GC Ultra / GC Lite?

I think with those journalists, using the wrong pronouns was weak as that was the perfect opportunity, both to push back on the social pressure we are currently under and at the same time, test Hayton’s word a little.

He claims he’s fine with the correct pronouns, so take him at his word and use them. He told his wife he would leave and then didn’t. This is a man we have been told doesn’t always tell the truth.

This was a missed opportunity to see if he was telling the truth this time. He put himself in that position and rather than taking him at his word, they chose to reward him for saying what they wanted to hear, without ever checking if he actually meant it.

Words are cheap. Following through on them less so.

Good summary.

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’m probably not saying anything new but I do believe that if Janice Turner had disclosed a friendship or acquaintanceship with Hayton in the article, re the decision to use female pronouns, it would have irked me still but I would have understood it as her personal choice. I would still have been dismayed that a chance to model polite conversation with accurate pronouns had been lost but I wouldn’t have been too surprised because so many newspapers insist on using female pronouns for men even in reporting crime stories. I think what really made this an issue for a lot of people was Janice framing her decision in moral terms on Twitter - I think that is what gave the disagreement legs; people took sides on this 'moral' framing because they examined their own moral compass on this issue in response to her statement.

I think Andrew Doyle’s interview later that evening, also with female pronouns, was just the cherry on the bun on a day when people had had enough of Hayton being accommodated with female pronoun use in spite of his claims to be gender critical and that he doesn’t expect it.

It would be easier if I didn't perceive a lot of transactactivists as being manipulative.

There's an element, in my opinion, of being conned. Conned into courtesy.

Because as others have noticed, if it truly was a question of courtesy, there would be little argument about it.

If everyone genuinely thought it was a question of manners, they wouldn't be this upset, either pro or against.

As I've said, I see this ideology on a spectrum - from profoundly sexist to blatantly misogynistic.

Buy the women arguing over the pronoun issue are all generally clever, and pro women.

So there will be a tipping point, in my opinion.

The only thing that might sway them after that, would be their political allegiance. For some, if there is a conflict, that will win out.

But again, it is because they are clever and pro-women. And they are going to choose a political stance on that basis. Whether you agree with them or not.

I really hope it dies down. I think it probably will. But if it doesn't, we're still all travelling in the same direction.

AdamRyan
I think being "compelled" is part of living in society.

The examples you've given are laws, not social rules. Laws benefit the majority. Social rules are easier to manipulate using propaganda.

Yes I agree completely. But laws aren't always for the greater good and sometimes are illogical (I used the example of Brexit on another thread as a law that changed my identity against my will)
I was thinking earlier I actually like the term "GC Lite" as that's probably where I sit.

Another point of agreement between us Japan - "People shouldn't be forced into a lie. They shouldn't be forced to profess what amounts to a religious belief that they don't subscribe to, and no-one should be given the power to dictate how others speak of them when they are not present"

I disagree with people being forced to use language that makes them feel uncomfortable. I am against this.

I don't put 'my pronouns' in email signature or on anything. I also wouldn't use preferred pronouns in all instances (e.g a rapist). If I was a witness in court, I would just use the name and no pronoun. This is my approach when I don't want to use chosen pronouns.

I'm really enjoying your posts @RethinkingLife. I'm going to read your links later. I think they are right up my street!

Those things are not equivalent though. This is more akin to the Elizabethan era when not attending church was a fineable offense.
Laws and social norms should be logical and for the greater good - if they are not, we have every reason to push back and question. Shrugging our shoulders and going "oh well, just how it is" would never have led to any social advancement.
You're not bothered about pronouns and that is absolutely your right. Others are, that is their right and their reasons are vaild.

I think being "compelled" is part of living in society. I have to do things I don't like or want to do every day. Paying taxes springs to mind. Forcing my kids to school when they don't want to go. Driving at the speed limit even though I'm late. Its just how things are.

I don't think I'd be able to soften my stance until every hint of compulsion disappeared. For instance, I could get a post deleted on here for using the "discourteous" pronoun. There is compulsion in many workplaces, which is more serious, particularly public sector.

People shouldn't be forced into a lie. They shouldn't be forced to profess what amounts to a religious belief that they don't subscribe to, and no-one should be given the power to dictate how others speak of them when they are not present.

In my view, the original courtesy extended brought us to this point.

I think my stance has softened slightly over the years. I cannot see a workable solution that involves being "ultra GC" and there appear to be a lot of people in the movement now who don't call themselves feminist and don't appear to be motivated by what I would recognise as feminist concerns. It's made me a bit more skeptical. I'm still extremely anti self-ID but pronouns for other people, meh.
I won't play ball with the whole "pronouns in email sign at work" thing though. It's ridiculous.

Yeah she is! She's in the "wrong kind of GC" bucket for many. It's mind blowing!

I'm dropping in the common observation that although there is lively discussion of the topics on this platform, there is a notable diversity of debate and perspectives that is far from Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform. I find this reassuring about resilience and a willingness to persist in understanding what is necessary rather than otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

1. Milieu Control
2. Mystical Manipulation
3. Demand for Purity
4. The Cult of Confession
5. The "Sacred Science"
6. Loading the Language
7. Doctrine Over Person
8. Dispensing of Existence

A public fall out it not a bad thing when the people with the strongest voices are presenting a position that conflicts with the grassroots.

That should say 'never', not 'ever'.....I don't know how to edit using the app!

"I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one (and hopefully not have a big ugly public fallout instead, lets lead by example)"

Absolutely Japan. Not only that, I expect there is a lot we also agree on. Also, it's not as if I think that I would/could ever come around to your way of thinking. I am just not convinced to date by the evidence I have encountered!

If the English language developed without sex specific pronouns (or gendered pronouns) this would not resolve the issues we face relating to sex v gender.

I don't think it is hard to say (or understand) that some people you refer to as 'she' mustn't use female only provision/services because access shouldn't be determined by pronouns.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one (and hopefully not have a big ugly public fallout instead, lets lead by example).

I don't think it is hard to say (or understand) that some people you refer to as 'she' mustn't use female only provision/services because access shouldn't be determined by pronouns.

I think that this is why there is such a schism. I view the use of courtesy pronouns as a key element that gave so much else the legitimacy we are now having to push back against.
Hard to argue why someone shouldn't use the women's toilets if you've been calling them "she".

I sometimes use preferred pronouns, I sometimes don't use any and use names instead.

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.

This is only a wedge issue because some people are making it one. I don't think it need be.

Has anyone ever gone from only using correct sex pronouns, to the chagrin of TRAs, to compromising and using wrong sex pronouns to be nice? I can only think of people who started off being nice and then realised the problem with it.

These academics will get there. Eventually.

" I would also wonder if empathy bias towards friends can lead us not only to resist those who we perceive to be criticising a friend (shades of acting as flying monkeys for narcissists or rescuers in TA persecution triangles) but overlooking the valid concerns of people outside that friendship or empathy circle. It's playing out more widely here because of the crossover of the personal and public sphere."

Another take on this is that when you know and like people who belong to a group different to your own, you have a more informed view of the different group (or subsets within it).

The group 'Transwomen' is multifaceted. There are those with and without AGP in it, there are those with and without narcissistic traits, and some who are very vulnerable and some who present risks. The tendency to form views about the group will be influenced by who is held in mind when thinking about/talking about the group.

It seems to me that some say that a blanket approach is needed as the 'worst cases' needs to be centred, others are saying that a nuanced approach is needed due to the 'best cases'.

KJK is right as usual. Preferred pronouns are one of the reasons we are in this mess. It's a wedge issue from the TRAs. Once you're calling men, women, you've changed language and gained access to women's rights.
Being kind is how we got here, the academics have got to stop being kind, it muddies the water