GC Ultra / GC Lite?

In short, I am happy in some contexts to use preferred pronouns but not in others. Also, i understand that some people aren't regardless of context, and I don't think they should be compelled to. Similarly, I don't think I, or others, should be compelled to use preferred pronouns.

I think we can agree that no-one's speech should be compelled.

loving saffron's typo

Sorry, missing ‘n’ - why do you sometimes refer to men using female pronouns?

I don’t mean generally, I mean specifically. What drives you to use wrong sex pronouns?

Sorry Saffron, I don't understand your question. I think you are asking me why I have referred to you as 'she', but I'm guessing this is a misinterpretation, as I haven't referred to you at all.

Why do you sometimes refer to me using female pronouns?

"You can have clarity and truth in words or confusion about the sex of people being discussed. You can't have both at the same time"

I think context is everything. If sex is important to a given context I am likely to choose language that is unambiguous about a person's sex. Where it isn't, I more flexible about the language I use. I know for a fact that my use of preferred pronouns hasn't influenced others to wrongly sex the trans people I have been referring to using their preferred pronouns.

I don't think that using preferred pronouns amounts to me calling a male a female or vice versa and where it makes sod all difference, I will usually use them. Where it does matter, I won't, in case this does mislead.

I understand that for a range of reasons, some people never want to use preferred pronouns, and I don't think they should be compelled to do so.

In short, I am happy in some contexts to use preferred pronouns but not in others. Also, i understand that some people aren't regardless of context, and I don't think they should be compelled to. Similarly, I don't think I, or others, should be compelled to use preferred pronouns.

I can't see but is it more in the series of Spectrum Street Epistemology (as with Helen Joyce and Eric Kaufmann?

Just checked and didn't realise there are more videos on YT. One of them is with the Triggernometry chaps from 3 months ago and a more recent one with Laurence Fox and Francis Foster.

Yet again, I need to sit down for serious study and note taking of these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/results?searchquery=spectrum+street+epistemology

Video with Mr Menno and Stella O'Malley.

Boghossian has filmed some street doodah with Menno and Stella:

x.com/mrmennotweets/status/1757467812761628978?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Can I just refer you back to your original comment?

When I used preferred pronouns I am not calling men women or vice versa. When I do so, this doesn't cause confusion about the trans person's sex by me doing so. Their sex is very evident.

You are now saying that you do not want yours or others sex to be evident in conversation. That's a perfectly fine position to hold.

It is inconsistent with the idea that using wrong-sex words for people doesn't cause confusion "because their sex is evident". It absolutely does cause confusion because unless the person is present the evidence of their sex is hidden by your words.

You can have clarity and truth in words or confusion about the sex of people being discussed. You can't have both at the same time.

"It's not about principles; it's called being petty and ineffective when you're too stubborn to make small concessions..."

How very ironic that Christina is characterising those who stick to reality-based pronouns as 'pettily refusing to concede', rather than the TRAs who are demanding coerced speech

One issue in the Colin exchange is that Christina and maybe Colin have used the label "rad fems" - this is the issue with labels again.

Another smear on women/ feminists.

Second issue is that America is very different to the U.K., very binary in its politics, also US feminism's roots are very different.

I can fully understand Christina's pov, in the context of the us, and who they're working with, bar the rad fem smear.

The issue with Janice was that DH doesn't insist on pronouns and instead of explaining her personal position and context she smeared women with these derogatory labels. As per the whole of history when women say no.

And Colin blocks ffs.

La scap has been treated horribly too by the sounds of it.

Explain your position and quit the smearing and name calling!

I personally haven't been able to hold the line in real life with pronouns and that was a measured risk assessment I had to make and I'd do it again for very particular reasons. At the same time, I think preferred PN are very problematic.

As an aside, I note that Fionne has changed back to male on ID docs and is considering changing to fionn. Possibly gone back to male pronouns? I don't think he was ever that bothered about them.

I found another thoughtful exchange (that belies the argument that only offensive or unkind or 'keyboard warrior' women refuse to compromise on pronouns):

La Scapigliata:
Not only have I lost every bit of support from GC figureheads over my logical position re. language and medical analysis of this awful scandal, I’ve been thrashed and my work ostracised and misrepresented. I and my work have become unmentionable in circles that received my dedicated support and input for years. This kind of punishment is now out in the open and being meted out to anyone who refuses to toe the so called middle ground which is nothing other than alignment with an early TRA position. The hostility coming from that camp is directed not at “mobs” “trolls” and “extremists” but at women with cogent, logical, calmly delivered analysis.
https://x.com/lascapigliata8/status/1757010963054678300?s=20

Baroness Nicholson responding to La Scapigliata:
Honour is given to those like yourself who reject mass hysteria and offer reality.

Yours is the light that will always shine. I profoundly admire you,
Emma Nicholson
https://x.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1757286195514478607?s=20

The thread continues as a discussion among a few other users and is interesting.

100% agree

So a reasonable and reasoned explanation from Colin, then a false claim from Christina to having the same views, which she then directly contradicts by making it clear that she has no respect for women fighting against men in their spaces.

I hope his rose-tinted glasses quickly demist.

While I respect his view, I’m not convinced by his argument though. I’m not convinced they are going to have s direct impact on the corrupt doctors who are pushing this medicine. I think change will come when the negligence cases start to pile up and not before.

"Someone's sex is not evident from your words though. "Jane is a fantastic programmer, she's the highest paid in the company". If I used those words you would think, and be correct, that I was talking about a successful woman. Knowing that you use pronouns out of politeness I cannot tell if you are talking about a man or a woman"

There are many situations where I am disinterested in someone sex and/or gender identity.

In the above example, if we were talking about whether a pay strategy effectively rewarded skill, I think pronoun use is irrelevant. If the focus was on sex discrimination, I would address this head on - that Jane shouldn't be included in the female category.

I don't want people centring my sex in their interactions with me when it is irrelevant. This is one of the reasons I object to highlighting my pronouns. Unless my sex is significant to the context, I would rather been seen as a person rather than woman. I feel my use of preferred pronouns aligns with this. I don't always use them- it depends on context.

I forgot to mention earlier that Emma Hilton had an exchange with her on Twitter and didn’t get much of a reasonable response either:

Christina hosted this poll asking:
POLL: Would you publicly use the preferred pronouns of a person who identifies as trans just one time in exchange for a 4,720 word op-ed in the New York Times that was extremely charitable to a cause of your choice?
https://x.com/buttonslives/status/1757100510329389352?s=20

And Emma responded:
I am not sure that is how principles work :)
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1757118475007336521?s=20

Christina responded:
It's not about principles; it's called being petty and ineffective when you're too stubborn to make small concessions that could help end policies and a medical model that inflicts real harm on people.
https://x.com/buttonslives/status/1757136826249150525?s=20

Emma’s response over the course of a few tweets was excellent:
Of course it’s about principles. Some people feel very strongly, for well-articulated reasons, that female pronouns should not be used to describe men.

You are playing with the idea that those people should concede their principles “for the greater good”.

You are, of course, free to describe their refusal to betray their principles for the greater good as “petty”, and argue they are therefore politically “ineffective” (I suspect you’d also argue obstructive?). You are free to argue they should make concessions.

But people are equally free to refuse to make those concessions because we cannot demand such in a plural, liberal democracy.

I would not state a belief in god in return for a Dawkins book. Would you? Dawkins should be able to manage his arguments without me, no?

Constructively, can you outline how your proposed concessions help end the medical scandal we are all fighting in our own ways?
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1757138731700486499?s=20

Colin then responded for Christina:
I'll outline how I see it, and it may or may not mirror Christina's view. Basically, there are a lot of different ways that gender ideology hurts society. The two big ones are males in female spaces (bathrooms, prisons, sports, etc.) and pediatric gender-affirming care. Both issues, though stemming from the same ideology, cannot both be remedies using the same tactics.

It makes sense that those who are predominantly focussed on preserving women's spaces would opt for a hardline position on something like pronouns. Using wrong-sex pronouns is seen as partly (or largely) what got us into this mess in the first place. People's kindness was exploited, and thus the feeling of "I'm done being nice" makes some good sense.

On the other hand, we have another very serious issue of gender-affirming care (GAC). This is truly abhorrent stuff, as it involved giving children irreversible hormones and surgeries based on the lie that you can have a "gender identity" that doesn't match your bodily sex. All the medical institutions and journals are captured by this insane ideology. It's in the medical and scientific journals. Major Left-leaning outlets like the NYT have been hesitant to touch the issue, or they outright downplay it.

Things aren't going to change unless we get the Left to understand what's going on. Gender clinic whistleblowers and worried doctors are hesitant to be associated with anyone they perceive as on the Right. In order for them to feel comfortable coming forward, they need to trust us. They need to know that we have real compassion. Some of these whistleblowers are married trans-identified people. If we applied a hardline stance to never using wrong-sex pronouns in every context, then some whistleblowers might never come forward.

If we are trying to talk to the Left and gain their trust so we can enact change, we need to deploy a context-specific strategy of pronoun use so that they don't just shut down and run away.

My main issue in this whole recent conflict is that while I am willing to admit that a hardline stance on pronouns is probably the best strategy for protecting women's sex-based rights, many of these GC radfem activists are trying to police my language in other contexts where I believe a hardline strategy will not be optimal, and is actually likely to be detrimental to achieving my goals.

I am deeply involved in helping change policies regarding gender-affirming care. I know what's going on behind the scenes. I know what strategy regarding pronouns is best for what I do.

I have no problem with women's rights activists using the strategies they think are best for the issues and goals they're deeply involved in. But if they're going to insist I adopt their hardline approach for dealing with GAC, then the answer is no.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1757148809946190273?s=20

Christina’s eventual response:
Thanks for taking over while I was at my appointment. Seeing as we share 99% of the same views, yes, it mirrors mine.

Except, I think the bathroom issue is a non-issue because it's based on a moral panic. (Note: I say “bathroom,” as distinct from a changing/locker room).
https://x.com/buttonslives/status/1757170277887222018?s=20

laws aren't always for the greater good

sorry couldn’t resist

When I used preferred pronouns I am not calling men women or vice versa. When I do so, this doesn't cause confusion about the trans person's sex by me doing so. Their sex is very evident.

Someone's sex is not evident from your words though. "Jane is a fantastic programmer, she's the highest paid in the company". If I used those words you would think, and be correct, that I was talking about a successful woman. Knowing that you use pronouns out of politeness I cannot tell if you are talking about a man or a woman.

That's why the trans activists spend so much time trying to persuade people to use "be kind" pronouns, because they hide reality.

I read a good article today that I think might interest this thread:

2024: the year we 'un-kind' ourselves.
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/2024-the-year-we-un-kind-ourselves

'I have no objection to being kind, but being kind is a personal act in individual circumstances. The instruction to “be kind” is not a blanket rule that can be arbitrarily applied to a group, just because it’s decided they fall under the umbrella of ‘marginalised and vulnerable’, as there are devious, dubious, and duplicitous people in every group. We can feel a general kindness and benevolence towards others from any walk of life, but to be told that we have to be kind to them all in our actions, even when it clearly disadvantages us to do so in some circumstances, is nothing short of coercion.

In the context of men who say they’re women, being ‘kind’ means, in brutal terms, giving them everything they want. It’s a one-way transaction, and a shite one for women. So, no - I won’t be doing that. This year I’m un-kinding myself from manipulative coercive tactics. The process began a wee while ago, but it’s progressing fast now.'

Be kind in using preferred pronouns often isn't very kind to the people being forced to use them.

Though I'm a "GC ultra" in my beliefs, I do have an Twitter alt account where I'll post gender critical views but use gender identity pronouns. This is for the sole purpose of not having people I'm discussing this with disregard what I'm saying, just because they think I'm being rude by using sexed pronouns.

For instance when I was discussing Lia Thomas I'd say things about him like "don't you think it's wrong of her to be flashing her penis in the girls' locker room, we wouldn't accept this from any other male, cis or trans". I think it helped changed people's minds a bit or at least nudge them towards being more critical.

On my main account I use sexed pronouns, this alt account is just to play an about-to-peak-but-still-questioning character. It's a tactical decision, to expose some GCish views to people who support transgender ideological beliefs.

So I can understand where the "GC lite" people are coming from.

I do think there will be personal values and loyalties at play too. I know #bekind is pilloried (unsurprisingly) but for a lot of people, they do want to be kind to those they know. Then getting into a pronouns debate probably triggers cognitive dissonance and noone likes that feeling.

I agree with this. I hate #bekind but in general I do want to actually be kind, I really don't like causing hurt to people. It is one thing pushing back against aggressive entitlement (eg the extreme type video clips we see of an angry person shouting "it's ma'am!!") but I guess quite another if there's a genuinely pleasant, likeable person in front of you whose feelings you have no wish to hurt, which is realistically far more likely to be what one would encounter in day to day life.
So I do genuinely understand the difficulty.

I hope she doesn’t pull Colin Wright down with her. He’s always seemed patient and sensible and she is looking very much like a potential liability to the credibility of what he has built up.

Social rules are easier to manipulate using propaganda.

Agreed. I'm about to make a very broad generalisation. Bad cases make bad law.

Social transgressions and repeated transgressions of Chesterton's fence can likewise be part of an inexorable process towards bad law or laws that remove rights and social protections from others. And they invariably lead to comments about unintended consequences but there are frequently people who predicted the consequences. (E.g., see the HoL debates prior to GRA 2004.)

Yep. And Debbie H might well have offered the hand of friendship to Janice Turner.

Janice Turner went through a shit time with a transactivist a few years ago. She (or the times, I can't remember) made a complaint and it was upheld.

She was entirely vindicated, but it must've been very unpleasant.

Whether you think Hayton offering support to GC women, from his unique position, is calculated, or kind, might well inform what pronouns you believe are appropriate.

From what I know about Christina 'Buttons' Berry, this type of aggressive online behaviour is her 'brand'. She previously worked for the Daily Wire and I believe, before that, she used to be a commentator more inclined to the TRA side of the debate. She very publicly left the Daily Wire because she disagreed with Michael Knowles CPAC speech and Matt Walsh’s various comments about Dylan Mulvaney.

She’s friends with James Lindsay too (another aggressive commentator who hates feminists) and she, in general, doesn’t seem to be keen on feminism or sympathetic to women complaining about sexism. She has a close friendship with a couple of trans activists who she thinks make excellent arguments about women overly panicking about maintaining strictly female only spaces.

I agree that her behaviour towards Edie Wyatt was uncalled for.