Ooh step back, India Willoughby is going to penetrate the Mumsnet debate

[ALittleBitOfButter]

Just saw on twitter that IW says will do radio interview about Mumsnet. Sorry can't link as on phone.

BTW I started a new thread on the legal status of misgendering, as it's such an important topic.

Gaslighting causes psychological harm, yes, that is well documented and recognised.
Does using pronouns or stating biological sex cause harm that is well documented? Specific recorded harms, I mean, not online survey answers.

The argument that misgendering someone is hateful is based on the idea that it causes them great distress, and this assumes they have gender dysphoria. What's the argument against misgendering (correctly sexing) a transgender person without gender dysphoria?

(I mean if someone called me 'he' I'd be a bit startled but I wouldn't feel attacked because there's nothing intrinsically derogatory about 'he')

My post stating that I will not miss-sex people and that I refuse to call men women has been refused.

I have been threatened with removal from Mumsnet if I do that again.

Men are not women. I will NEVER repeat that lie. I will NEVER call men "she" or acquiesce to the erasure of women.

Rosen
Perhaps it was not that I didn't use the word 'men' but more that I did make a distinction between 'male people' and 'women'?

I deliberately use male and female because they are scientific, anatomical terms.

Are we now told that we cannot use terms to describe our physical bodies and experiences? And the material reality of males and females?

Because if that is so, then all that Justine said today and in that Times article is simply bollocks.

We cannot debate if we are denied the language to do so

We need to know @MNHQ

At least allow us to know the language with which we are permitted to defend ourselves

sorry Rosen

The first sentence was yours. Thought I had quoted you

HairyBallTheorem Supermatch I think you're buying into the obfustication pushed by a lot of TRAs, namely that telling someone's biological sex is some sort of arcane scientific/medical specialisation that can only be carried out by sequencing someone's DNA. Whereas in actual fact the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever identifying other people's biological sex. It is after all how our species manages to reproduce without going extinct.

Yes you can usually tell someone's biological sex. You can tell all sorts of things about a person that if you vocalised about them would be rude.

Medicine and science has decided that some people need to transition and live as the opposite sex to which they were biologically born, in order to be (more) healthy and functioning. They identify as such in a way that so far, medicine and science has not been able to change. Doctors and the legal system in most countries have already established that. It may seem like 'having to play along' to you but it is considered a humane response by most.

I'm not saying we all need to be nice obedient compliant little things but most people have a standard of decency and respect towards other human beings that includes avoiding unnecessary cruelty and supporting people to reach their full potential.

So you can tell that probably most (not all) trans people were born a different sex. So what? You can see that some people are disabled or facially disfigured or short stature. That doesn't mean you have to keep referring to it in an offensive way. By deliberately using the other gender you are doing that.

AAngryAttackKittens
Well, no, the legal system does not in fact have the ability to change a person's biological sex

But it does, in fact, have the ability to change a person's legal sex. And our rights are those that are enshrined in law. That is true in the vast majority of civilised countries. For both points.

Do we need another Spartacus moment? It's starting to seem that way.

Please don't make people lie, MNHQ. It's one thing to ask users to avoid pronouns when possible, another entirely to require them to pretend that they believe the ideas that the preferred pronouns convey.

If the law says that a person can change sex then the law is wrong. Laws have been wrong before.

Thanks R0wantrees (I think!)

But it does, in fact, have the ability to change a person's legal sex. And our rights are those that are enshrined in law

What changing legal sex does is gives a person the legal right to be treated as if they were the opposite sex. It doesn't change their sex, because sex is immutable.

RosenbergW
I didn't use a pronoun at all. I used the word male.

That is in a nutshell what I said. Yes I was referring to a specific person and a specific situation but I didn't use pronouns or the word men.

Yes, so you referred to someone, who is possibly legally female, as male. Can you not see that is going to be considered offensive and harassment?

What about if we drop dictionary definitions into our posts

female ˈfiːmeɪl/Submit adjective 1.of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

So for example

Some people female ˈfiːmeɪl/Submit adjective 1.of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes are more likely to be low paid

But it does, in fact, have the ability to change a person's legal sex. And our rights are those that are enshrined in law.

Laws have been known to be wrong. Laws that seek to change reality are not only wrong, they are ridiculous.

The class of female ˈfiːmeɪl/Submit adjective 1.of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes are often socialized to be caregivers

You can see that some people are disabled or facially disfigured or short stature. That doesn't mean you have to keep referring to it in an offensive way. By deliberately using the other gender you are doing that.

No law states that we can't refer to a short person as short. It might be bad manners, but not illegal. Even for disability, which is a protected category, referring to a blind person as blind is not illegal.

A better analogy would be forcing us to call a blind person "person with 20/20 vision" or an anorexic "overweight".

Yes, so you referred to someone, who is possibly legally female, as male. Can you not see that is going to be considered offensive and harassment?

But being legally female doesn't give anyone a legal right to not be referred to as male does it?

Funny, Angry, I was just thinking that. I shall start a thread. If I get banned so be it.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain What changing legal sex does is gives a person the legal right to be treated as if they were the opposite sex. It doesn't change their sex, because sex is immutable.

It is indeed yes. But not legally immutable. And that is the basis of rights and the equality act.

And if you're constantly referring to a (legal) woman as male, then you are not treating them as if they were the opposite sex are you? You're still treating them as if they were the same sex? Hence you would be breaking the law. And presumably that is why mumsnet bosses do not want that going on round here.

I think it's ridiculous that MN is threatening WOMEN with removal to spare the feelings of men who are busy erasing our sex class protections.

The rights to not be distressed seem to have been assumed from those with dysphoria by all under the transgender umbrella, whilst (it seems to me) these simultaneously finding the assumption of dysphoria contentious. So perhaps this is how misgendering has become 'literal violence'?
I think this is why we should all be encouraging other people to listen to Seven Hex, Debbie Hayton Jacee etc... I understand they are organising to speak up. #TSRainCrew twitter.com/seven_hex/status/985219754540625921

BUT WE really need to focus on how a woman who was a victim of assault came to be pressured to use the pronouns as preferred by her attacker under oath and the wider implications of this (which are huge!)

I am short. If someone refers to me as short I will not send them death threats, or threaten to destroy their business, because I am not in denial about the fact that I am short. I might wish to be taller, but the body is what it is.

I think it's ridiculous that MN is threatening WOMEN with removal to spare the feelings of men who are busy erasing our sex class protections.

hiccup glitch

LOL, rufus. Every comment will be 500 words long and nobody will undestand what anyone else is on about, but hey, at least we're not being rude! Female socialization, engage!