How to respond he/she?

What do you mean by talk to them about their way of being? Do you mean why don’t you just talk to Trans people?

But pronouns remain like telling an anorexic they are fat as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't do that.

Morally and ethically I see it as a directly comparable scenario. So I won't use pronouns that are wrong sex for that reason as its harmful.

Don't lecture me about what I should or shouldn't do.

But you don't have to tell the trans person you believe they're the opposite sex. Same as you don't need to talk about the anorexic's weight.

You don't have to call a trans person the pronouns they choose, but to call them to their face repeatedly the opposite is rude. Same as saying to an anorexic they look like a skeleton. Why not just not talk to them about their way of being?

But ignoring the trans person or leaving the gathering is not because a trans person exists. It’s because there is an expectation of playing along with language that doesn’t reflect reality (and quite possibly the risk of being shunned if one doesn’t play along). If I were to use correct sex pronouns for a trans person at a social gathering, I would likely be accused of trying to bring politics into a social occasion.

If I was at a gathering where everyone was telling an anorexia sufferer they were a normal weight and I was expected to play along, I would have the same issue. In either scenario I would likely have to avoid the person or avoid the social gathering altogether so as not to join in with a game of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Now that reminds me of the old joke told to me by a transsexual 30+ years ago:

Q: "What's the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual?"
A: "About 2 years."

Thank you @GreyskySexRealistskyfor raising my blood pressure 😫😂

This isn't the case for everyone trans. I have had difficult conversations with others who I know well which haven't gone like this.

It depends on the individual but as a rule if it's a gathering of people you know you have a fair idea prior to the event of which camp they are likely to fall into.

The problem is that there's enough high profile individuals who have actively promoted this behaviour to make women wary of the situation and to self exclude in order to avoid conflict rather than create it. That in itself is no ok but reflective of where matters are because of activists who are regarded as some kind of authority (eg the likes of Maugham).

Ok but it's cool to shun someone due to their behaviour. There's nothing wrong with that.

But the act of being trans or anorexic or having bpd or something aren't reasons to do so. Unless the person has actually done something wrong.

Luckily, FastTrackFemme from the "arguing with a TERF" thread is able to answer your question @Waitingfordoggo

TL;DR - the transvestites are still here but they're spoiling everything for the proper transsexuals #sadface

The last line of that article takes the fucking biscuit (my bolding). He's complaining about the loss of a word and how damaging it is! The fucking cheek!

"But for those of us who lived through the old distinctions [note: he means between transsexuals and transvestites], the loss of the word has consequences. Because without it, too many people can’t see the difference and that difference matters"

https://www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/where-have-all-the-transvestites

If someone is making demands that you feel will lead to them kicking off and causing a scene if you don't adhere to them, what's your alternative solution?

Unfortunately this is a reality that some of us have had to deal with. I won't attend something that my brother is at because of his BEHAVIOUR not because he's trans.

My priority is my own well being not upholding someone else's delusional and antisocial behaviour.

I'm talking about people saying they'd leave the gathering or literally refuse to speak to the trans person. To me that's unnecessarily discriminatory.

Should an anorexic be ignored or people leave just because they are standing there minding their own business? Talking to them like they are human beings isn't pandering to them not eating enough?

Thanks @OldCrone- I am familiar with some of the background and I’ll have a read of that too. I’m just always curious as to how people like @Baileyonice would explain the lack of cross dressers and transvestites in 2026. None of them seem to engage with that question.

You do know that when someone quotes you in a reply they may not be arguing against you and trying to prove you wrong, they may be interested in the point you made but want to comment on it? It can be easy to take a different angle of a subject as criticism but it's often not intended as confrontational.

"Some male trans people are autogynephiles.
As are some cis people but that doesn't make all cis people AG."

Did you think before you replied? "Some male trans people" implies not all.

"So I think that leaves us with the chancers (prison onset gender dysphoria), crossdressers and teenagers swept up in a social contagion.
ROGD (social contagion) is an unproven theory. Cross-dressers are not trans."

That will be news to those crossdressers who claim to be trans. And ROGD bears all the hallmarks of a social contagion.

So you've not bothered to read the deeply upsetting stories from detransitioners preferring to think of it as 'propaganda' so you can stick to your world view? OK.

https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/dissociative-disorders/

Dissociative disorders are medically recognised. They are a type of avoidant behaviour.

They go hand in hand with trauma and other mental health issues.

The assumption that if you are dissociating in this way so must be trans and not mentally unwell is dangerous. It also neglects the possibility that one is the product of the other.

Also see the findings of Hannah Barness examination of the Tavistock and above normal levels of trauma / abuse etc.

Assuming that trans identifying children and vulnerable young adults are not sick as a base line is grossly negligent. Cos safeguarding.

I was talking about language and what is and is not abusive. "Misgendering" (along with "deadnaming") is not automatically abusive, along with any other kind of truth telling. It is trans activists and allies who have taught trans people that they can expect us all to ignore our shared histories with them and that everyone must apologise if they "make a mistake". It is not a mistake if someone refers to my son as "he" or uses his old name, it is accurate, even if it makes him uncomfortable because he is trying to escape his past. If he is to become comfortable in his trans identity, he also needs to be comfortable with his past, because his past is and always will be part of his identity. Trans identity theory appears to do nothing to help people accept themselves; it is all about trying to remodel themselves into someone else, someone who is detached from their own physical reality. No wonder there is dysphoria.

[Names changed]

If someone refers to what Steve did or said as a toddler, is Annabelle to be offended because that person didn't revise history and refer to what "Annabelle" did when "she" was a toddler? Annabelle needs to grow some self esteem and not be so fragile about perfectly normal language. Annabelle literally was Steve. Likewise it would be foolish of DW to be offended if someone calls her by her pre-marriage name, especially if they are referring to her single days.

For me to go along with the gender identity conventions that activists have attempted to impose on society in recent years is to bow the knee to a new secular religion, and to encourage my son away from reality into a hazy world of necessity to conform to (trans)gendered expectations. It is my remaining role, as the parent of an independent adult son, to be a rock of reality. He can unmoor himself from reality if he chooses, but I will not accompany him on a potential journey of physical damage through poor choices over hormones or surgery. Just as if he was into addictive drugs.

This was actually a deliberate strategy by some of the original TRAs, like Press for Change in the 90s.

There are some good posts about that on this thread (the discussion goes back much further than 2007).

Let's go back to 2007 | Mumsnet

The link should go to a relevant post by@PencilsInSpace which refers to this exact issue about how crossdressers were part of the trans umbrella even back then.

The various demographics have been inseparable throughout PFC history. They championed the use of the word trans as it did not discriminate between TS and TV.

So it was never a case of the trans (as in TS) umbrella widening to include TVs and cross-dressers, rather it was the TV and cross-dressers umbrella widening to include TS.

I recommend a read of that thread if you haven't read it before.

Stonewall decided 'officially' that crossdressers fell under the trans umbrella.

They have since quietly reversed this position.

If you have an avoidant anxiety disorder it is best practice not to completely enable that avoidant behaviour.

Denial of sex to the extent of some individuals is very much text book avoidant behaviour.

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

So yes there is potentially a clinically reason why we should not be enabling and pandering to unreasonable demands over pronouns.

Another example of similar patterns would be anorexia.

Indeed, anorexia and trans identification appear to be found in the same vulnerable cohort with a drop in presentation of anorexia as there has been an increase in trans identifying teen girls.

There's is also an overrepresentation of both in the autistic population which are known to have avoidant behaviour and enabling this behaviour where possible is also encouraged in this group.

So please don't start with this nonsense of suggesting we should just blindly go along with something because someone seems it impolite to do otherwise.

There is plenty of evidence and precedence to suggest we are doing significant unintended harms, to those who identify as trans not just women, by an affirmation only approach to pronouns.

Gender dysphoria is a distess condition related to being trans but not always. It is not the cause of them being trans

I didn't say anything about causes. I asked why people who are not sick are looking for a medical diagnosis and treatment if they are perfectly healthy.

And what do you mean by 'not always'? Are you saying that some people with gender dysphoria are not trans or are you saying that some people who identify as trans don't have gender dysphoria? Or both?

And I'm sure I've asked you this before (and you've declined to answer), but what do you think 'being trans' means? I'm asking here for your own personal opinion, so don't tell me to 'do my own research'.

As are some cis people but that doesn't make all cis people AG.

What do you mean by this? Are you just saying that some men with autogynephilia don't identify as trans? And I didn't say all male trans people were autogynephiles.

ROGD (social contagion) is an unproven theory.

So the sudden jump in kids identifying as trans in about 2014 was due to what? Something in the water? Climate change?

(Eddie Izzard being one example)

What’s the difference between a cross dresser and a trans person though? I mean have you noticed how there don’t seem to be cross dressers anymore? Those who would have been called cross dressers 30 years ago are calling themselves trans these days.

So people should ignore them because they're 'unwell'? I mean I think it probably is some kind of Mental illness in a way, but I suffer from mental illness and I wouldn't want to be shunned or people have to leave because they looked at me. Those people who would do so I'd consider arseholes.

Christ.
I wasn't trying to make a difference. It was a tiny remark on a point of interest (maybe only to me, but there we go).
From now on I will be careful about contributing if I think what I'm saying isn't of any moment.