For anyone who thought the Guardian had seen the light...

@WeeBisom I wonder if what was really meant is the same bits of the brain light up? Like there is research to suggest the social ostracism lights up the same brain parts as physical pain. So it hurts - I get that. But also physical pain is hardly cut and dried. We know it's subjective and not always proportionate to the actual harm done.

This psychologist says that some people experience “physical pain” when the pronouns they have selected aren’t used. Sorry but I don’t believe that. I don’t believe it’s possible to experience physical pain by someone saying words. Extreme mental anguish, maybe, but pain?

To be honest, I find all this navel gazing and reflection about the “self” really tiresome. i think that some people are incredibly fascinated by their sense of self and enjoy preening it, cultivating their personal identity like a hobby (see the person in the article who finally decides they are a “boy”.) it’s a little bit like people who find religion and suddenly it’s the most all consuming, interesting thing in their lives. But I find it quite narcissistic and consumerist , and I resent the pronoun shit because it means that I’m dragged in as a participant in their self-building.

A: What did you say to ham?
B: I was laughing and ha was upset.
A: Why was ha upset?
B: Because ha didn’t think the pronoun award was funny.

I think The Guardian back then had a better grasp of reality and shas (?) were having a laugh too.

This really sums it up. The dominant group, dissatisfied with the fact their power has been challenged by those they disempowered, now refuses to take responsibility for what they did whilst further cementing their stranglehold on power systems by creating an identity for themselves that they define and that enables them to unquestionably retain power whilst taking it from the others and convincing the oppressed that the oppressors were, in fact, the victims all along.

Brought to you by big pharma.

It’s the ‘poor me’ control drama James Redfield discussed in The Celestine Prophecy (putting aside the woo aspects of the story).

Heaven help these people if they ever encounter anyone who doesn’t have English as a first language.

I was trying to write a report yesterday where I had to refer to a they/them who lives with a couple.

Trying to distinguish which they/them I was referring to in describing domestic situations and decision making made a complete farce of everything.

You got further than me. I got as far as "As a writer, reader and feminist who is also the parent of a transgender child".

Middle aged CEO with a paraphilia = embattled minority. How the Guardian has lost touch with the ordinary working man and woman, who has no time or resources for these luxury beliefs.

If declaring one’s pronouns, and accepting that “they/them” doesn’t ruin a sentence, can help to raise awareness and enable an embattled minority to live happier lives, then bring them on.

”Embattled minority”.

I have stopped reading at the point where a dad is putting money in a 'naughty jar' when he 'misgenders' his child

This bit made me laugh:

In 1932 the Guardian made its own contribution, when it awarded second prize of a guinea to Arthur L Dakyns, of Didsbury in Manchester, in a competition to suggest the 10 most needed additions to the English vocabulary. His offer included three “personal pronouns of indefinite gender”: ha, ham and shas. Dakyns’s list also included “Bronk: to raise and lower one eyebrow while keeping the other steady (indispensable to actors aspiring to film work)”, suggesting he was not perhaps being entirely serious. The tone of his entry is instantly recognisable. It’s mockery dressed up as wit – the ancestor of the “I sexually identify as an attack helicopter” meme that emerged on Reddit in 2014 and has since multiplied across the internet.

I suppose I'll have to read the entire article, but just the subheading already grates:

There’s a quiet revolution happening over how we address people, and behind it lies a surprising history …

No! It is not about how we address people! It is about how we refer to them.

It is not about addressing them in the way they would like, by their name or rank. That is courtesy by the speaker. It is about controlling how the speaker refers to somebody else. It is about coercive control by another person, even when they are not present.

I see the author of the article is championing Bragg. Enough said.