If you're non-binary...

It's been quite amusing watching a poster on this thread popping between this thread and the thread about passive aggressive comments on Mumsnet and updating it in real time. Almost passive aggressive in itself!

It is rather

I'm glad they find it so funny to be bullies of vulnerable teens and that the teacher allows that.

In answer to your second question , absolutely no. Do I really need to explain how ma g people in life need consideration?

That was me😘 One comment. The ridiculous one by the OP. No other opinions.

You missed out the part above me in that thread where others did that too.

I find it amusing watching random people pop up just to stir up trouble because I dont fit the narrative personally.

A clear example up thread. My words changed from respect to accept because that poster decided that's what I meant.
The proclamation that I cant say people should respect pronouns but people can state with conviction they shouldnt.

The conviction with which its stated that nb cant police your language by you can not only police theirs but dismiss them and call them a whole host of names.

We cant shame women for not using pronouns but we can call people attention seeking for using them.

Yes, the common thread in all these cases is that people have freedom of speech and belief. We can think and say what we want. You do and I do. It's a good thing.

It's been quite amusing watching a poster on this thread popping between this thread and the thread about passive aggressive comments on Mumsnet and updating it in real time. Almost passive aggressive in itself!

Speaking with a 16 year niece old fairly recently, she said that the pupils in her school adopting trans and NB identities are " attention seeking". That is how many young people view their classmates. The pupils in my daughter's form group ( she's a teacher. I used to be) laugh and joke about the whole trans/non binary 'thing'. It is not just older women.

If someone is expecting something out of the normal range of address -that indcates that they are seeking special attention; to be given special consideration - doesn't it?

And it really does seem to become very subjective about people’s own perceptions of which person’s boundaries and beliefs are prioritised.

Indeed. Humpty Dumpty - who is master.

A clear example up thread. My words changed from respect to accept because that poster decided that's what I meant.
The proclamation that I cant say people should respect pronouns but people can state with conviction they shouldnt.

The conviction with which its stated that nb cant police your language by you can not only police theirs but dismiss them and call them a whole host of names.

We cant shame women for not using pronouns but we can call people attention seeking for using them.

I think the fact I was identified as being hostile and rude in the light of posts in my direction sums it up.

And beside anyu8ng else, it's now a slight on a discussion board, not an official legal panel, to admit your views are grey and muddled in different areas on what is a very complicated topic. IRS black and white and that's that.

Yes. And unless we can agree on meanings it really does become incoherent and confusion reigns. And it really does seem to become very subjective about people’s own perceptions of which person’s boundaries and beliefs are prioritised.

In life, people are going to disagree with your opinions, even ones that you hold very dear. Mere disagreement is not a threat to you personally. Many of these people have multiple mental health challenges. But it's not for others to tiptoe around their feelings, they need to learn resilience.

The thing is, I'm not critical of gender as a concept. I accept that it can be two separate things to people.

I just think the excessive labelling is unnecessary. People have views.

I'm agnostic rather than atheist but I dont think I need a word at all.

Can you explain in what way?

Yes Ereshkigalangcleg and RebelliousCow re: language - what you said

I dont know you so I cant make the ascertain about you personally but someone vulnerable will always feel more threatened than someone who osnt.

We know that there are threats to womens identity in this discussion, that's without saying.

It cant be totally inconceivable for clearly intelligent posters to imagine that those on the 'other ' side might feel threatened by people who dismiss their beliefs.

You can say it shouldnt impact them, but that's easy for someone to say when they're not the one in their shoes.

But since the disagreement does exists, in which way would you prefer for it to be labelled/defined/described?

I'm not personally attached to 'GC' at all - in fact I think it is far too limited and superficial to have any real meaning. It has just become a stand in for a wider critique of gender ideology.

No.

I don’t use the term Gender Critical either unless I really need to.

I am a sex realist but in this I agree with wild, I would prefer not to need one. I have always rejected those kind of labels.

Because it is!

It isn't, really though, is it? Only in a very skewed version of reality.

I mean you can claim that, but it's not rremotely true .

Isn't it just!

No offence, but this seems to be entirely a problem in your own perception.

Projection, in other words.

You admit upthread that your thinking is muddled and I'm getting a lot of hostility emanating from your posts. Not quite sure why, as you've been repeatedly rude and women have been very patient in overlooking your tone in order to try and discuss the issue.

Because it is!

Exactly.

I dont necessarily believe people who need validation, and I agree they do, are attention seekers. It's a much bigger picture than that.

And I think we see this with many genderist young people. They perceive any disagreement with their worldview as a threat.

If someone's identity requires that everyone affirms it, even against reality, then it is not a solid construction. A healthy sense of self is self sufficient and does not require continual validation. As mentioned before it is up to individual parties in any relationship to agree on terms and frames of reference - but beyond that the feelings of the individual are irrelevant.

This. It's definitely not healthy or sustainable to depend on compelling others to lie for your self worth.