Batshittery from the Guardian

[quote EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]Twitter has an example of somebody using they/him/hers pronouns and thanking a theatre for reproducing them in a theatre programme:

twitter.com/AlexThomasSmith/status/1441437817041678343?s=20[/quote]
"It mightn't mean much to some", the person writes. Too right. It renders everything completely meaningless.

I think it's more like, e.g., Peter gave it to them and then she passed it to X

But - if that's it, and I have seen that used so I don't doubt that is what some mean, this person is ok with female pronouns, so what is the point of the they?

I'm hoping Andrew Doyle has been busy again. It would be preferable to a 16 year old experiencing that much angst over which words to use to describe aspects of herself specifically enough to satisfy current cultural norms amongst teenagers.

Personally I find it very sad that a 16 year old is spending so much mental energy and emotional capital in trying to find what seems to be a smaller and smaller box in which to define her identity and orientation.

This is where the whole LGBTQ+ of hundreds of labels is very damaging.

The simple fact is that the majority of people don't care if you want to identify as a pansexual demi girl or similar.

In fact this level of angst comes across as both self centric and tediously boring - of interest only to the people spouting this crap on social media.

As to the reply I can say for certain that and attempt by my children to educate me on pronouns would be given very short shrift.

It might not be a popular response but I can't see how indulging this identity alphabet is actually helpful (in the same why I wouldn't jump to affirm a child with gender dysphoria).

The poster is a lesbian from what's been posted. Great. Be proud of who she is, get on with life with real friends and step away from social media propaganda.

@JumperandJacket

The author manages to shoehorn in all the trans ideology mantra while (at 16) writing to a newspaper's Dear Agony Aunt column.

You taking taking the letter at face value that's a choice.

Deciding to question if a 16 year old would write that letter rather than talking online is also a choice.

a letter which is entirely harmless.
That is your value judgement about a newspapers editorial choice. Your value judgement is not shared by everyone on MN.

I'd say an appropriate response was sympathy, not mockery and sneering.

Thats a value judgement too and insisting people who don't accept the letter at face value accept it at face value.

Should examining the social context, a 16 year demonstrating how society has moved from telling girls "you can be anything you want" to "put yourself in that little box", be limited to or by sympathy rather than subject to uncomfortable debate?
Is "be kind" the new "no debate"

You said:
I don't find the idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction strange at all

I see a female who is attracted to other females but (being only 16) isn't into actually having sex yet.

I am asking for the clarification on the romance element of attraction and what is the meaning of the word attraction in the context of that phrase.

Is the writer
a) sexually attracted to women and not sexual active or
b) not sexually attracted to women and not sexual active

So if the authors claim of being only same sex attracted would male fall into the group of people she could feel romantic attraction towards? Can she form a romantic attraction with a 5 year old or a 95 year old?

If its not sexual attraction what is your definition of romantic attraction?

I think Annalisa Barbieri is an extremely good agony aunt, one of the best, and I'd assume she makes checks on all the people who write to her. For that reason, I think it's likely to be genuine, even though it's nuts.

What it boils down to is that this girl is a lesbian. She's attracted to other girls, but these days that on its own is apparently not enough. So it all has to be dressed up in this ridiculous language about ACE and whatnot. Not to mention the she/they pronouns, whatever the heck that's about.

It's very sad - up until about 20 years ago teenage girls would have been terrified about coming out as lesbian, so we seem to have had a brief period in history when it was deemed OK, and now it's not OK again.

@SolasAnla I'm merely trying to put what the writer says into more conventional language. I don't find the idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction strange at all (I can certainly remember feeling like this as a young teen) nor do I think that it means just admiration- not sure where you have got this from.

I feel people are projecting an awful lot of their general dislike of trans ideology onto a letter which is entirely harmless. I see a female who is attracted to other females but (being only 16) isn't into actually having sex yet. A kid who feels confused and as if they have to put themselves into a box but can't find a box that fits. Whatever your views on gender identity, I'd say an appropriate response was sympathy, not mockery and sneering.

Twitter has an example of somebody using they/him/hers pronouns and thanking a theatre for reproducing them in a theatre programme:

twitter.com/AlexThomasSmith/status/1441437817041678343?s=20

Although I think I also think that U 18s shouldn't be able to consent to any kind of exposure on social media so maybe I am a hypocrite?

@jumperandJacket
feels romantically attracted to girls but not sexually attracted (yet), is uncertain about all of this and finds it changes day to day

Can you expand to explain what you meant by that statement?

Is society going to claim that admiration and a wanting to emulate a person of the same sex or opposite sex is romantic attraction, or that all friendships are platonic romances?

The whole homophobia and sexual coercion that emerges from trans ideology is based on teaching children that sexed bodies female or male don't exist and sexual attraction is based on a list of personality traits.

If its not romantic love based on sexual attraction where do these romantic attractions originate from?

[quote BackBackBack]@Sophoclesthefox and stunning and brave, surely?[/quote]
I was going for UQ (universally queasy or quelled as appropriate). That or EU (everlastingly uninterested) or EI (eternally indifferent).

Stunning and brave is a much better marketing slogan for the brand, however.

It's the lack of torment that gets to you. The ability to attend a social setting and seep indifference to the physicality of others from your pores without it being at all problematic. The freedom to converse without fretting that someone will construe your question about propensity weight scoring and stabilised weights for average treatment effect for the control as an invitation to to sexual congress.

But of course!

@Sophoclesthefox and stunning and brave, surely?

If the Guardian has any interest in a proto-ace middle-aged person who is unlikely to ever experience desire or attraction again, I can raise my boring hand or use both to type a column that will spread this indifference (edging towards antipathy)

I think we need a label for this ...

As for not commenting on a piece in a mainstream newspaper because it may have been written by a child: if there is any valid criticism of this then the place to direct it is solely towards the Guardian. One they publish it it becomes part of their output/propaganda and completely open for critique, ridicule,

'Educate yourself' means 'indoctrinate yourself'. The last thing the actually want you to do is educate yourself.

“Educate yourself” almost invariably means “educate yourself about the unutterable magnificence that is meeeeeeeeeeeeee! Aren’t I great? And clever? And special?” 🤣

@Christmas101 @GreenWhiteViolet The teenager under discussion hasn't done any of those things though. She isn’t consenting to “bring maimed” or posting abusive messages. She’s just a confused kid who has written in to the paper for advice, using the terminology she’s presumably picked up online. Whatever your thoughts on gender theory,, I’m not sure that deserves the vitriol being displayed on this thread.

As for it being a spoof, who knows? But the underlying scenario is pretty normal (teenager who doesn’t like all the stereotypes associated with womanhood, feels romantically attracted to girls but not sexually attracted (yet), is uncertain about all of this and finds it changes day to day - that’s a fairly run of the mill problem). She conceptualises all of this in terms of gender and group identities, which sounds bizarre to me as a middle-aged woman but I think would sound pretty normal to my teenage kids [shrug].

Absolutely, @Christmas101

It's even stranger when the teenagers do it themselves. Old enough to be on Twitter posting abusive messages and pictures of guns to women, but if you criticise them you get 'I'm a child, don't reply to me!' They're mostly 16/17.

This is all very confusing and depressing. Do 16 yos really write like this? My dd is only 13 but I couldn’t imagine her writing to a major newspaper to get advice and discuss hating her breasts.

Robust and sure enough to consent to being maimed.

Fragile and vulnerable enough to be unable to withstand words and truth.

A truly incredible invention of the 21st century.