Thoughts on this tweet?

One of the worst things for me - and you know this only too well - is that this ideology inserts itself into and destroys relationships between people. Any group which is intent, as this one appears to be, on separating the bonds between friends and relatives, and especially between parents and children, cannot be good.

By people that either fail to grasp the underlying issues or are more invested in maintaining their image as on the RSOH as super 'kind' people who never dirtied their hands with risk.

Yep.

i'd love to see one of these be kinders explain how you can fight for women's rights in a society that constantly tries to stop you.

The only groups / individuals that do this are groomers, cults, abusers and extremists.

We need to say this out loud.

It's one of those really hard inconvenient truths that needs to be seen and acknowledged because it's a massive problem.

But you are.

When you paint Feminists who will not use female language for men as "Ultras" and tell us that being kind will be more effective than being truthful that is exactly what you are doing.

If we cannot say openly and honestly that a man is a man bexause we need to cloak that truth in "polite" conciliatory cross sex or sexless language, we are agreeing not to talk about the fundamental issue with cross sex identity before the conversation has even started. Of course it then hampers us explaining the problem!

Again, it's a pattern of abusive relationships. The abuser wraps any of their bad behaviour in emotional issues that are "too painful", "unfair" to bring up, meaning the abused partner who approaches openly and honestly is the only one whose problems/behaviour can be criticised or discussed, and eventually they too end up thinking the problem must be them.

A display of vulnerability is a great silencer of criticism.

I think that some people believe that them saying that it is not 'kind' and not 'respectful' or 'reasonable' is not emotionally manipulating others to change their behaviour to match that person's perception of 'kind' and 'respectful' and 'reasonable'.

That is fine, because frankly, if they wish to do that, that is their choice. People are free to push back and explain how it is not the things that those people say it is. Judgement goes both ways. If they then claim to be 'piled' on, frankly, that is another of their perceptions that they might need to review. Because if they perceive people saying they are wrong and explaining why as being 'piled on', then they may feel that they should be free of any challenge to their moralising.

It usually goes hand in hand with people who declare that they are the 'moderate' thinkers or the 'reasonable' ones who cannot articulate the reasons their opinions are an accurate representation of the reality of the situation. I guess we are so used to being treated as being the 'extremists' and being unkind, hateful bigots that we just plough on and keep explaining with evidence and detailed thinking.

I have been on threads where it was just me and then others telling me how hateful I have been and frankly, after the first review of what I said and whether it was still accurate with all the other information that was presented, I didn't feel 'piled' on. Despite the language being used to describe me. If I didn't think I could cope with people pointing out the I was wrong and why, I would not post on MN on any board.

All the way along, since feminists first raised the alarm, and all through all the court cases, the underground meetings, the silencings, the cancellations, the attacks, the doxxings, the swattings, the monsterings, the 'die in a grease fire', the 'if you see a terf, punch them in the fucking face', the 'decapitate terfs', etc, women have been told over and over that we are 'extreme' and 'bigots' and 'unkind' and 'on the wrong side of history'.

All we were asking for was women's rights, that the Supreme Court established we are entitled to in law. The right to believe that there are two sexes, and that sex is immutable, established by Maya Forstater's EAT. The fact that children shoudl not be pathologised for 'gender incongruence', as (partly) established by the Cass Report. And yes, the right to say a man is a man, and we have the right to say that a man is a man. Rapist or otherwise.

This is not extreme. It's not even contentious. The problem was that a very determined movement spent years and years, backed by inordinately well funded organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids and GIRES, telling women that there was 'no debate' and that nobody could question anything that was said if it was said by a 'trans' person.

We weren't ever extreme. It was the gender movement that was extreme.

Way back when we were told we were 'extreme' and 'bigots' for saying men shouldn't be in women's prisons.

And for saying that puberty blockers can cause harm.

And for saying that women should be free to talk about women's rights without being attacked.

The lines shift a bit, but we are pretty used to being vilified and insulted. It maybe worked for a bit, for some, because nobody wants to be called a bigot, but in the end, it doesn't really shift the dial.

Insults and vilification now just alert me to the fact the person using them has an agenda and is trying to win using attack, rather than reasoned argument.

I can never see anything beyond someone scolding me about 'kindness' when it is very bleeding obvious that they don't value 'kindness' at all.

They mean 'do what I want for this person I see as valuable, which involves trampling, ignoring and deriding others regardless of how vulnerable they are too'.

Fuck that. Seriously. It's coercion and sexism trying to hide under a figleaf of 'I'm a nice person'. I'm never sure who they think they're kidding.

And when they encounter someone unpicking it, we get the hurt/superior flounce of 'well I know I'm right and I won't bother explaining it to you awful women'. Because that avoids all responsibility too.

Be prejudiced. Hate women. Whatever, you do you. But have the guts to be honest with yourself and with women about it ffs.

yeah... but... 'both sides' ...

Some women are happy to use preferred pronouns, and some women aren't, generally for reasons explained in the 'pronouns are rohypnol' essay. Neither of these positions is particularly extreme.

However, if somebody has convinced themself that their happiness depends on everyone else perceiving them as the opposite sex, there is no 'nice' way to observe their actual sex, and there is no way to protect women's rights unless it is possible to observe actual sex.

Don't put words in my mouth I've never told anyone to "be kind" , I hate that expression, it's a charter for psychopaths.

#BeKind is a red flag!!

I suppose what we are seeing is the post-hoc rationalisation.

Explanations roughly 'Of course I always knew this was correct, but wasn't nasty enough to say so'.

I suppose it's the Nicola Sturgeon 'rapist gender' stage of denial. Won't outright defend Isla Bryson's right to be placed in a women's jail, but will grimly maintain the women complaining are just as bad as the rapist.

Another word for the supposed 'moderate' position is 'prevarication'.

The number of times we have been either

a) told that there is this magic solution, only for that ‘solution’ to be the same one suggested a decade ago and very thoroughly discussed.

and / or b) told that because we use accurate language we are mean and hateful even though the person agrees with the sentiment we are expressing.

It is the classic bananarama moment. It isn’t the content of what we say, it how we say it that renders us inaudible to some because they will not hear of any male person being described as a male person if they have a gender identity. And we are the problem. If we just said it nicely within the right tonality that that person can hear, then maybe they would stop censuring us.

It is a well run script now.

Yes indeed. Note in particular the death and rape threats in these posts. The name calling and implied erasure of the poster leading to the posters suicide or the suicide of their kids.

Exactly the same as TRAs.
Such terrible wimmin.

"Being kind" was two words in a five paragraph post. I'll make a note not to suggest in future you use that exact phrase.

You have described Feminists who reject cross sex language as "Ultras". And you have said that Feminists need to be more moderate, more polite, more conciliatory towards the "other side" to make progress.

My point that to use cross sex language is to concede the crucial point upon which the Feminist argument rests before the discussion has started.

Rephrase "be kind" as "respectful" or "moderate" - it doesn't change my argument.

The issue is; Left wing lesbians and feminists raised the alarm, some of them decades ago.

Right wing men decided that what they were seeing was indeed 'absofuckinglutely batshit crazy' and ever since, all the left wing lesbians and feminists have been 'aligned' with the 'far right'.

It never goes the other way, that the right wing men are aligned with left wing lesbians and feminists, probably because the left wing lesbians and feminists are not worthy of being thought of as important enough to have influenced anyone of note.

"Just be kind, it's only pronouns" was the inch.
This legalised tyranny is the mile.

Please do, it's a loathsome phrase, responsible for a great deal of harm to women and now to young men as well.

I have said none of those things in the way you imply that I have, unless you identify as "the outer reaches" of the movement.

Do you approve of the tone of the posts which I commented on?

Do you think it helps you for one moment to achieve your goals?

Do you think what I've quoted helps you achieve your objectives?

I mean, I think we've been doing not bad, so far, tbh. Most people agree with the women on this board, that men are not women and that women are entitled to single sex provisions.

People have been telling us for decades we are doing it wrong.

Indeed. With tone policing being a major feature from those seeking to stop women from speaking the truth.

Well, actually I'm referring to your earlier comments (bold mine)

"You will find the outer edge of the gender critical movement as entrenched against this idea [referring to trans people as they rather than a gendered pronoun] as the trans movement is entrenched in being called "she" when they are male....The two outer edges of this discussion sound more like each other every day."

So if I take you at your word, since I do not think "their" is a moderate position for reasons that will make this post far tooo long to go into (but if you ask I'll reply in a separate post), you have identified me as the outer reaches of the movement, no? So unless you disown your words, it's a bit disingenous to try to put this on my choice to identify as "outer"?

But for what it's worth, since you asked, I don't think there's any way women can say no to men who want something from them that those men (or the women who act for men) will find acceptable, because the thing they really find unacceptable is the word "No".

So concern for the tone, for being as bad as the other side, for saying the right thing but in the wrong way, for not agreeing to meet in a "middle" where we all agree that at least some part of being a man or a woman is tied to ones mind rather than ones body - all that really boils down to is "don't give them an excuse to say no by dismissing you as a bad woman".

Same as it ever was. Men find an excuse to do something they were always going to do anyway then blame us for it.

And the worst thing is that knowing this and trying to avoid that trap, we women can tie ourselves in knots trying to be the perfect voice and explain the problem without saying it in a way that seems nasty or accusing or blamey.

And so in trying to avoid one trap we fall right into another trap of not being able to make a clear case at all.

Plain talking and breathtakingly bracing rudeness is a useful tactic to cut through the slop and I will not be shamed for understanding this. Should it be the only tactic? No. But does it have its place as a tactic? Hell Yes!

At this point it is hard to know who qualifies as being 'the extreme' to be honest. Considering the OP clearly thinks that women using accurate language is unkind, is that considered 'extreme'?

Great post Flirts.
Women have become completely exasperated at the continued bullying, threats and intimidation used to enforce all this on an unconsenting population.

Once reluctant but polite pronoun users have watched the #nodebate escalate to targeting every single aspect of women's lives - with nothing being off limite to colonising men. Pregnancy & childbirth, breastfeeding, menstruation, the menopause, women's health conditions including endometriosis, changing rooms, hospital wards, sport - on and on the violations go. Even children - babies through to teenagers - were eagerly targeted with terrible consequences for so many young people.

Of course women have stopped the be kind pandering - it got us nowhere. We have had to name to violations, spell out the harms, insist that the sex offenders are accurately sexed and challenge the attempts to muzzle the press and free speech. The SC judgment spelled out the importance of using accurate sex based language.

Nobody should ever feel compelled to return to the state where we were forbidden by the bullies to use the language of women.

Fuck that.