If you're non-binary...

'Ultimately, people should not be shamed for not using someone's pronouns if they are not harassing or abusing the person. To shame someone for this is, in effect, prioritising that non-binary person's need for having their personal belief accommodated above another person's needs. '

Could you explain to me how you saying that is any different to me saying people should? It's your belief. What makes you the authority?

I actually respected your post earlier eve though I didnt agree but this persistence of trying to belittle me is getting tedious. If you dont like my views thats fine, we dont need to agree.

You honestly have no idea how rude and patronising you are.

I don't think you are being "policed" so much as held to account and sometimes challenged. Unless we are all clear about used terms and assigned meanings then we'll not get very far.

No, it doesnt sound anything like that.

Because that's how I feel.

Incidentally, I dont know many NB or trans people who would kick up a huge fuss if someone messed up a pronoun unless it was done spitefully.

I've had my words policed more in this thread than by any of those people.

It appears you can police words and thoughts and actions when it suits but not when it doesnt.

What term, or phrasing, would you prefer?

Of course I am. But i dont like it as a term.

In the same way we are all NB but dont identify as so.

Gosh this is telling!

I'm referring to homophobia, sexism, racism, ageism, ageism. Can you imagine a world where you can say it as long as it's true?

So you think many common homophobic and racist ideas are true, it's just bad manners to say them out loud?

"Could you explain to me how you saying that is any different to me saying people should? It's your belief. What makes you the authority?"

Did you actually read what I said? I am all for you having your own beliefs and your own boundaries. I respect that you do. I am stating quite clearly though that in return I point out that to shame anyone for having different boundaries and beliefs is wrong.

There are things that goes beyond individuals and is about commonly held or accepted reality. Without such commonality and agreement on basic terms, definitions or categories things tend to fall apart and become dysfunctional.

Sex is immutable. This is a commonly accepted scientific fact. Sex exists, even if you don't personally believe it does; sex is universal - even for those that have trans identities.

'Ultimately, people should not be shamed for not using someone's pronouns if they are not harassing or abusing the person. To shame someone for this is, in effect, prioritising that non-binary person's need for having their personal belief accommodated above another person's needs. '

Could you explain to me how you saying that is any different to me saying people should? It's your belief. What makes you the authority?

I actually respected your post earlier eve though I didnt agree but this persistence of trying to belittle me is getting tedious. If you dont like my views thats fine, we dont need to agree.

And I think you and I would agree that what leads to someone being nb or trans is certainly not waking up one day and thinking I absolutely love myself so much I'm going to do this.

Really? I think that's often the case, personally.

I think we have different meanings of the world entitlement, or maybe I could have use a better one.

In the way I think people (away from the gender argument) are entitled to respect say, but it's not necessarily legally enforceable.

I think they're reasonable to expect it. With your reasoned post earlier I can understand that, although it's not my viewpoint, I do think people are entitled to have their pronouns heard and used. That's my belief. I understand you dont agree with it, and that it's not legal, and that as you proved you can feel and behave otherwise, but I personally believe they should be used. But that's only my views.

Re your last question, I do.
But that's where I've said its grey. Because ultimately you hold all the cards, and someone else holds none. You dont have to respect their belief, because you have one. You dont want theirs to trump yours but then ultimately what happens is yours trumps theirs.

I'm not completely sold on NB, but I respect that someone is and I will use those pronouns. What I wont dois back down in issues like womens sports , prisons, the rights of rape victims, but that's an different argument. If someone wants me to call them they then I will and i do believe people should. That's my belief.

There are attention seekers in all walks of life. My friend is not an anecdote, hes a person with lived experience. His feelings are no or less valid than anyone elses.

Is he ok with you calling him "him"?

I dont disagree with that, but I think refusing to change language is a very slippery slope.

In what sense? Should I also have to capitalise the g in god? Should have to genuflect when I say certain things?

His feelings are no or less valid than anyone elses

And nor are mine. Or my perception of the self obsessed, attention seeking illogical nature of claiming a "non binary" identity.

I know you dont. But they do. So it's a total impasse. And who wins? You. You hold all the cards.

Yes, that's life, I have freedom of speech, and so do they. The alternative is much worse.

I think we have indirectly established that you and I have a very different opinion on what is 'rude'.

I am sure you believe that your explanations have been coherent. But they are not. Now, this might not be because YOU cannot explain it. It is likely that you are simply repeating what you have read and/or been told.

That others find it incoherent should be an indication that it is incoherent at concept level. Does it not strike you as weak that you told us it has no set definition? Now, that is not meant to be personal criticism. It is that this identity is exactly that. Weakly defined.

You keep mentioning that I keep including the 'law'. I am doing so to bring to people's attention that this group is seeking to change laws to suit themselves. An identity that is indefinable. This is a board discussing the impacts and conflicts on particular groups on the rights and protections of all female people. Why is my mentioning the 'law' an issue for you?

And please indicate where I have 'spoken for all'?