Fed up of this 'new speak' AIBU?

[changedforanswer]

New speak to keep some people happy and not offend or misgender is becoming common practice but goes against reality. I'm totally fed up of it and will not use this type of speak. Brendan O'Neill has written a critically acclaimed new book about this 'new speak' Some of the things below that have been said in court/written in headlines or people say to avoid upsetting men and their fragile realities.

"Ex-soldier exposed her penis and used wheelie bin as sex toy in public', said a headline in Metro in April 2022"

"A Glasgow-born sex offender has admitted exposing her penis', said the Daily Record"

"Teesside Live, which covers Middlesbrough, the part of the UK in which this mammalistic anomaly reportedly whipped out her phallus, went all out. 'Teesside woman accused of exposing penis', its headline declared."

"She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, while masturbating from a property window,' readers were informed."

AIBU - you should go along with it to keep the individual happy.

YANBU - it's a load of rubbish, don't join it.

This is a strange one "the Daily Mirror published a hagiographic piece about a 'woman who spent thousands of pounds transforming her body', but decided to 'keep her penis'. She then 'realis[ed] she is a lesbian'." How the heck can the person be a lesbian, since born male! The individual has a penis and fancies women, doesn't a lesbian make.

I can’t make head nor tail of that

Yanbu.

"'Her penis was erect and sticking out the top of her trousers.'
Her penis. Her trousers. Even the violent, rapacious tormentors of women are afforded the titles 'she' and 'her' if that is what they desire. Even the assaulters of females are addressed in feminine terms, as they please. They rape you and they get your pronouns."

Neither can lots of people. Be careful though, if you are raped and the man decides he wants to be a women you have to refer to him as a woman and use his new pronouns of she/her etc. It's an odd society we currently live in. Defies biological truth.

...This Brendan O'Neill?

Sure. Sounds legit.

O'Neill has characterized the increasing acceptance of homosexuality as "queer imperialism" in terms of LGBT rights being promoted to Russia by western activists.[16][17]

Few tidbits in there too about how he says racism is totally fine in football and we shouldn't correct climate change.

It's fucking pathetic. I would not EVER be enforced to call someone who raped me, 'she' or 'her'.

'Her penis' is a fucking sick joke on women. I'm fed up with it all.

Even the political class has succumbed to the cult of her penis. '[Some] women were born with penises,' says Labour's Stella Creasy. I didn't know females could be born with a penis!

It’s not new-speak. It’s the result of the hijacking of the LGB by men’s rights activists, and the brainwashing “be kind”.

No woman has a penis, no human has changed sex, we are living in an era where acceptance has to be 100% validating or it’s seen as bigotry, and too many have gone along with it.

Few tidbits in there too about how he says racism is totally fine in football and we shouldn't correct climate change

You are allowed to agree with SOME stuff people say, even if you don't agree with EVERYTHING they say.

Did you not know that?

Imagine having been raped and then having to use terms to keep a rapist happy her/she/ the victim has to go along with this. It's pretty disgusting that a rapist gets to dictate this and the poor female victims have no say.

I didn't know that and would not condone that. However, one might assume the author of the book might be right on somethings - maybe this particular subject of how we are told to speak now, denying reality.

Indeed, my point too.

I always thought that only a man could rape since to rape is to use a penis.

However, "some police forces in the UK log even rapes as having been committed by women if the male culprit identifies as female.
'Police forces let rapists record their gender as female,' as a report in The Sunday Times said.
'This undoes the very meaning of rape, which in English and Welsh law is defined as an offence in which a person 'intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis', where that other person 'does not consent to the penetration'.
His penis. It's there in the democratically made law. And yet in practice – in courtrooms, in police stations – her penis is substituted where the rapist is under the delusion that he is a woman."

So if you have delusional thoughts that you are a woman then you can have the crime recorded as being committed as a woman - so rape! Madness.

His penis. It's there in the democratically made law.

It really isn't. The law is not as hung up on pronouns as you seem to be:
Section 6 Interpretation Act:"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—
(a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;"

I quoted that phrase. His penis. I'm not a lawyer but I did a quick check and found:

The definition of RAPE under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 says:

"Rape(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

If says HE not her

I thought that women couldn't rape men since they don't have a penis? Or is that the old way of things/

UK solicitors Bastian Lloyd state:

"As already pointed out, according to the law, only a biological man can commit the offence of rape."

I didn't copy the whole of their reasoning but you can look it up here :

I wonder how that will affect crime stats and worry how it will be used to harm and disadvantage women with an increase in violent and sexual crimes from "women".

A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)
he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)
B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)
Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)
Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Indeed. They are reported as women comitting these crimes "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11968145/Trans-pervert-Jane-Beck-groped-two-women-exposed-penis-work-video-call-jailed.html

But again it's not a biological women that committed the crime.

OP, you say you "will not use this type of speak"

Are you referring to this one, extreme example? Or to all uses of pronouns which seem incorrect to you?

If it's the latter, then YABU. It's 2023! Transgender people or people who use alternative pronouns have the right to be referred to as they wish. It's really not a big deal, and I genuinely can't understand why people get so worked up about it.

If it's the former, this example is not typical of transgender or gender fluid people. Be worked up about it if you have the time and energy. But to turn it into a debate about pronouns seems odd imo.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 sick of the lot of it. Let them call themselves what they like just don’t expect me to join in. It’s pumped down our throats as the norm now

Transgender people or people who use alternative pronouns have the right to be referred to as they wish.
No, no-one has the right to compel other people's speech. It is a courtesy to use preferred pronouns, not a right that someone can demand.

It's really not a big deal, and I genuinely can't understand why people get so worked up about it.
It is a big deal to many people, for various reasons. You need to do some reading around the subject.

I would take a jail sentence for contempt before I called a man she/her in a court of law