to interrupt or come over too aggressively. We see the male privilege that both Piers and India have grown up with pushing them on – allowing them to speak with such confidence on areas they know very little about. If we closed our eyes and just listened – there would be no doubt who was born male and who was born female around that table.

And then India pounces in for the killer blow, turning to Karen who had just dared to interrupt and give her views. India said “you accept that transgender women aren’t men, yeah?” “If I got beaten in a relationship would I be welcome?” Karen replies that India should have access to a specialist refuge for transwomen to an indignant India who declares “A specialist refuge – but they don’t exist”.

Let’s just unpack that for a minute. First, it is already the policy of some shelters, such as Women’s Aid, to allow male-born transwomen refuge on a case-by-case basis. India would not have no where to go. Secondly, how does India think specialised refuge’s for women came into existence? Women campaigned and fought for their existence that’s how. Something that the transgender community can and should be doing for themselves rather than expecting and demanding access to under-funded and over-stretched services that are not designed for their particular needs.

Without pausing to let Karen speak India then crossed a line – a line that has lost h all respect from me and I hope all the women watching – India dared to tell Karen that her website contains a list of crimes committed by men and that this was is a great demonisation.

“I feel really sorry for guys this year – I think they’ve had it really tough”. (cont.)

fairplayforwomen.com/thank-india-w-showing-us-women-perceive-transwomen-still-male/

Well, actually, I don't see any people born with penises as women. I realise some of them sincerely believe that they ought to have been born as women, and I realise that this is an incredibly hard psychological burden to bear. I'm happy for anyone (whether trans-identifying or not) to dress as they choose, or live where they want, or take up any occupation they want and are qualified for (barring a tiny subset where biological sex is relevant).

My default position is also to be nice to people in social interactions and not piss them off unecessarily. To that end, I think the odd polite lie or indeed simply different choice from the one I'd make (tooth fairies, santa claus with small children, calling my vicar friend "Reverend" on the envelope, etc., writing Mrs rather than Ms on envelopes even though it's not a choice I'd make myself) oils the social wheels and is pretty harmless.

But people can forfeit the right to my respect and consideration, by being downright rude to me. In which case the gloves are off and I no longer feel any social obligation to be polite back to them. With India Willoughby, I'm not going to be polite. Any more than I'm polite to the sexist twat at my work who misses no opportunity to needle his female colleagues (particularly, I've noticed, his lesbian female colleagues) - I am brusque to him and on the whole avoid his company completely.

So - my default setting, reasonably polite. If you turn out to be nice, this will raise to a "be nice back" setting. If you're a gobshite, it will drop to a "wouldnae piss on you if you were on fire" setting.

(As someone else once said on here I think I failed female socialisation. )

IW went on Women's Hour and said that women who didn't shave their legs were dirty. In effect, India told me, me personally, that I am a dirty slattern for not shaving my legs. I see no need whatsoever to be polite to someone who spouts misogynistic shite like that.

Jenni Murray wrote about it and described her feelings about India Willoughby's assertion. She was also branded a 'terf' by some in the transgender community and following their complaints publically rebuked by the BBC for the Time article.

'Jenni Murray: Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a “real woman”
Can someone who has lived as a man, with all the privilege that entails, really lay claim to womanhood? It takes more than a sex change and make-up'
(extract)
The fury that a male-to-female transsexual could be so ignorant of the politics that have preoccupied women for centuries hit me again last year — 16 years after I had met Carol. This time I was speaking to another trans woman, India Willoughby, who had hit the headlines after appearing on the ITV programme Loose Women.

India held firmly to her belief that she was a “real woman”, ignoring the fact that she had spent all of her life before her transition enjoying the privileged position in our society generally accorded to a man. In a discussion about the Dorchester hotel’s demands that its female staff should always wear make-up, have a manicure and wear stockings over shaved legs, she was perfectly happy to go along with such requirements. There wasn’t a hint of understanding that she was simply playing into the stereotype — a man’s idea of what a woman should be.

She described hairy legs on a woman as “dirty”. But hairy legs are not considered dirty in a man. Did she not know that the question of whether a woman should shave her legs or her a rmpits had been a topic of debate among women for an awfully long time? And that to describe a woman who chose not to shave as dirty was insulting and again suggested an ignorance of sexual politics?

Unsurprisingly, my polite and informed line of questioning exposed me to a barrage of criticism on social media. I was a Terf and didn’t understand what Simone de Beauvoir, the author of one of the great feminist tracts, The Second Sex, meant when she wrote: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”

As a matter of fact, I have understood perfectly what de Beauvoir meant ever since I read her as a teenage girl. Her subject was that “second sex”. She used the word sex advisedly." (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/be-trans-be-proud-but-dont-call-yourself-a-real-woman-frtld7q5c

So because she's apparently said women who don't shave their legs are dirty (that'd be me a dirty so and so too then if so) that means it's fine to not see her as she?
Kind of like "but she was mean about my legs first so I'm A' OK to not refer to her as a woman."
Oookay.

IW went on Women's Hour and said that women who didn't shave their legs were dirty. In effect, India told me, me personally, that I am a dirty slattern for not shaving my legs. I see no need whatsoever to be polite to someone who spouts misogynistic shite like that. India can ask for whatever pronouns India wants. After saying that to me and women like me on national radio, on a programme aimed at women, with a long history of addressing feminist issues, I'm not going to pander to those likes.

Respect goes both ways. Tolerance goes both ways. I'm not pandering to someone who uses a feminist platform to peddle misogynistic insults.

You are only demonstrating your intolerance here and I'm not sure your role in moderation policies

I don't care what you do or don't do. Just saying why it will be banned - if you don't want to see them as women no-one can force you to, but don't be surprised if people think you're intolerant

You are only demonstrating your intolerance here and I'm not sure your role in moderation policies.

Tough shit if you don’t like it

I don't care what you do or don't do. Just saying why it will be banned - if you don't want to see them as women no-one can force you to, but don't be surprised if people think you're intolerant towards transpeople as a result of you not wanting to see them as she.

Has anyone asked Twitter to define "male" and "female" yet?

Ridiculous over use of name to make a point.

The ‘ridiculous over use of the name to make the point’ is the point. We won’t be forced to use female pronouns for transwomen who hate women.

Tough shit if you don’t like it.

How do you jump to that?

Because the Oxford student union recently used ‘lack of eye contact’ with ethnic minority students as an example of ‘racism’ and there’s no example of a ‘microaggression’ against any minority whatsoever that hasn’t been appropriated by TRAs.

I suppose I have to maintain eye contact now too. And not fold my arms across my chest.

I think it is what you said Verbeena

No,it really isn't.

This bit you said though -
Must not use current name in place of chosen pronoun
Can you seriously not see how you're refusing to accept any transwomen at all by repeatedly using their name over and over in a sentence?
I'll use India for an example due to the threads on here sometimes (sorry India if you're reading but first eg that comes to mind!)

India has said so and so, India must think we.... etc what does India think we are etc..... completely made up sentence there but you get the gist. Instead of she. Ridiculous over use of name to make a point.
Can you really not see? I think some are never ever going to get it though.

I can tell you right now, Verbeena, I will never refer to Karen White, Davina Ayrton, Lisa Hauxwell, Clare Derbyshire, etc. etc. as "She." I will not do it.

Coming down a notch or two from convicted rapists and murderers, nor will I refer to people cheating their way to medals in women's sports as "she." I will not do it.

I will play "let's pretend" with trans-identifying people I know and like, in the same way that I address Christmas cards to my friend who is a vicar as "Reverend so and so". But that's a courtesy I extend to people I like, not a rule which I will allow to be imposed upon me.

I haven’t seen anyone refuse to acknowledge anyone as a transwoman. As a woman, yes. But not as a transwoman.

I'm afraid I do. Transsexual is the term I use. I find the appropriation of the word woman more offensive and erasing than preferred pronouns.

Vlad. Fucking autocorrect.

It’s light learning the etiquette for meeting royalty.

And not the modern British monarchy either: Genghis Khan or Vladimir The Impaler or some other monster from history.

Address them as this, rise when they enter the room, bow your head when you speak, eat with the right fork or we’ll impale your head on a spike.

I suppose I have to maintain eye contact now too.

And not fold my arms across my chest.

Or what Aspie said.

I'm setting a timer for "Must adopt kind and welcoming facial expression" and "Must use kind and deferential tone of voice" to be added to the rulebook.

You think calling Ian Huntley, the rapist and murderer of young girls, a man - is harassment and intolerance?

When it comes into Ian Huntley, I think we’ve extended tolerance enough by not hanging him.

My tolerance is not infinite.