Thoughts on this tweet?

And adding this as I think it highlights the changes in language demands over time very well.

https://youtube.com/shorts/3iQB5tNGbL8?si=b9GxA3_zXpXsHHnU

This discussion between Cox and Madison is enlightening in so many ways. Including the need for men to control the language women use to describe their uniqueness, just to be able to force themselves into that language. Misogyny writ large.

Here women are told they are crazy for using the term ‘biological sex’. From a male person who has rejected his biological sex and demands that female people stop considering him as being male. Because apparently a shedload of extreme body modification should make any difference in whether we consider him male or not.

Why is it moderate to consider that using female language for a male
person is kind, respectful and harmless?

Has anyone seen anyone give a coherent non emotionally reasoned answer to that question yet? I think it all rests on emotion and some people prioritise a group of male people above female people but cannot acknowledge that they do or why.

A man who told us here in FWR that breast size of female people set the power hierarchy of female people.

I'd forgotten about that! It's very 'she breasted boobily down the stairs' isn't it? A porn soaked man's view of what it's like to be a woman.

Actually that helps nobody. A trans person who has different pronouns is unlikely to feel 'respected'. For anyone else its just confusing. You are using
neither the requested nor the correct pronouns!

If youre so desperately worried about using pronouns, just omit them entirely. Its confusing and clunky, but it'll be less offensive than the 'they/them' suggestion.

Unless you're suggesting this as a course of action for others?

Why would anyone look for a middle ground on something that is black and white / absolute?

born a man always a man is an absolute fact, there is no shade of grey, no subtlety in considering or discussing it, it just is

that means that any perspective that is even 0.00001% away is 100% wrong.

there is no discussion to have,
1000 philosophers / academics / etc discussing sex and identity can not change it from the absolute nature of reality - a man is always a man.

It is why there is no middle ground - there is only one truth.

it is why sex is described as immutable/ fact / absolute / etc because they are all clear words which give no space for discussion.

it is why this debate was lost by the gender ideologists before they even began, because it doesn’t matter what a human does to themselves a man can never be anything other than a man - they can be all shapes of man, they can be butchered, mutilated, dressed up as something else, they can disguise themselves, they can act, pretend, desire, hope but they remain a man.

and it is not a human definition to be changed by humans - it just is. Depending on your beliefs it is God ordained / just part of nature, science or biology - external to humans, we have no more control over a man always being a man than we do over the tides, the solar system or earth itself, we can damage it or pretend that we have shaped it but it remains the same

so a man will always be a man and for those with the clarity to understand that simple fact, all they need to do is just keep repeating the fact…

so there can not be a middle ground because to ask someone to deviate from the absolute nature of truth - even by that 0.00001% is to ask them to lie, to deny reality to be 100% wrong - there is no 50% wrong in this discussion.

so no - pronouns are based on sex and no-one has the right to ask or command others to lie about it…

there is no middle ground, a man is always a man.

There are two types of trans identifying men - the ones who believes every man is a woman as soon as he decides he is, and the ones who gatekeep and say some men havent put the work in they have.

Its the same with inclusion- if they dont want to use SSE, like sport, theyll concede, but demand inclusion where the want as a payoff.

I dont think he has given much thought to his point about children. Hes saying only the 'genuine ' trans children should be treated as such. What is he going to use as the diagnosis and why is he so sure he would have meet the criteria?

The difference between non binary and trans is non existent. Both want to reject sex as a category to some extent and for the individual to determine medical treatment.

Id argue that the popularity of non binary with young people is because they dont want to be associated with men like Wu.

You will find the outer edge of the gender critical movement as entrenched against this idea as the trans movement is entrenched in being called "she" when they are male.

My belief is that most people think it's a reasonable compromise, since we already routinely use "they" when the sex of the person being talked about is not known. But when I've suggested it on other threads I've been told in no uncertain terms that compromise is not possible.

There was a thread started criticizing JK Rowling for writing that she would call a really good trans friend "she" if the friend requested it. But most people on the thread supported JKR, somewhat to the annoyance of the originator.

The two outer edges of this discussion sound more like each other every day.

There are two types of trans identifying men - the ones who believes every man is a woman as soon as he decides he is, and the ones who gatekeep and say some men havent put the work in they have.

Three.

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.

so you're happy for crimes committed by men to lsbelled as crimes committed by women to keep a tiny % of men happy? Because that is the only reason it is being done.

do you understand how recording sex accurately impacts on how we plan and commission prison and services to manage criminals?

Those who believe there is a ‘middle ground’ make the assumption that that both sides come from a reasonable position.

But if you interrogate this situation, that’s not true.

It was never a reasonable ask to get society to pretend that some men can be women. Those going along with that, without engaging their brains, did everyone a disservice. The request should have been met with a firm ‘no’.

It is not reasonable to welcome one group of men into spaces that are supposed to be for women. All Wu is trying to do is narrow the definition of the group of men that applies to (making sure, of course, that it still applies to him).

Women’s single sex spaces are a zero sum game. Either you support them, or you don’t.

Making exceptions for ANY man, regardless of how small this group, means that you are working to dismantle women’s single sex rights. That’s the bottom line.

Ok do you won't answer the question I posed and you don't see the link

Fair enough

Exactly and as asked earlier at what point do you tell Davina who used to Dave that you've been using she/her pronouns that he's not a woman and so he can't use the women's toilets/changing rooms/be in the women's network at work/play on the women's team

there was an x post by a TW who was shocked to realise after an off the cuff remark that his colleagues were only using she/her out of courtesy and didn't really see him
as a woman. He was very upset by it - so was it kinder to go along with his request for she/her or not when no one believe d it? I'd say not

Can I just check - the position being described as 'extreme' is when women refuse to use requested pronouns?

And this is posited as the equivalent of trans activist extremists, who have physically attacked, threatened, doxxed, vandalised, got women fired, arrested, smeared, etc?

Apparently so

its the old both sideism

Quite.

It strikes me as much less kind to go along with the pretence so far and the. do a 360 when it comes to using women’s spaces. Who is that really helping.

Much better to be truthful from the outset

You mean the text that Barraker changed to correct pronouns? What point do you think that made?

On what basis do you not agree that the essay shows that 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' in that they actually change your responses to words?

Oh I've just read this.

So the OP thinks 'women do it too' is the reason we must use female pronouns for men.

Exactly. Very well put, and cuts through all the waffle. I’m going to use these examples myself from now on.

That is a choice you made, nobody compelled you to make it nor is it an act of religious observance.
The language that you are demanding as a middle ground is a compelled act of religious observance so they are different things.
So I will ask again what act of religious observance do you think that everyone should be compelled to participate in against their wishes and why?
The use of "their" (1st person singular, referring to owned property) is correct in your analogy however they/them are plural and should not be used for a single person. Also they/them is not "their" so you are arguing a false premis.

Why do I have to be respectful and mild mannered to a man who invades women's single sex spaces and then screams I'm bigoted for objecting to having my privacy and dignity violated?

Whilst I'm not going to abuse them or threaten them, I sure as hell am not going to pander to their lies and the erasure of my needs and rights.

They can sod off if they don't respect me and the rights of women and girls.

Women are not obliged to 'be kind' to arseholes. Indeed they shouldn't be for their own wellbeing and interests.

This whole thread isn't about having a conversation and finding out about what anyone here thinks. It's about lecturing us and talking at us with a view to imposing ideas about correcting our behaviour and thoughts.

No. This is bullshit. It's dishonest bullshit.

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.

The use of "their" (1st person singular, referring to owned property) is correct in your analogy however they/them are plural and should not be used for a single person. Also they/them is not "their" so you are arguing a false premis.

They and their are routinely used in everyday conversation about single people whose sex is not known.

"Does your vet have their own hospital?"

"Your doctor seems to know a lot, where did they train?"

"The producer of this film should get an Oscar if they haven't already got one"

Your coat example is not middle ground it is simply grammar

if the coat is obviously a woman’s coat you would say has any lady left her coat, so the the use of their is only because the sex is unknown

men pretending to be women are still obviously men - their sex is known