People ARE aware and thinking about the trans agenda. And they don't like it.

Has this got into the light now the Catholic church has commented on it?

It may be in the news but I think the effect will not be as significant as hoped, given the Catholic Church is not exactly known for making statements that tally up with real world lives. IN other words, I think most people won't even register it.

I think the religious aspect of it is fascinating. I see loads of articles from transexuals (the dysphoric transitioning kind), detransitioners, desisters, former allies etc talking about the internal rituals involved. I keep meaning to do a post pulling it all together, but off the top of my head is "the pronoun circle", the acquisition of a new name as a kind of baptism (see also "dead naming" as a symbolic death/rebirth act), I've read about something called "the long table" or "the healing circle" which was used to cast out allies who transgressed, the "transcendant brain" theories and the dualist "born in the wrong body/ gendered soul" theories. It's very akin to religion. Which makes it even more fascinating that the stricter/ more prescriptive established religions (Islam, Catholicism, JWs etc) have all spotted it dead quick for what it is, whilst atheists, humanists, quakers etc, have all got a really weird blind spot. As horrendous and scary as this all is from an "actually living the nightmare" POV, it's actually really fascinating from a detached academic POV. I think it'll be recognised as a belief system one day personally. That's the only way I can see this all resolving.

Has this got into the light now the Catholic church has commented on it?

I've had the opposite experience re atheism. The militant TRAs I know are all either religious or people who were profoundly religious (to fundamentalist levels) then lost their faith and then got into trans activism shortly afterwards. I long thought that it was a substitute religion.

I think that gender id is basically a religious belief (the belief in gendered souls) and it has occurred to me that this is why it hasn't gone down so well in the UK as it did in the US. But glad to see that the Pope isn't going for it.

I see the Pope doesn’t like it one bit.

This MN thread is pertinent here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3607564-Dr-Em-The-Trojan-Unicorn-Queer-Theory-and-Paedophilia

The pronouns issue reminds me of the quote about religion, "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything". I'm an atheist, but I know what GK Chesterton was getting at - when you stop being anchored to an existing belief system, you lose all reference points.

Asking someone to use the pronouns of one sex about someone they know is the other sex is - as PPs have said - demanding compliance and subservience, but it is much more than that. It undermines the whole purpose and integrity of language. If words that denote female can be applied to males (and vice versa) the whole structure of communication around everything to do with sex, gender and biology becomes meaningless. The ability to communicate anything about one sex, including all discussion of sex-based rights, is lost. Which is, of course, the point.

Well I read a letter to the very trans friendly evening standard from a person complaining bitterly that Julie Bindel - who was attacked by a personal with a penis and beard - called her attacker he. But their name is Cathy and they wore a dress! How very dare she.

Their fluff on the NSPCC shit storm was also very bleh. I won’t bother reading it again - but then you get what you pay for (it’s free).

I find it insulting and offensive to call any of these people I have pictured "she" or "a woman" however much they would like me to.

Thankfully, UK law does not require this. The GRA 2004 is explicit here and it nullifies any reference to "pronouns", "mis-gendering" and "dead-naming".

From GRA 2004, section 9 Explanatory Note 28:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/9

"Subsection (2) provides amplification of subsection (1), making clear that the recognition is not retrospective, so the certificate does not rewrite the gender history of the transsexual person, and that the new gender applies for the interpretation of enactments, instruments and documents made before as well as after the issue of a certificate"

[Note also: that use of the phrase "for all purposes" is restricted to law [enactments], instruments [amendments to law via statutory instruments] and documents [legal ID documents such as driving licence, passport, birth certificate].

Clothes don’t ‘make’ your sex. He/she is sex based.

I've never had a problem calling a transwoman she/they... Should I?
(Sorry this was a comment quite far back)

Submitting to preferred pronouns means you accept a person as being in a particular sex class.
I do not accept any male born person to be of the sex class woman, it goes beyond politeness, it's compelled speech and coersive.
I find it insulting and offensive to call any of these people I have pictured "she" or "a woman" however much they would like me to.

Where are you supposed to draw the line? Only use preferred pronouns for some people but not others?

I think use of pronouns should be a choice available to the speaker in the same way it is to the person demanding them of the speaker. It is anyone's right to ask for you to use certain pronouns, but it should also be anyone's right to say "no it's ok I'll use the pronouns related to your sex".

I've heard the "work makes me call this man a she - world's gone mad" conversation in pubs a million times, and sorry to say but 99% of the time it is not coming from well-meaning people waking up to gender critical feminism and the erosion of women's rights.

I see the point though - don't assume that everyone's coming to it from a "protect the women" point of view, they won't be. But that's obvious really.

Some will just hate everyone, and blame "the feminists" for bringing this on society. Some will be homophobic and disgusted at any man or woman defying norms.

However I would hope that most people come from a "that's mad because it lets abusive men do all sorts" point of view, instead of "cor blimey, political correctness gone mad!"

I've heard the "work makes me call this man a she - world's gone mad" conversation in pubs a million times, and sorry to say but 99% of the time it is not coming from well-meaning people waking up to gender critical feminism and the erosion of women's rights.

You have no way of knowing what motivates strangers in the pub. But it's clear many people who are not feminists object to being bullied into lying and they have every right to object. Very few people actually believe human beings can change sex, and there's little patience for genderist nonsense outside the bubble of transactivism. I think you underestimate how many people are gender critical at a very basic gut level.

Words have meanings. If I see someone who is perfectly obviously male I will use he/him because those are the correct terms.

I am careful about how I refer to men who identify as women here because I don't want to have my posts deleted and possibly face a ban. But in other settings - real life for example - I use accurate terms.

NunoGoncalves
I am in a situation where I am called transphobic for accessing this board, for suggesting 15 year olds sometimes change their minds, for suggesting that children who aren’t sexually active don’t need to waste most of their free time defining their sexuality on tumblr, for being concerned that a vulnerable child may be targeted by adults with their own agenda, and for trying to keep that child free from harmful medical intervention. I do sometimes use their preferred pronouns, but I will not agree to do so, because then any slip is seen as further proof of mt transphobia and bad intentions. I’ve got so I barely dare to speak in my own home. Social transition is a step on the path to medical transition, and I think , in this case that would be mutilation. Pronouns are important.

Gender critical or not, it's at least acknowledging reality that people can't literally change sex.

Most people I've spoken to about this understand instantly how unfair it is to have men identify as women and enter women's sports and how dangerous it is to place men in women's prisons if they declare themselves a woman. The one exception is a man in his twenties who is a firm Corbynite/Momentum member who used to think I was being a mean transphobe. Even he has started to acknowledge that he doesn't understand women's issues and that I am concerned not because of a fear or hatred of trans people but because of an erosion of women's rights, though infuriatingly he won't engage beyond that for the time being - I'm chipping away!

also, what is 'anti-trans'? you keep using this phrase, can you explain what it means?

I've never had a problem calling a transwoman she/they... Should I? I always thought a group of people down the pub complaining about how they have to call a transwoman "she" was basically a complete anti-trans cliche, isn't it?

I strongly suggest that you read Barracker's brilliant article Pronouns are Rohypnol.

Try the following two sentences about a man who says he identifies as a woman:

She's upset that she's not welcome in the women's changing room.

Compared to:

He's upset that he's not welcome in the women's changing room.

The first sentence arouses sympathy. What cruel person would exclude her from the women's changing room?

The second makes it clear what is actually being demanded. Most people don't think men should be in the women's changing room.

I used to use female pronouns out of kindness, and I still would if face to face with a courteous man who identified as a woman (though tbh you seldom use third person pronouns in the presence of the person). But not in any other context these days. I've seen the harm it does.

Not wanting to call a man 'she' doesn't make you some kind of bigot. It makes you someone who values their own judgement, or possibly someone who is consciously uncooperative. Neither of which make you a bad person.

just because a person isn't thinking in your approved manner, it doesn't mean it's a problem.

just because a trans person may experience someone using the correct sex pronouns for them as transphobia, it doesn't mean it actually is

True. And similarly, just because some people who don't like to use "preferred pronouns" aren't anti-trans, doesn't mean that none of them are.

I've heard the "work makes me call this man a she - world's gone mad" conversation in pubs a million times, and sorry to say but 99% of the time it is not coming from well-meaning people waking up to gender critical feminism and the erosion of women's rights.

Just to expand on my post a little - just because a trans person may experience someone using the correct sex pronouns for them as transphobia, it doesn't mean it actually is.

Well, I don't claim to be a paragon of virtue, and I'm rather tetchy about the mode of "I'm GC but..." followed by answers which disagree and explain why, and then a post saying essentially "This is why everyone thinks you're mean."

Maybe you didn't intend to be the next in a long line of posters following that pattern, but sadly, you were on the day I was less inclined to not notice. I'm sure you don't need my approval though, so you'll be fine.