Pronouns

[VincentVanLowe]

Can mumsnet please clarify, will posts be deleted if they do not use a person's 'preferred pronouns'?

The idea that people can choose their pronouns is very new and specific to the ideology of transgender activists in English speaking Western culture. I do not share this ideology and I use pronouns in the generally accepted, historically consistent, biologically accurate way. As far as I am aware it is not illegal to use pronouns this way, and certainly the general population, medical doctors, academics and other groups continue to use pronouns in the usual way rather than in the way currently popular amongst trans activists and tumblr bloggers. So - is it acceptable for us to choose not to use 'preferred pronouns' if it conflicts with our own ethical frameworks?

Many thanks.

Here, try this website: lmgtfy.com

Actually I think people are being amazingly patient with your goady fuckwittery.

But I am off to bed so you'll have to get someone else to be your PA because you're too lazy to Google stuff yourself

No, I want to see if forcing people to use the language of a fringe ideology even when it conflicts with their own deeply held beliefs (and physical facts) is actually the intended purpose of the legislation, or whether it us being misinterpreted in order to bully people into repeating dogma.

Goodnight, thanks for all your help :)

I think the extract from the website above does clarify things quite well.

If any member of MN refers to a transsexual member in a way that transsexual says is offensive to them, then that is harassment.

However, it is not possible to harass a collective, unidentified group. So saying that "all trans-woman are men" is not harassment.

The grey area comes when a poster refers to a public transsexual figure by a pronoun that others find offensive. That isn't harassment. It is not possible to harass someone if they are not 'present'. However, as this is an open forum, it is reasonable to assume that the person may be present. Whether or not they are harassed is something only they can confirm.

I understand the need for MN to remain on the right side of the law, but would like to see all potential harassment treated in the same way - and that means that if any poster is offended by something another posters have written about them, then it should be removed.
If the moderation of other forms of harassment is not as robust as moderation of transsexual harassment, then that in itself could be viewed as sexual discrimination.

I can't see how someone else's gender preference actually has any effect on anyone else?

I used to think this too.
It's actually INCREDIBLY damaging to women. Read the thread currently running in feminism chat about the trans NUS candidate.
More and more men are invading the space of women, quietly taking away our rights, safe spaces, and women specific roles, and we're supposed to just stfu and go along with it?

They had a conference on FGM cancelled because it was offensive to trans people to talk about something that not all 'women' could experience (ie those who are biologically male). We're supposed to be fine with this; wouldn't want to upset them!

They are pushing for the law to be changed so that anyone with a penis (ie men) can get changed in the girls changing rooms, use the girls toilets, and stay in rape crisis centres. We're supposed to be fine with this; wouldn't want to upset them!

They are trying to appropriate women centred roles, such as 'women's officer,' so that rather than an actual woman with actual woman experiences, we have a biological male pushing the trans agenda. We're supposed to be fine with this; wouldn't want to upset them!

They are trying (and have managed, in North America) to change language in maternity services so that midwives can't use the word 'woman' they have to say 'pregnant individual' instead, so as not to offend trans people.
Yes, really. We're supposed to be fine with this; wouldn't want to upset them!

They want to be allowed to compete in female events in sport, with their biologically male bodies obviously having a huge advantage over women who have trained and fought for years for a level playing field.
We're supposed to be fine with this; wouldn't want to upset them!

They don't want to be women. They don't want to join us as equals and help to fight our fights. That's been proven.
They want to change the definition of woman to suit them, and sod our suffering.
These trans activists aren't fighting for more trans rights - I'd gladly support that. They want to REMOVE rights from women and take them for themselves.
They're not fighting for trans rape crisis centres. I'd gladly support that. They want to take OUR rape crisis centres.

Well I for one have had enough. This is just biologically male people yet again telling women how to behave, to shut up, to fuck off, and to toe their fucking line. More and more people are beginning to realise this.

I'm happy to support anyone's rights - but not at the expense of the rights of half the population.

This is far bigger than pronouns, but I for one won't call a man a woman. I'll say 'they.'

"I think I have the right to use language in a way that can be clearly understood, is honest, and fits with my own understanding of the world.
What right does anyone have to deny me that?"

The Equalities Act for a start. Because bullying/harassment, as pointed out above, is decided from the POV of the person on the receiving end.

There are many people who think certain racial descriptions are accurate and fit their understanding of the world. They are rightly restrained fro using them at will, or publishing them on Mumsnet.

I miss the days when the only transgender person in the public consciousness was Hayley. Who was consistently 'she' on prime time TV.

There are many people who think certain racial descriptions are accurate and fit their understanding of the world. They are rightly restrained fro using them at will, or publishing them on Mumsnet.

Interesting you use the racial comparison - because if, for instance, a white man blackened his face, identified as a black person, and insisted on their right to be referred to as "black", the law would not protect him.

Yet a white male can wear a dress and wig, identified as a woman, and insist on their right to be referred to as a woman, and the law does protect them.

When transracialism becomes a protected characteristic in British law, then yes there would be the same protection.

At present it is not included.

That other groups do not at present have the same legal protection is not somehow an excuse to harass or demean those which do.

And the law in England and Wales (and I think the other home nations too) is entirely framed in terms of assessment from the point of view of the recipient of the behaviour, not the perpetrator.

OhShutUpThomas
Brilliant post.
Sums up exactly how I feel about it all.

Sir is a title the same as Mr or Mrs surely

I detest being forced to call someone who is male 'she' or 'her'.

That's biologically incorrect and as such it's a lie.

People can pretend to be whatever the hell they like, but a man who was born male and remains male, biologically, cannot be female and thus calling him 'she' or 'her' is incorrect.

I won't do it. I may go along with the pretence if it occurs face to face. I will not do it during generic discussion.

I'd rather have every post I make deleted than do that.

Further I consider gender dysmorphia to be a real, and horrible condition which I wouldn't wish on anyone.

But it doesn't make the person a different biological sex. I would feel very, very sorry for them but I wouldn't consider their wish to be female (if they weren't) credible any more than I would consider Rachel Dolezal to be black, and to treat her as such, accord her the rights of black people or any validity in occupying their spaces.

What's the difference?

The Equalities Act does not require us to tell lies or say we believe men could be women and it would be an Orwellian state of affairs if it did.

I do not think that this is a correct interpretation of the law. A quick Google shows all sorts of UK run media and forums who continue to use correct pronouns in their coverage of trans related news. None of them appear to be being threatened with the law or have been taken to court over their use of correct pronouns.

It is interesting that people refusing to use vocabulary in a way that is not widely accepted, and in fact reverses the generally understood meaning, is being called harassment by trans activists. Typically harassment would imply that a person is being targeted repeatedly with physical and verbal manipulation and bothering; what harassment means on the pronouns issue is "refusal to validate my feelings or do what I say". I feel harassed into lowering my boundaries and my daughters boundaries, against our will; I feel harassed and bullied into using language in a way that is dishonest and misogynist. I don't suppose it matters if women feel harassed?

I think that this is a misinterpretation of the law. I looked through the equality act rather than the guidance and didn't see any pronoun protection clause. If I missed it please help me out?

I wonder also if this only applies when using English?

Calling a biological male a man is not "humiliating" them. It's a fact.

Fantastic post, OhShutUpThomas

(Un)surprisingly, I can't say I've noticed the same surge of appropriation of male spaces and roles when it comes to female-to-male transgender

Interesting you use the racial comparison - because if, for instance, a white man blackened his face, identified as a black person, and insisted on their right to be referred to as "black", the law would not protect him.

It's more than that.

It's the same as a white person blacking themselves up in a caricature of what they consider 'black' to look like (much like most trans people do to women - they tend to dress not like most women, but more like their fetishised idea of a woman; big boobs blonde hair skimpy clothing), then:

• telling black people how hard it is to be be black

• receiving awards for 'black person of the year,'

• running for leadership positions in organisations about racism etc

• banning talk on slavery, as as a white black person it's not something they have experienced

• and lastly, shouting 'RACIST!!' at any actual black person who dares to say, 'er, but aren't you white?'

Laughable, isn't it?

BUT THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO WOMEN.

And because it's men doing it to women, it's allowed. Obvs.

One problem with using preferred pronouns is that it becomes difficult to explain, for example, why a male individual running for NUS women’s officer is offensive and/or a problem if we must call him "her", like this person were just another ordinary woman. The problem becomes invisible that way.

I can't say I've noticed the same surge of appropriation of male spaces and roles when it comes to female-to-male transgender

Well one, women wouldn't do it because they don't grow up with male privilege, and two, the men wouldn't stand for it.

Should one of us paint a tash on and run for MRA president?

sex and gender-reassignment are both protected characteristics.

The clash here is that I would say he/she is based on sex, and others would say they're based on gender.

In any case, basing them on sex is common and correct usage, and I can't see how it can be harassment personally to continue that usage.

You know, I fully support the rights of people who like to dress in a way they think society will perceive as 'female', not to be harassed for it. I don't think anyone ought to be getting harassed for their personal preference in clothing or appearance or whatever.

I just think that if this is the goal of trans activists, they are going about it all wrong, by trying to validate the dysmorphic status as 'woman' when in fact wanting to be, or identifying as, the opposite sex, does not make a person validly that sex.

It is what it is. They want to be female. They are not female, even if they have hormone treatment and surgical procedures to remove their penis.

They can never actually be female.

I think it's really sad to suggest that accepting them as female is the way forward. In interpersonal terms, it would be called 'humouring' someone.

That's different.

Humouring people's dysmorphic condition does not go as far as redefining the rules for everyone else, too. And it shouldn't.

I would be the first person to stand in front of someone dressed like Anna Lee, and try to protect them if they were being got at or threatened by someone, in a real life situation. Nobody deserves that. They have a human right to be treated with respect and not subjected to violence or humiliation.

When it comes to politics however, mine could not be further from theirs, and I will use whatever tools I have to hand to fight what they are trying to do to women.

OhShutUpThomas - what a spot on post. I am just astounded by the NUS situation.

So, just to clarify, is it illegal to refer to a transwoman as "he"?

Not yet magical.