Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Pronouns

141 replies

VincentVanLowe · 25/02/2016 23:15

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.

OP posts:
Hennifer · 26/02/2016 14:38

Plus what was she criticised for?

Answer: pretending to be/identifying as a black person and taking on a role supporting black people.

What is Anna Lee doing?

Answer: pretending to be/identifying as a woman and taking on a role supporting women.

Can you not see the parallel there

Hennifer · 26/02/2016 14:40

In fact the only difference I can see is that Rachel Dolezal never told anyone she is used to be white. And everyone knows Anna Lee is used to be a bloke.

So is it about disclosure? Is that all? Because I don't think Rachel Dolezal would have been accepted into the black community had she declared her white beginnings from the off, and still insisted on being regarded as black

Do you?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 26/02/2016 14:40

Well, to be honest we see these as two very different cases. Rachel Dolezal is an individual whose actions have been was widely criticised.

Eh? They both involve people of one sex/race identifying as another sex/race. Couldn't really get much more similar!

Hennifer · 26/02/2016 14:44

I suspect MN see them as very different because they are taking their lead from mainstream media.

Which is utterly depressing.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 26/02/2016 14:51

The difference is individual vs group

Hennifer · 26/02/2016 14:57

Okay.

Given that, is it correct to say that if there was only one person fighting for transgender men to be recognised as women, we could call them anything we liked on here?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 26/02/2016 15:00

Rachel Dolezal is an individual whose actions have been was widely criticised

The difference is individual vs group

So we should refer to Dolezal as black then?

Snowshimmer · 26/02/2016 15:11

What is malicious misgendering?
Posters who discuss transgender issues seriously and call male individuals "he" aren't necessarily doing it to be rude. They simply base their pronouns on sex, for clarity.
There are many here who do not believe in gender and lady brain and such things and it feels like we have to lie.

Also, men who brazenly claim to be women and to speak for women without even having modified their body may also really offend women and makes us think they're taking the piss.
There is also individuals I think most of us, no matter how polite, wouldn't want to call "she", ever - like Stephonknee the adult man who identifies as a 6-year old Lolita.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 26/02/2016 15:24

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Rachel Dolezal is an individual whose actions have been was widely criticised

The difference is individual vs group

So we should refer to Dolezal as black then?

No, apologies if i've been unclear. Rachel Dolezal is an individual, Transgenderism is a minority group of individuals. Rachel Dolezal is not part of a minority group.

PrettyBrightFireflies · 26/02/2016 15:28

rebecca can I clarify, too?

Do you mean a group of individuals that share a "protected characteristic" as defined by equality legislation, or any minority group?

OhShutUpThomas · 26/02/2016 15:34

The problem here, is that there really is no difference between what Dolezal did, and what transgender people are doing.

OhShutUpThomas · 26/02/2016 15:36

....they're just getting away with it on a bigger scale, and using scare tactics to bully others into toeing their line.

I would suspect that many individuals at MNHQ agree with us, but it is very hard when you are constantly under threat of litigation from these men.

And let's face it, women and a women's website will be an easy target legally.

MagicalRealist · 26/02/2016 15:37

So if a few more trans-black people came out of the woodwork then, everybody would be expected to respect their self definition and pretend that they were black, because this was now a minority group?

PrettyBrightFireflies · 26/02/2016 15:40

magical that's why I asked HQ for more clarification. If MN is referring to all minority groups, then it is an internal policy decision, whereas if it's only those groups of individuals which share protected characteristics, then it is their interpretation of the law.

AnnieOnnieMouse · 26/02/2016 15:55

You wouldn't call a particular 5ft 10, flat chested, deep voiced, bearded member of my family 'she'. It wouldn't occur to you to do so. You'd see him, and refer to him as male.
10 years ago he was still having to present as female, and sad as fuck for having to do so. He's now happy and settled.
You'd only be able to purposely use the wrong pronoun on someone who hasn't yet been able to transition fully, or whose body has been too badly affected by hormones.
I think the problem here is the unknown collective 'they', as used against any group we wish to 'other'. Yes, there may be some troublemakers amongst those, but it does not give anyone the right to dismiss and demean all of 'them'.

Hennifer · 26/02/2016 16:14

If I'd seen Rachel Dolezal in real life I would have assumed she was black, too. Does that make what she did Ok? Just because she was able to 'pass'?

I don't think this is a face to face issue we're debating. It's political and it's theoretical.

I don't think many men would mind a female person who passed as male using their restrooms. Women are physically, generally not a threat to men.

A man who 'passed' using a female restroom is a different thing because men are, by their nature and biology, something of a threat to women, and even if their behaviour and character are exemplary, this doesn't mean they couldn't be a threat if they decided to behave badly.

It is very sad for those men who are not an actual threat to have to be considered a potential one. I feel very sorry for them as I said before.

I don't think that makes it Ok for them to use women's private spaces, though.

WaitrosePigeon · 26/02/2016 16:16

I guess you should be able be able to. However isn't it just kind and good manners just to be polite?

I doubt you would call someone that opposite of what they want to be called to their face...

MagicalRealist · 26/02/2016 16:32

One of the things that muddies the water, in my opinion, is that there's no requirement for transwomen to have undergone any medical procedures whatsoever in order to claim transgender status. In fact, most don't. And there's no requirement to make any effort to present themselves as "feminine" ie to make any effort to pass.

So you've got fully intact adult males, often not looking even remotely female, who claim that they are women. And that's all they have to do - declare that they identify as female and that's it, everybody must accept this as fact. Questioning it is bigotry and misgendering them is violence.

BeyondBootcampsAgain · 26/02/2016 16:39

What about trans-abled people? Theres more than one of them...

BeyondBootcampsAgain · 26/02/2016 16:41

Any trans-able person who sits in a wheelchair (assuming they dont have trans-invisible-disabilities or trans-deafness... Hmm ) would have the much coveted amongst MTT "passing privilege"

Alisvolatpropiis · 26/02/2016 17:43

Possibly not Waitrose but I would possibly go out of my way to avoid referring to them by name or pronoun at all. Easily done in a one on one conversation.

WaitrosePigeon · 26/02/2016 17:55

I hope it would be easily done as I'm sure that person would be absolutely devastated if you called them something they wouldn't prefer to their face, especially your child for example.

Hennifer · 26/02/2016 17:55

No, as I said before, I would humour them Waitrose. I'm usually polite to people in person.

That's not the same thing as supporting legislating on their behalf, when it infringes on the rights of women.

Actually, what stands out to me about this entire issue is how arrogant it is to call yourself you're not and you cannot be.

I often feel like I could get away with redefining myself as a man. I have some traditionally male behaviours, wear 'men's' shoes and clothes regularly and do traditionally male things.

I would never, ever decide that I could therefore be a man. I would think that so disrespectful towards actual men.

Oppressed sex or not, they are men, they know what it is like to be a man, they have usually gone through things that most men go through, which aren't always a heap of fun.

For me to call myself an actual man, and demand everything, every recognition that went along with that, would be, in my mind, fraudulent, as well as disrespectful and arrogant in the extreme.

So why is it Ok for other people to do it? It's not. As long as you are quiet, discreet, don't cause any hassle for the people of the opposite sex, then you can probably get away with using their facilities and being treated as though you were of that sex. It's called going about your personal business. And you shouldn't be discriminated against for doing so.

But presuming to stand for them in a political arena, to demand you be included in their spaces, and to claim that you are, technically and legally and in every sense one of them, is utterly, completely wrong.

Hennifer · 26/02/2016 17:56

Actually, what stands out to me about this entire issue is how arrogant it is to call yourself something you're not and you cannot be.

WaitrosePigeon · 26/02/2016 18:14

I'm glad you and others wouldn't be cruel to someone's face.

I can't comment on the rest of your post though as I don't get involved in the ins and outs of trans stuff. As long as people care about the feelings of people on both sides then I'm all good.