Isn't this a good thing?

Is that to me? I'm female

I suppose it depends whether you're female bisexual, or male bisexual.

You asked what the consequences are, I answered. There's no such thing as free speech without consequences, like it or lump it

Thats a lot of words to say forced speech is ok

@howdoesatoastermaketoast I pretty much agree with all of that explanation it makes sense thank you. I'm not sure about the 'new' definitions of straight and queer myself as it seems quite blurry on social media. I'm bisexual, I've never known what it was like to be heterosexual or a lesbian because I have known I liked both right from a child. But I can understand how hurt and angry lesbians must feel when trans women say those things. I don't think anyone should be forced into anything, there is such a thing as genital preference no matter what the person themselves feels or looks like on the outside. If one doesn't like c*ck one doesn't want it full-stop! I have found trans men attractive, I haven't ever found an individual trans women attractive but I wouldn't rule it out. Is that because I'm bi and don't have any sort of a genital preference, and like both feminine men and masculine women and vice versa, I don't know. I don't know if that makes me 'pan'. You don't have to answer but what do you feel makes you pan?

I also feel that we should be able to talk about our harassment, assault and rape, our anatomy, etc. etc. there's nothing wrong with talking about our sex, I feel very strongly about that. I personally feel I can talk about women as a sex, this is important as we still fight for equality.

Thanks for your measured response :-)

@the winter soldier

One explanation of it that's been on my mind is think of it as a conversation about manners respect and boundaries. There are two competing systems of classifying people both include everyone (ish) and we are perfectly happy to accept that these people exist we aren't saying they don't or shouldn't but the same person might have different words to describe themselves in each system.

So in 'old progressive' people were male or female and the words men boys women and girls were signifiers that showed you were an adult or a child of whichever sex. So simple children could understand. These were (are) broad and inclusive categories no human is poised between the two sexes. Everyone inclusive of possible deformity defect or disorder still belongs to one sex or the other.

And then you can have, sexual orientation: Homosexual Bisexual or Heterosexual. And under the 'old progressive' system this denoted which sex (or sexes) you're attracted to without judgement or pressure to change.

And then there is the extent to which you conform (dress hair make up jewellery etc.) to the gendered expectations the society places on you because of the sex of the body you were born into. GNC stands for gender non conforming usually meant in quite supportive terms as it was recognised that people (men) often suffered backlash or risk of violence for visible non conformity in terms of hair dress make-up and women for not being sufficiently available to men.

But over time heterosexual and homosexual was somewhat supplanted by straight and queer where straight meant something a little like boring / vanilla and queer meant something more like experimental / exciting kinky.

And you got to 'new progressive' - the assertion is that this is kinder, more 'inclusive'. I am not persuaded that that is true...

I shalln't attempt a clear explanation of the new system as even my best effort at clarity would sound like a piss take. But if you can't acknowledge sex women suffer. If women can't talk about our sex you can't talk about sex discrimination, sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape. If we can't use our words to describe our reality women suffer. If we can't talk about our anatomy we can't talk about our health or pleasure or control our contraception. At every turn its women who lose out, women who are silenced and sidelined and treated as unimportant support humans.

And then you get to sexual orientation... The word Lesbian has been redefined and this redefinition embraced by stonewall to mean Lesbian (homosexual women) and heterosexual men (old system) who feel entitled to have sex with them.

IF I thought the new system was better I'd be a non binary pansexual as would my husband. But that would miss out some pretty crucial information.

That would depend on the circumstances, I would expect society to comply with law and not reorganising speech patterns is not illegal as such, so one would need to look at other factors such as Ts&Cs of websites eg Twitter and Facebook (rightly or wrongly their platform their rules) and in work, polices such as Code of Conduct or Bullying and Harassment policies. Note I'm not suggesting anyone here would be bullying someone or would fall foul of any such policy. Outside of work, presumably not much unless the workplace had a 'bringing the workplace into disrepute' clause. And that's subjective. The final consequence I suppose might be other people's opinions of you inside or outside of work, but what people think of you doesn't really matter in the end if you are doing something you feel strongly about.

The court rules are below
www.judiciary.uk/publications/crown-court-compendium-published/

The case happened but only for illustration.
The question is where should society begin to apply consequences for not reorganising speech to match a listeners expectation?

No woman is actually a man.

I'm sure you agree that doesn't sound like she thinks she's actually a man.

Elizabeth was as subject to the sexism of the day, just as we are.

She said "'I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."

No I was thinking more like actual evidence as in e.g. Queen Elizabeth I herself had written something to make them think that, rather than what's probably made up drivel

There is no evidence to prove that women who are strong, go to war, or rule must be men, because that is the prerogative of males and no woman can do it.

It's sexism.

SolasAnla I'm only aware of the High Court ruling to overturn the tribunal that said it was fair to sack a woman for stating people couldn't change biological sex. And in the ruling saying gender critical views were protected. I'm paraphrasing from memory sorry if I've got it slightly wrong, but if I'm remembering correctly I think what the high court said was right. Do you have a link for the other case I'll have a read

Thanks Datum, yes I've had a quick read of that thread, not caught up yet been out today. Seems a little weird to say if an historical woman did something a little bit 'manly' what - they were strong and took no sh*t?! They therefore must have been a man?! I don't think so. I would hope the author had some sort of evidence for their claims if they've published this academically, more reading to look up!!

the winter soldier
I don't think people should be 'forced' to do anything, I think people can choose how they want to act (or speak) but, rightly or wrongly, recognise that there could be consequences for that action or behaviour.

What consequence should flow from refusing to mis-sex someone?

The UK Courts have only recently rolled back a rule which attempted to force a woman who was assaulted by a male to mis-sex the male.
This is a form of "approved" perjury.
As a "punishment" for that witness testomony, the Judge apparently stated on record that the sentencing of her attacker took account of her refusal and as a consequence / in compensation to the male the punishment was reduced.

Where should society draw the line?
In prisons should refusing to use words be disciplined?
Is sacking someone for refusing to use pronouns, outside work, in a social situation; in work, where is the line?

I was being a little facetious, the law was written in Ireland, to investigate deaths of women (passed and future) who's cancer was missed by failures in the screening process.
Using the word person (twice) to account for the women and men who were given legal rights with the Act expands the "statistical person" to include both female and male people.

How would it do that? ‘Relevant woman’ is defined in such a way that, even if it became ‘relevant person’, and all other references to woman were replaced with person, it would only catch individuals who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer or undergone a smear test.

I could give numberous examples of the sexism underpinning transgenderism, but even the very next thread I looked at after this was yet another example.

The retrospective 'transing' of powerful women in history, because if they behave in a stereotypical male way, they must be men, right? Nothing to do with their internal feelings whatsoever.

Erasing women in history, the arts, etc, has been done for so long, that people genuinely think there weren't any. But taking women like Elizabeth I or Joan of Arc, and making out they weren't actually women because they 'acted like men'' by ruling and going to war? It doesn't get more misogynistic.

Julia Serano wrote The Whipping Girl, which was turned into a film starring Eddie Redmayne, if I recall correctly.

Lavery is an academic at an American uni I believe, teaching English literature I think it is. They've just written a book about their penis.

You could try Anne Lawrence who has written extensively about the issue. They are also a transwoman, with a little more honesty, I would say.

Having listened to so many men who say they are women, there's not a single part of me that believes in an inner gender. I haven't seen any narrative that supports it. Quite the opposite.

i'm not saying every transwoman is driven by the fetishisation of women, but it's clear to me that sexism is at the root.

it's quite common to be told that an inner gender is personal and difficult to define. The problem is, that even the people who have one say the same thing.

For something that's so important, that occupies their minds almost constantly, and who must have a unrelenting internal monologue about it, they are singularly unable to give you a single word to describe any of it, that doesn't completely rely on stereotypes.

If you're serious about wanting to find out more, ask any trans person to describe what they think makes them the opposite sex.

What is even dafter, is that this internal feeling that no one can describe, that not everyone has, that can change weekly, or even daily, or can stop entirely, is simultaneously so relevant and important that it trumps biological sex when making laws, recording data, and segregating the sexes!

If it's all about feelings and not about stereotypes, why are some gender ideology believers trying to posthumously trans every woman in history who stepped outside the narrow role expected of women of her time? (See current threads about Joan of Arc and Elizabeth I).

Surely this transing of anyone gender nonconforming should be just as offensive to those believers as saying that someone can't be trans because they conform to stereotypes for their sex.

Then of course there are two TW one of whom thinks women being seriously injured or killed during domestic violence is merely because of the eggshell skulls females have and it is therefore just rather unfortunate, the other of whom is an extreme porn advocate who champions using 16 year old girls in porn.

Aren't those both the same TW (Jane Fae)?

PS I forgot to say, I hadn't heard of most of them so will have a read tomorrow, thank you for information

Thanks for that. I agree that those examples are certainly unpleasant (understatement), and as you say sexist, misogynistic and sounds like a fetish. For those individuals the consequences as a minimum are women (and probably some non sexist men) seeing them for those attributes and probably judging them harshly.

I wouldn't tar them all with the same brush though, all people can be 'good' and 'bad', a few notable or notorious 'bad' ones doesn't equal the whole lot. I certainly don't 'fight' for anyone to be sexist, misogynistic and share their fetishes with all and sundry. (Private, not hurting anyone and everyone consenting adults fine.)

As women we need to have boundaries and if people push those boundaries (trans or not) we are entitled to maintain them.

Excellent post as ever @Datun how anyone can hear/read that and not see how regressive, sexist, misogynistic and quite frankly repulsive gender ideology and it adherents are I don't know.

Then of course there are two TW one of whom thinks women being seriously injured or killed during domestic violence is merely because of the eggshell skulls females have and it is therefore just rather unfortunate, the other of whom is an extreme porn advocate who champions using 16 year old girls in porn.

Those are the type of people you are fighting for @the winter soldier those are the type of people you are claiming deserve respect and dignity and to be considered women and part of womanhood.

Those are the type of people who apparently come under the trope of being so sad, been through so much, so oppressed yada, yada, yada.