To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

My demand is that nobody ever uses the word 'c*s' to describe me or women like me ever again. It offends me. I do not 'identify with the gender roles and expectations placed on me at birth. Don't use it. Ever. Not at work, not at home, not on your private blog, not on Twitter, never in a newspaper. If you do use it, don't complain if I try to get you sacked (or try to prevent you having a contract renewed).

That OK for me to demand that courtesy from others ?

I think the analogy with the Christian colleague isn't very helpful.
A more accurate one would be a colleague who thought they were the son of God and expected you to address them as such.

Mycat - I think you're right, copy-pasting from Stonewall. There are some excellent threads on FWR on "regulatory capture".

The press has been well and truly captured, barring a few stand-out exceptions like Janice Turner, James Kirkup and Jule Bindel.

Look at the insanity the press guidelines for reporting caused when convicted rapist "Lisa" Hauxwell went on the run. The police were trying to warn people this man was dangerous and should not be approached. The press were reporting it as "woman, guilty of rape, on run, may be dressed as a man." Which doesn't really help you know who to run like shit from if you encounter him in public.

If you are in fact, not being a goady, disingenous shit-stirrer, then I suggest you actually post to say that you accept that Maya did not harrass a trans colleague, and did not at any point deliberately misgender anyone.

I've tried to present a reasoned and civilised argument, so I'm very disappointed that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to shut down the debate.

If you look through my posts - I urge you to do this - you'll see I have said made no accusations of Maya harassing a trans colleague, nor of her deliberately misgendering anyone. I have referred to her statement, quoted in the tribunal, that she 'reserves the right' to misgender people. Therefore, I have no need to post your scripted response (a scripted response from someone who claims to deplore compelled speech?)

I had been enjoying a conversation with those posters who have been responding with intelligence and reason to the points I've raised and I can't help feeling that your sudden decision to lash out with an insult has rather spoiled the tone of the debate.

Twitter wokeness is in a league of it own. Hilariously out of touch. Any politician just needs to look at that and do the opposite.

What I meant was a reasonable employer could well have a policy which asked employees not to refer to transgender women as “men in dresses”, which could be offensive

Reasonable, in the case of transwomen with a GRC who live fulltime in their 'gender identity'.

Less reasonable in the case of Pips Bunce, who is literally a man who comes to work in frocks half the week. And you know, more power to him. Men can wear dresses. But he doesn't need special compelled language laws where we pretend humans can be male on Monday and female on Friday to 'protect his dignity'.

Janes - i think your point needs taken a step further. ‘Misgendering’ is not a thing. Calling a male a man is correctly gendering. Maya didn’t even do that to anyone she worked with but even if she, or anyone, did it isn’t ‘misgendering’ it’s correctly gendering or correctly identifying sex. Imho we need to stop buying into the illusion that misgendering is a thing. Calling a man a man is not offensive in any way.

I've tried to present a reasoned and civilised argument

You've tried to get others to lie on the basis of gendered souls.
Yet still you remain convinced that you have presented as 'reasoned' and 'civilised'

Totally agree about Philip Bunce. Makes my blood boil.

Nope, not buying it.

"I'm not going to say flat out Maya misgendered colleagues, because I'm not that stupid - I know people could then point out I'm lying. What I'm going to do instead is repeatedly imply that's what she did by by coming out with a whole load of false analogies and general crap."

Fortunately, I suspect everyone else can see what's being done here. Plus the continual dick pandering of "transwomen's hurty feels are the most important consideration ever, but fuck women's distress about being forced to lie."

she 'reserves the right' to misgender people

I bloody well reserve it too. If I'm ever unfortunate to be in court as a victim of an attack by a male who identifies as female, I'm not going to have courtesy towards my attacker in mind. If, as Maria Mclachlan did, I perceive my attacker as a male, I'll damn well call him a male.

Reserving the right doesn't mean using the right in all circumstances. While I might well call my attacker 'he', Jess in the office at school, who's been living as if she were a woman for the last 15 years and refrains from calling women cunts, because she identifies with women, not merely as her idea of a woman - yeah, she'll get preferred pronouns from me as a courtesy.

You've tried to get others to lie on the basis of gendered souls.

The arguments are not “reasonable” and “civilised”. Compelled lies are fucking scary.

I hope JK is Ok. Good on her for pointing out irrefutable, biological truths.

Calling a man a man is not offensive in any way

Man is not a slur, I agree.

I do think some males will take offence at being described as a man.

There are some males I will choose to call 'she' as a personal courtesy; interestingly enough, they are not the males running around calling women cunts and being desperately offended at the notion they were born male, and remain male.

BarbaraStrozzi You're inventing all kind of wild motives on my part now, where none exist - it's a waste of time continuing because you're relying on whatever fantasy you've constructed as fact - just the same thing for which you've been continually condemning others.

Good night. I wish you well.

But strawberry what is offensive about terming anyone men in dresses? It just doesn’t make sense to me unless you consider dresses (typically thought of as women’s clothing) as lesser or degrading in some way. Imho considering men in dresses as an insult upholds the same negative sex role stereotyping that makes tomboy a compliment and nancyboy an insult. It is not insulting to say women in pant suits, so imho it’s not insulting to say men in dresses. I’m pretty sure the likes of Miranda Yardly would agree on this one, that speaking truth isn’t offensive to him. I’ve seen Mir post photos of some new fabulous hat and dress and use similar terms to man in dresses etc. I just can’t see how that’s a slur unless you accept that dresses are not good enough for men and should be left to us women, who should know our place.

Compelled lies are fucking scary

Yep.
Authoritarians on the left, authoritarians on the right...it's a scary time to be from a class of people - women - who are historically and currently vulnerable.

If I wanted to identify as a man, I would use a male name and describe myself as a man.

Yet for some reason, even in 2019, only 220/650 MPs in the new parliament are female.

Is that because they have female names? Do you think it might be worth analysing this further and perhaps working out whether there is more to being female than just a name?

But you aren't bothered about the distress that it causes females when men claim they are women and invade their spaces

please don't bracket all 'females' together. I am female - I was born female and identify as female - and I don't feel the distress you are describing.

You would. If you were in prison and a rapist was locked up with you. You absolutely would. You have to be mad not to.

Privilege innit? And a refusal to empathise with the more vulnerable among us. That's the bit that gets me. Real actual women and girls have been sexually assaulted and raped because of this crap and yet these people just want to play word games.

Homophobia is why people take offence. Lots of it around, much of it in so-called progressive circles, sadly.

"Men is dresses might be gay!, which is the worst thing evah! so better we think of them as women."

Would you walk up to a work colleague who was a committed Christian who was minding their own business and announce 'God doesn't exist' just to offend them?

It says something about a person, and a belief system, that the only hope they have of "winning" an argument lies in misrepresenting, gaslighting, and generally not engaging in good faith.

PS If the person was loudly proclaiming that their God requires me to obey my husband then I might well tell them that I don't believe their God exists. The fundamental misdirection you're attempting here lies in the attempt to convince people that trans activists are just living their lives quietly and not impinging on the rights of others in any significant way. That is very much not the case, and I think you know that.

Janes- if they take offence that’s on them though, and the fact they take offence is not a sign of misgendering. The idea anyone is misgendering men by calling them men buys into this false reality that trans ideology has created. It reinforces the idea that being called your actual sex is offensive when it’s not.

I often choose to use preferred pronouns. A decade ago I spent many nights awake nursing babies and speaking to Miranda Yardley on Twitter about self ID. It comes normally to call Mir she, but like he says himself pronouns mean nothing. I’m all for being ‘considerate’ about pronouns, until it got us in this mess. It creates a false reality and makes it so people can’t speak the truth, so imho it’s gotten to the stage where being considerate needs chucked out. So often appeals to being kind and considerate are attempts to manipulate us by appealing to our socialised gender roles and it’s gotten to the stage where that needs to be fought back against. Part of that is not buying into these made up terms like misgendering - it’s correctly gendering and it doesn’t hurt anyone.

You're inventing all kind of wild motives on my part

@Nunsnetting do you know what your motives are for putting the feelings of males over and above the basic rights (and feelings) of women? Because it would be really useful to know why you choose to do that.

A more accurate one would be a colleague who thought they were the son of God and expected you to address them as such.

There is a trans person in the prison system in Scotland who was at one point demanding to be addressed as Mighty Almighty. And to be searched by female guards only. Should both those requests be honored? Are both requests reasonable?

It says something about a person, and a belief system, that the only hope they have of "winning" an argument lies in misrepresenting, gaslighting, and generally not engaging in good faith.

I have engaged in good faith, and stood up for what I believe in - why are you condemning that? This is a thread in AIBU - I believe the OP is being U. You'll note I am not on the parallel thread in FWR which has been set up to applaud JKR - there's a reason for that, which is that contrary to what some here seem to believe, I am not hanging round simply to be 'goady' - this thread was created to answer the question of whether people agreed with JKR or not, and I don't.

I don't mind having an opinion that's in the minority, and I'm happy to debate this in a reasonable way and accept criticisms of my arguments. I do mind when people make it personal and start throwing insults about, or lying about what I've said on the thread, or implying that I am trolling.

That's the kind of thing you'd condemn in others, so why do it? Why not accept that someone might - gasp - think differently from you, without that person being some kind of sinister troll with a hidden agenda?

VMisa

Yes, I agree with all that.