GC Ultra / GC Lite?

The use of wrong sex pronouns which are individual nebulous 'gender based' and not class based is a total upending of grammar rules and will confuse children trying to learn English.

We're telling them that sometimes the rules they're learning don't apply, but they have no way of predicting when this will be or what type of pronouns will be used nor how you can tell. I'd give up and I bet they do too.

What other rules will be optional - punctuation? After all dyslexic students often struggle to learn that? How far does hurt feelings go? Can we all just identify as having qualifications and knowledge? Maybe the laws of gravity can be changed due to the feelings of aeronautical (self ID) engineers that find it hurtful they're no good at maths? Anyone want to fly on that plane?

Meanwhile children from other countries will outstrip us in English as well as Maths and Science.

I want someone to compare the SATS and English exam results for gender woo schools with those who've kept normal English usage. I suspect this bollocks has an impact on education as well as safeguarding.

Quite.

It's the work of a moment to explain why calling Hayton she is a really, really bad idea, and I genuinely think almost everyone would agree.

Labelling those people as ultra is only going reflect on your attitude to public paraphilias.

And I am not calling for JT to be cancelled. I am, however, like you, pointing out that she has now placed herself in a position that is causing harm. And she is hypocritically declaring it is those who disagree who is causing harm.

Personally, I am all for her having her opinion and publishing it. I am just as all for people pointing out the discrepancies in what she has published and hope that she thinks more about what people
are actually saying. Obviously without abusing her. I saw her article yesterday and felt she didn’t quite grasp what women had been saying to her.

Quite

Exactly.

I hope we have learned that insult and name calling is no substitute for proper exchange of views.

I think Hayton has done us a favour by highlighting AGP. I personally am influenced by RoseofDawn and Fionne Orlander who worked to highlight the madness of trans activism. My personal belief is that trans is a wide umbrella, including exhibitionist attention seekers and those who are genuinely struggling. The mad, the bad and the sad. DH is a ‘he’. I respect Rose and Fionne and would call them ‘she’ if they wanted. In terms of single sex spaces I think the needs of transwomen should be taken on board, and that these will differ from person to person. But those needs should not be given prescedence over the needs of women.

So another who believes this issue is important but who is uncomfortable with a black/white approach.

I really dislike labels. Like PP I am interested in protecting children and women's rights.

It does piss me off that people with power are framing robust disagreement with their position as 'authoritarianism' and 'compelled speech' and shows a woeful lack of intelligence and ability to think logically. Copying a post from a another thread (by me) on this which sums it up IMO:

I'd really like to know how anyone is 'compelling' Janice Turner or Andrew Doyle's speech.

Women disagreeing is not 'compulsion'. They both have far more power and a public platform than those disagreeing with them. They can and do (obviously) ignore those saying wrong-sex pronouns is a safeguarding risk.

The people who are offended by this don't understand safeguarding and how - if you're a student in school - you really DON'T have any power and if teachers are modelling wrong-sex wrong-grammar wrong-part of the language pronouns to you (which will be linguistically and educationally confusing before you get to obvious safeguarding risks of telling children they need to 'not see' sex) then THAT'S compulsion. It's really hard to go against what a teacher says.

They have a lot of public power and freedom and money, far more than the parents struggling with distressed kids who are being emotionally abused by this shit in schools.

And still there's nothing we can do get them to bother doing a safeguarding course, or read KCSIE, obviously. That much is clear. Where the hell is the 'compelling' coming from. Will they lose their jobs if they don't use correct English sex-based pronouns? All their money? Go to jail? I doubt it.

What the hell is wrong with people that robust disagreement is being cast as 'compulsion' whilst children are being routinely emotionally abused over very long periods of time in school, where they literally cannot escape, their parents get fined if they don't attend, and the self same people moaning about how some women disagree with their pronoun use are doing nothing.

Words have lost all meaning.

I said something similar to this on another thpread, but this ^ is exactly why mumsnet so damned useful.

It forces you to think logically, not emotionally. It forces you to consider what you're going to say, before you say it. Because you know damned well any assertion you make will be picked apart.

Since posting on mumsnet, I've had chapters of a masterclass in language construction, argument definitions, safeguarding, psychology, narcissism, paraphilias, women's rights, party politics, and critical thinking.

When formulating my comments, I've learnt all about ad hominems, sea lioning, DARVO, projection, strawmen and the need for citation.

And the absolutely crucial importance of language.

And it's come from hundreds of women. (and the odd chap).

The education you get here is second to none.

It should be required reading for any journalist.

Because other thing it teaches you is that people will disagree with you or hand you your arse, and they will upset/annoy you.

And a knee jerk response, or article, is something to be avoided.

Is it being extreme to be uncomfortable who admits in a national newspaper that he gets his rocks off pretending to be a woman and took a lead in actively campaigning and drawing up guidelines for the removal of single sex toilets in schools?

Or is it naive to to think this man has the best interests of women and kids front and central in his mind? A man who freely admits his wife and children has suffered as a result of his choices.

Hmm. Let me think about this...

Except calling women who disagree reasonably ‘extremists’ and ‘ultra’ stifles debate not encourages it

Maybe some will recognise that and still bring out the polish for the golden bridge? And still set out the best tea set and comfiest chair?

If it's not possible to build relatively short golden bridges to people to whom some of us may be in largely raging agreement then I don't know how we'll construct the ones needed for much larger groups with whom there are more profound disagreements.

And I still disagree with the language and on this fundamental issue. And I'm genuinely concerned about what would happen to us as a family if my banking rights were terminated.

We wanted debate. We are starting to get debate. This is good.

I don't just want debate. I want to win. I want self ID dead. I want the affirmative medical pathway for kids dead. I want the policy of putting men in women's sports and prisons dead.

We will only get that if: we focus fire on the people pushing those policies: we argue with nuance and evidence; we win people over. We need constructive debate not name calling.

Those engaging with labour or working with DH are not being fools they are just making a difficult choice.

Hayton is exceptionally clever.

I was definitely naive in the past.

Discourse and debate helped move me forward.

This is true.

Except calling women who disagree reasonably ‘extremists’ and ‘ultra’ stifles debate not encourages it.

Yes , imo the point is to disagree and back up your points and positions with reason and evidence.

Twitter is the worst place ever to attempt to conduct debates but it's where an awful lot of debates happen these days.

Also there's definitely an innate mental shut down that occurs as soon as a name is used against someone who holds a polar position to yourself.

Tra rhetoric relies primarily on name calling and labels.

We wanted debate. We are starting to get debate. This is good.

Obviously people will have different views. Approach is to listen and counter. Accept there are different experiences, a desire to ‘be kind’ and across society at large a lack of familiarity with the detail. These things normally end up with a form of societal fudge where no one is completely happy. A lot better and more sustainable than the Stonewall ‘no debate’ and do as we say.

increase in name calling (see poster upthread talking about gullible fools)

YMMV, I'd very much dislike somebody calling me a "gullible fool". I can confirm it's profoundly irritating and I find it exasperating when it happens to me. It's an individual choice for engagement.

tbh, I'm more perturbed by otherwise thoughtful people who have pretty much established a brand as Key Opinion Leaders, categorising those who disagree with them as extremists and ultra. We don't need to consult Arendt, Applebaum, Havel, Solzhenitsyn or anyone else to know those words have connotations with substantial social and other consequences.

I've said elsewhere that I'm concerned at some point that if this language gains traction (and started by JT et al), it will be strengthened by the parallel language from Whittle (styling Transgender Trend and Sex Matters as "anti-trans hate groups"). We may be a GE away from finding that those of us with direct debits to those groups will have our bank account terminated with all the many problems that will flow from that.

Eresh used the term naive fools. And she was using it in regards to Hayton being a ‘decent bloke’.

I think in light of our interactions with Hayton on MN in the past where Hayton told us that breast size was a measure of the social hierarchy (my paraphrasing) for women and all we have learned recently, I don’t believe that is an unfounded remark. The way Hayton dealt with Hayton’s family is documented already.

But people do seem to have been fooled by this nice AGP discussion that is being had right now. It is superficial and not based on a depth of review of the content that is out there published that people can access and see for themselves.

Is it not equally plausible that some of those who are disagreeing have a point? I see rhetoric that approaches creating an artificial schism from those who are paid for their media persona. I don't see that schism emanating from discussions on MN.

Of course many have good points and most of the discussion is constructive but there has been an increase in name calling (see poster upthread talking about gullible fools) and aggressive rhetoric.

The idea that someone like Kathleen Stock is gullible or soft is laughable, as is the idea that any woman who won't use preferred pronouns is ultra. People are disagreeing about how to effect political change, thats all.

The name calling and no true Scotsman stuff needs to stop.

Thanks Helle, hypocrisy indeed.

And very anti safeguarding.

The gist is Warrior.

JT has called women ‘extremists’ in the article I posted from
yesterday.

And yet the abuse Hayton, a physics teacher, received this week was from extremists on the “gender critical” side, who bombarded her head teacher with messages that she is a pervert.

Interestingly, the use of pronouns in this passage show just how harmful the use of those pronouns really are.

Anyway, JT has declared women ‘GC ultra’ and ‘extremists’ for pointing out the harms of allowing a male who has published a book about their sexual fetish, that being AGP, to teach children. While insisting on preferred pronouns being used. The emotive name calling is policing… all while claiming she is being policed herself.

The hypocrisy is being noticed and commented on.

Sometimes it does it automatically ? Cant work out the mn laws around archive links

My post has an archive link. That someone was allowed to post yesterday. But I cannot post today??

Maybe I'm so averse to it as it reminds me of the Barbie / GI Joe mermaids scale and we are being asked to pigeonhole ourselves.

It's why labels can be problematic MalagaNights

It's a binary and absolutist argument in itself.

It's confusing because by the definitions I seem to be a bit Ultra and a bit Lite.

But Im also not really GC or a feminist but agree with lots of GC views.

I think Janice Turner, Kathleen Stock Andrew Doyle and Posie are all great.

It's almost as if the labels can't capture the range of positions or approaches reasonable people can take on a contentious topic... what to do?!?!?

Maybe we could accept reasonable good people can hold a range of views, some of which we'll agree with and some we won't. Then just engage in respectful discussion without personal attack and work together towards the goals we do share?

Radical I know.