Thoughts on this tweet?

Yes.

People rejecting the notion that they should have to change their language because a group of people wish to reject their sex class has been described on this thread as being extreme.

"Try listening rather than being a cloth eared sanctimonious bully who demeans and undermines women as independent humans rather than merely support humans to make egos."

"To me, you are someone who hasn't a fucking clue, copies and pastes AI guff and doesn't apply critical thinking or you are another one of these ploppers who is disingenuously starting threads to be 'thought-provoking' not realising we have had this same conversation twice a week for years."

"I suggest you get up off your arse and do some research on this properly rather than just using Twitter to inform you as your sole source of information. And no I can not be arsed to repeat myself ...."

My earlier point about both sides sounding more and more like each other made for me, I think. Sinking to the level of the opposition will not help win the battle

A coat is not a being who can walk into a hospital with a medical condition.

A coat does not have a sexed body which needs to be treated according to that sex.

It is not at risk of medical negligence if an error is made because of the use of the wrong pronouns.

It is not a potential threat to other coats.

It does not violate the legal rights of other coats. Because coats don't have any rights. Because they are coats.

I think we are supposed to take from this post that women are the equivalent of coats and we should not be considering the harms of getting grammar wrong in high pressure, life saving or sensitive areas. Women should be treated as coats which are worn by humans to keep them warm or to make a fashion statement. They are not living breathing functioning humans with needs. They are just props and grammatical considerations.

This comparison just about sums up the total lack of thinking and total disregard for women as being anything more than pretty validation tools.

Many places have dress guidance. You either observe them or you don’t get entrance. That is a legitimate requirement of access to a private non-essential facility.

Your point is not relevant to a demand to change established language to suit an individual’s subjective reality where that subjective reality doesn’t reflect material reality yet the demand is to be treated as if that subjective reality is material reality.

I don't give a shit anymore.

I will engage when I want to. If I can't be arsed I won't.

Where is the legal directive that I have to behave in a 'nice' and soothing manner?

This is what it comes down to. Women are not allowed to be direct in the same way as men. They can not be blunt and to the point.

They just get tone policed to silence and compliance.

Fuck that.

The ones who quietly go about their lives upsetting nobody, just as they always did ...

They won't be the (male) ones using resources for women and insisting that opposite sex pronouns are used though, will they?
Even if they are not making unreasonable and misogynistic demands, if they are quietly going about their lives instead of pushing back against their 'trans siblings' and saying 'not in my name', then they are upsetting me.

Would you expect a Black man to call a white man "SIr" because the white man truly and deeply believes himself to be better than the Black man, and considers it disrespectful, hurtful even, to be addressed simply as an equal?

No.

Then you should not expect a Feminist to call a man "she" because the man truly and deeply believes he feels/thinks "like a woman" and considers it disrespectful, hurtful even, to be addressed simply as a man.

Expecting Feminists to respect a man's sexist ideas about the mental differences between men and women is respecting a sexist man by disrespecting all women. Why would you do that?

you read the cogent and reasoned argument from Naomi Cunningham posted at 5:57 today about why she uses correct sex pronouns and thought she sounded like Briana Wu who posts on twitter like this?:

Sonia, you’re not the center of the universe. Normal women do not notice or care if I’m in the ladies [eta they do by the way]. Your bigotry and hate does not to define public policy. I grew up with whites that didn’t want blacks to live on their side of the town too. You are exactly like them. I’ve been married to a man for 18 years and I could not have less sexual interest in you.

I mean if that's really what you think, then you do you, obviously. But I'm gonna suggest you need to work on your reading comprehension

nonsense I'm afraid.

I worked with an 'old school' transexual back in the noughties who ran amok in the ladies loos in the creepiest way possible. these men were creepy then and they're creepy now.

I'm fairly sure that the nuclear family of many of these number 3, might have a comment or three to say about the concept of 'just going about their lives not upsetting others'.

I think there may be a comment or three about people who say they are 'just going about their lives not upsetting others' and then waltz into the wrong single sex facilities as if no one has eyes.

There are no ‘both sides’ argument because that requires symmetry of intent, behaviour and outcome.

I think there is also a tactic where some people who believe that they are moderate in their views, mislabel those who don’t believe that female people should be harmed or left unprotected as ‘extreme’ and then start using flawed ‘both sides’ arguments. How often do we see posters post ‘I don’t see the harm’, even after harm has been explained in detail and there is no acknowledgement of the points made and no engagement with equally well thought out and articulated points.

How much of it simply comes down to those same misused words being used over and over as if they are a defence - ‘kind’, ‘respectful’ and ‘reasonable’? Which actually is emotionally manipulative particularly when then used against women who use blunt language in return.

The ‘both sides’ arguments are flawed for numerous reasons.

Partly because an approach that those who use the ‘both sides’ argument still provably harms female people (there is evidence available).

Partly because there is no assymetry between the points of view with one being evidenced with biology being immutable and the other being based on a subjective belief that is not founded in material reality.

Partly also because the violence and intimidation that is threatened or is perpetrated isn’t in anyway comparable between the two sides when you consider the evidence.

Nor is the demand for control of people’s language, and the ability to punish people for not acting as if a subjective belief is material reality when it is not.

“The ones who quietly go about their lives upsetting nobody, just as they always did before Stonewall won the gay fight and had to go looking for something else to keep them relevant.”

If they expected any person to use female language for them when they were male, they were not ‘going about their lives upsetting nobody’.

If they used any female single sex provision they were not ‘going about their lives upsetting nobody’.

We use “they/them” for a single person of unknown sex. That has been normal English use for a long time. Sometimes in writing, we use “his/her” instead of “their” (usually to avoid using “his” to cover both male and female people).

e.g. The student handed their work in late.
e.g. Anyone needing further information should contact his/her doctor.

Once we know someone’s sex, normal English use (that we learn as part of natural language acquisition as a child from those around us) is to used the singular sex based pronoun.

e.g. The man picked up his bag.
e.g. The woman was walking her dog.

We don’t say “The man picked up their bag” because we know this person is male, so we use “his”.

We do it without thinking. Which is why using wrong sex pronouns (and using “they” for a single person whose sex we know) is a big cognitive processing burden, and why people make mistakes even when they buy into the whole thing.

To those who believe that there are ‘some’ male people who should be able to bypass female people’s consent and be treated as if they were female, can you please answer the following.

What is it about these male people’s actions and behaviour towards female people who reject their subjective reality that is not sending red flags in regard to their intention to ignore female people’s consent ?

Why shouldn’t this act of ignoring female people’s lack of consent be described as predatory behaviour ?

What other acts that bypass the consent of women and girls in a situation, particularly where safeguarding should be protecting them but not limited to those situations, is considered acceptable?

This is a summary of me answering the original question and the OP ignoring the answers.

OP: Thoughts on this tweet
KTS: The toilet bit is wrong because it abolishes designs that can only be used in single sex environments (and then explains the health and safety benefits…)
OP: Be kind
KTS: Talking of kindness, these are the people affected most when you abolish single sex designs, and this is why…what are your thoughts on this?
OP: Let’s talk about pronouns again

We’ve seen this many times

Pronouns are the last bastion of those who have been taken in but aren’t ready to admit it.

Well not quite the last bastion. The last bastion is always ‘tone’. I’m sure the OP will get there soon.

Re: pronouns, some non-Christians attend and join in with religious school assemblies and some have permission to withdraw.

Neither group is being more 'kind'.

How can we be nice saying

"I appreciate your position but no matter how nice you say someone is, it's totally irrelevant because that's not the point anyway.

They simply can't change sex no matter how much they want to or I am supportive to them.

Gender is just made up sexist twonk which is exceptionally regressive and unfortunately replacing sex with gender is actually homophobic. All attempts to define gender even by intelligent, academic bods result in circular definitions and a reliance on sexist tropes which would fail existing laws on sexism.

Using wrong sex pronouns or neutral pronouns is harmful to women and puts trans people at risk in the process - default human isn't neutral in language, it carries a bias to males which is why females needed visibility in the first place. Gaps in female provision and sex bias in service and product design are only really just beginning to be fully recognised despite the claims that women now have equality.

Not to mention that it's not about being nice as a priority in the first place. It's about being workable in law so everything is fair to everyone. This requires us to acknowledge that not everyone is nice, and that nice people are only part of the equation. Unfortunately some people will exploit such points to harm others. Because someone always ruins it for everyone and it's not women doing the ruining and it's not women's fault for pointing out that they have rights to safety AND privacy and dignity. It is not women's fault that transgender people using wrong sex facilities is ultimately completely incompatible with voyeurism laws working. It's not women's fault that unisex facilities are more dangerous to them and that's why single sex provision was started in the first place.

Why should women be nice whilst stating that they don't particularly wish to be marginalised again in terms of their sex based needs due to how their bodies differ? Why should women be nice about stating how they don't particularly wish to get undressed in front of males and it is their legal right to have bodily privacy and dignity? Why should women be nice about stating that actually transpeople rely on the identification of their sex for their own identity and protection and this also protects doctors from making mistakes too? Why should women be nice about how they are less safe because of transinclusion and they are not allowed to talk about this because it offends some males? Why should women be nice about men who fetishise them and demean them and do not allow them to have sex based groups offering support and services only applicable to women - such as breastfeeding and menopause services?"

I really don't give a fuck if people don't think I'm being nice.

The thing is, I am never unreasonable. My expectations and my comments are not unfair. They are a recognition of the reality of women's lived experiences. Lived experiences that in an equal world should not be sidelined because they reflect reality. They are not fantasies. They are quantifiable and demonstratable.

The Staniland Question highlights this better than almost anything else. Is it unreasonable of women and girls to be able to able to undress whilst not in the presence of male bodies (regardless of their cosmetics surgery)?

If your answer to this question is yes it is unreasonable to respect the privacy and dignity and even safety of women and girls you are a sexist prick who sees women as lesser or you are just a straight up incel. There isn't a middle ground point here. Not one that doesn't allow creeps to exploit.

This is why my answer now is always:

"No. Now fuck off to the gender neutral or your own sex and stop forcing yourself on me".

Or words to that effect. Because I am not a support human.

People on both sides get angry and say hurtful things to others.

However, only one side issues death and rape threats, violently pickets and attacks meetings, vandalises buildings that host meetings or house offices of people they disagree with, pours bottles of piss everywhere, tries to destroy any single sex groups, and makes vexatious complaints to the police about misgendering.

Women do not try to prevent trans people meeting by picketing, barricading, screaming abuse in the street, or vandalise venues that host trans meetings, or issue threats of violence (with associated graphic imagery).

I think that is what people generally mean by “both sides”. People getting snarky on a forum is universal. Real life violence and attempts to destroy what you can’t have isn’t coming from women. We are completely happy for trans people to meet up to their hearts content, to discuss their needs. It would be nice if that respect was reciprocated for female people and female spaces.

I think part of the issue I have with anyone judging what is ‘kind’ or not is that it is often forgotten that kindness by its nature is an outcome that comes at some cost to those being ‘kind’.

Those who judge another for being unkind may be forgetting that just because they see the cost as insignificant, others not following with the same action may have very legitimate concerns about the outcome and the cost associated. The labels of ‘unkindness’ and ‘kindness’ are moral judgements and often very superficially judged.

We should not be making law on the basis of kindness.

We should be making law on the basis of workability, fairness and keeping in mind other laws and legal obligations about protecting everyone not just a singular group.

The laws we have are often about protecting two parties - one in a position of power and one in a position of vulnerability. Both have importance and a failure to do both undermines the protection of both. For example the doctor who treats a transperson still has to act within rules and ethics - this protects both the transperson, someone who thinks they might be trans but isn't and the doctor themselves. When we fail to do this adequately the fallout has implications for all parties. It isn't about being kind - it's about safeguarding.

It always comes back to safeguarding in some form or other. That's what the focus of law is. Not a fuzzy notion of indefinable niceness (which often isn't nice to everyone).

Agree RTB.

Yet, we have seen mandated language being introduced into workplaces and legal systems.

Governments have allowed people’s demands for personalised language to become punishable offences.

Kirralie Smith is fighting a massive fine for pointing out two male people playing female sport were not female.

Dora Moutot is being prosecuted for saying a male caller into a televised panel discussion was a man.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532554-in-france-dora-moutot-convicted-of-transphobia-for-identifying-a-tw-as-male-when-asked

There was a Brazilian feminist who had to go to court for using accurate language for a male person.

Court proceedings here may require male people to have mandated female language used at risk of contempt of court. Naomi Cunningham gets reported to the bar standards board for using accurate sex based language.

None of this is ‘kind’, ‘respectful’ or ‘reasonable’.

Pretending a sexist movement is reasonable so as not to look "as bad as them" won't either though. It just obscures the issues.

This is something women deal with on a personal basis all the time - having to be polite through gritted teeth to men who can smilingly demean or dismiss us because society's double standards mean his sexism is normalised while our anger about his sexism is pathologised.

It hurts us. It hides the problem if we can't speak directly about the problem.

It hides the problem if we can't speak directly about the problem.

It's a good job nobody is suggesting doing that then.

As soon as 'kind' is set up as a dynamic, it creates a hierarchy. It asserts that one party has the capacity and power to be 'kind' to the other.

It tacitly suggests that one party has more power and agency than the other.

'Be kind' is an admonishment.

We can even say to the victims of a bully that they must 'be kind'. Despite them being the party with less power, agency, and ability.