Pronouns on socials

Believing in gender identity ideology while also not believing in it isn't logically possible

This is the point I'm making. This attitude of "you are either with us or against us" with no room for disagreement on any aspect is common to both sides of this debate. There is no room for critical thinking or analysis of different aspects. It's one way or the other.

It's a bit like being an atheist watching two religions fight.

Well, I don't want to fight and I don't want to force my lack of belief on anyone else. But I also don't want to convert or to be condemned as a heathen and have my lack of belief negatively affect my life, career, etc.

I don't personally feel that trans people are "the enemy" at all and I don't have any issue with them living however they like as long as it's not harming anyone else. I don't care that they don't believe the same as me, and I have friends with lots of beliefs I don't share (including other religions and gender identity ideology). I just don't see why it's a problem to hold a specific view and not want to be bullied or shamed into pretending I believe something different.

By saying that it's not logically possible to simultaneously believe in gender identity ideology and not believe in it, I don't mean that people who believe in gender identity ideology are my enemies or that I think they're against me because we have different ideas about gender; I just mean that I can't believe that both sides of a pair of mutually exclusive statements are correct as it makes no logical sense.

I'd be interested to hear how you manage to reconcile the two beliefs though, assuming that your views sit somewhere in this nuanced middle ground you speak of - what does that look like for you in terms of belief in gender identity?

You don't have to be feminist or GC to know that sex is immutable.

This categorisation of people as GC not GC, feminist not feminist, is all rather arcane for most people and not really very significant in the end.

👏👏👏

They don't have to be, certainly polling shows up very nuanced views based on the circumstances.

Most people don't have to think critically about it as they already know there's two sexes and many of them, despite being old enough to be parents of 30 year olds, already knew about transexuals for far more than 30 years. They are quite reasonable in expecting to be able to stick with that knowledge.

Those that have produced critical output have done it to inform those wishing to understand this more recent insistence that sex changes are actually happening and have looked into the profession of that idea in detail. This is all available publicly. How this came about is as important as what is now being claimed.

This categorisation of people as GC not GC, feminist not feminist, is all rather arcane for most people and not really very significant in the end.

i don't use pronouns i have a name

I is a pronoun and you've used it twice in this short quote alone

Definitely there is some critical thinking. I've listened to a lot of Kathleen Stock's talks and I think she offers a very interesting and nuanced perspective, as does Helen Joyce.

This doesn't mean that everyone who thinks of themselves as gender critical is a critical thinker though.

Probably still read the evidence online.

Kathleen Stocks book is very reasonable critical thinking, as is Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and Trans by Helen Joyce.

I think that's an unfortunate generalisation. The consultation on reform of the GRA led to a lot of critical thinking, you can pro

if you can't explain a view, it can be unhelpful to frame it as "the extreme end of gender critical thinilking" as it seems from what you've said that you're basing that description on a strawman idea of what some TRAs believe gender critical views are.

I was wasn't framing this as the extreme end of gender critical thinking. I was framing it as what extreme TRAs think of gender critical people.

Believing in gender identity ideology while also not believing in it isn't logically possible
This is the point I'm making. This attitude of "you are either with us or against us" with no room for disagreement on any aspect is common to both sides of this debate. There is no room for critical thinking or analysis of different aspects. It's one way or the other.

It's a bit like being an atheist watching two religions fight.

I agree that gender critical feminists don't generally want to harm transgender people. I'm saying that it's a motive ascribed to them by others based on a misunderstanding of their position.

Quite. Couldn’t put it better myself

Personally I don't identify as either GC or as a TRA, because I think both of these boxes hold extreme views and are in opposition and that is not helpful. Everyone in this debate needs to listen to each other and respect each other a bit more.

What is it you find extreme about believing that sex is real and immutable and that it matters in certain areas of life such as sports/ and single-sex services and spaces where women and girls are vulnerable?

What compromises do you think women would have to make to be less extreme? Should we pretend that we think people can change sex? Or uncomplainingly use the wrong pronouns. Or perhaps we should pipe down about the unfairness of men competing in women’s sporting events?

I can’t quite work out how one takes a middle ground approach to this ideology. I mean you either believe that men can turn into women or you don’t. And if you don’t why should you have to pretend that you do? What does the middle look like? I’ve seen people on twitter professing to take the middle ground and 100% of them would be deemed to be terfs by trans activist standards.

i don't use pronouns i have a name, this pronouns, gender ideology is very dark and leading us down a path to pedophiles demanding to being accepted, they will say liking children is a sexual orientation. its already started with the you cannot say anything to people if they dont identify as somthing and you have to respect that. the fact pedophiles have given themselves a name MAPS. the fact schools are pushing gender/trans/everything onto very very young children. its coming and it scares me

But I think it started off as being balanced, trying to listen then the TRAs waded in? Trying to obliterate women’s voices. It started off with people trying to be kind and understanding but quickly it turned into violent threats by the TRAs,

Certain matters are black and white. Men can never become women. Women’s spaces are for women, women’s rights are for women.

Shouting 'I don't think there should be gender stereotyping! I disagree with gender stereotypes!' doesn't help people deal with the gender dysphoria that they are experiencing here and now.

Can you make room for the possibility that someone struggling with gender dysphoria might wrongly assume that non-trans people who declare their pronouns as matching their biological sex are saying that they actually have an inner sense of gender identity that sits comfortably with them?

One of my issues with non-trans people adding their pronouns to try to be supportive is that I've found it to have the opposite effect personally.

I've found that seeing everyone else smugly having discovered their respective gender identities (whether trans or not) actually made me struggle with my gender issues more, as it made me feel more different than I probably am in reality.

I thought there was something wrong with me when everyone was declaring themselves "cis" and telling me their pronouns as I couldn't understand why they could sense their gender identity but mine was completely missing.

It took me ages to figure out that many were just trying to be kind to make trans people feel more welcome, because in reality, their actions just made me feel more trans.

I don't agree or disagree with your take particularly. I wish more people would recognise that this is not black and white, it's extremely complicated.

Personally I don't identify as either GC or as a TRA, because I think both of these boxes hold extreme views and are in opposition and that is not helpful. Everyone in this debate needs to listen to each other and respect each other a bit more.

But a man pretending to be a woman can only ever be a man playing up to stereotypes of women. It can never be anything else.

By trying to confuse matters and say these embodiments of stereotypes are the thing they are parodying it’s reinforcing the idea that these stereotypes are true representations. It’s reinforcing and giving credence to harmful perceptions.

yes stereotypes exist, we should not be feeding into anything which reinforces and perpetuates those stereotypes. The primary thing that is doing the most harm in this area is gender ideology.to think you can buy into both GI and feminism is dangerously misguided.

of course everyone deserves rights, but men’s rights (even if the think of themselves as women) should never be allowed to curtail hard fought for women’s rights. The best thing to do to can for Transpeople is offer appropriate mental healthcare like would be recommended in every other dysphoric and dissociative condition.

'By supporting trans ideology you’re supporting gender stereotypes'.

Not really. I simply recognise the reality that the world we live in is full of gender stereotypes, whether or not we want it to be, and that is not likely to change within our lifetimes.

Shouting 'I don't think there should be gender stereotyping! I disagree with gender stereotypes!' doesn't help people deal with the gender dysphoria that they are experiencing here and now.

It is possible to respect the needs and rights of trans people living in our current world whilst still, ideally, wanting to live in a world where there is less or no gender stereotyping.

Given that sex discrimination at work is not a thing that no longer exists, being told to declare pronouns can trigger subconscious biases in others when 'she/her' is stressed.

It's also true that stating one's preferred pronouns does signal, at least in theory, a presumed acceptance of gender as an identity, because the list of preferred pronouns includes impossible ones if they are supposed to be sex-based, such as the neo-pronouns and they/them. When this is the list, the 'she/her' one picks is automatically assumed to reflect a 'feminine' gender identity.

And what does that mean? That the person wants to be treated like women are treated rather than like men are treated at work? This open a dangerous Pandora's box of traditional sexists views and stereotypes, but on this round they are now viewed as not just regressive but also progressive.

I understand that many who declare their preferred pronouns just want to be kind and supportive of transgender individuals. But the message is far more dangerous for women's rights than we are told.

Correcting people's speech is quite a common occurrence. It's not a trans thing.

Being required to use 'she' in reference to a man is the opposite of correcting people's speech. It very much is a trans thing.

Just to be clear it is not a view that I hold. But many people on the "TRA side" spread the narrative that GC people are actively and deliberately harming tran people. Have you really never come accross this?

I have come across people saying it, but usually in a hyperbolic way - I have never heard the logical argument on which it's based and to be honest, I had assumed that was because there wasn't one and it was just a way of shutting down gender critical views. I got all excited because I thought you might be able to explain what people meant by that, but I guess we're none the wiser!

I appreciate that it's hard for you to explain that view if you don't hold it yourself and have just heard other people saying it, but I think that similarly, if you can't explain a view, it can be unhelpful to frame it as "the extreme end of gender critical thinking" as it seems from what you've said that you're basing that description on a strawman idea of what some TRAs believe gender critical views are.

I appreciate that you were trying to illustrate the two extremes of thinking on this, but it seems that you were doing so from the particular perspective of what gender identity ideologues believe those two extremes to be.

It comes across as a biased comment because "gender critical beliefs as necessarily wishing harm on trans people" were set as one extreme, which would be a very extreme and bizarre view if anyone actually held it, with the belief that biological males who identify as transwomen should be allowed to participate in women's sports at the other.

Since these are both beliefs from the perspective of gender identity ideology (since the first one grossly misrepresents the gender critical view and the other one (on participation in women's sports) is relatively mainstream and uncontroversial among gender identity ideologues), framing these as the two extremes suggests that gender critical views are far more extreme than the apparently more moderate position that gender identity ideologues take.

I do absolutely understand how hard it is to try to appreciate both sides of all of this and to then get grief from absolutely everyone for trying to acknowledge and respect everyone's views while simultaneously grappling with one's own thoughts on the matter, and I've been there myself!

Some wise MNer told me several years ago that it's not possible to sit on the fence forever on this issue (which isn't what I thought I was doing at all at the time), but I see now that they were absolutely right.

Believing in gender identity ideology while also not believing in it isn't logically possible, and the two views will come into conflict in everyone's life at some point. Eventually, we're all forced to confront the question and pick a lane, and there's no avoiding that. It's not like being an agnostic in terms of religion and simply not going looking for answers and getting on with life, because the question comes to you. This idea of gender identity is so pervasive now that everyone is going to be faced with deciding what they actually believe eventually, and logically, it can't be both.

It isn’t the same leap at all, is what I meant. And gender critical feminists don’t want to “harm trans people”. Radical feminists want liberation from men’s oppression. Gender critical feminists are critical of the social constructs and constraints of gender theory, and think those constructs harm women. Neither of those is necessarily about trans people.

It absolutely isn’t.