Asking people to use preferred pro-nouns is abelist and discriminatory - what affects your ability to comply?

[DJLippy]

I wanted to start a thread because I am really going to struggle to stay within Mumsnet talk guidelines.

I struggle to use preferred pro-noun's with those who I genuinely don't believe are the sex they claim to be. Because I have dyspraxia pro-noun policing creates a barrier for my fluency. I have to stop and think to change the pro-noun. I can go back and edit my post for 'mistakes' to comply but I miss out on pro-nouns (again because of my disability.)

I have spoken to those with autism and they've told me similar things - that they genuinely find it difficult to lie.

I also think that it is difficult for those for whom English is a second language. Un-learning sub-conscious grammar structures is hard enough for English people - I can only imagine how much more difficult it must be for those from other countries.

I think this is a real issue when Mumsnet creates a three strike rule. I have stopped posting since the new rule change because I honestly and truly do not mean to break rules - I can't abide by this code and I don't always have the mental energy to police my sub-conscious like this.

Does anybody else have a reason (other than the fact that they don't agree) that they find it difficult to follow the new language laws? Is it right that social media platforms and public institutions create more barriers for those who are already disadvantaged?

Maybe @MNHQ can take a more tolerant view where someone makes a genuine mistake regarding misgendering then. I think most people would be in favour of that and of showing sympathy towards people who struggle with the new rules. At the same time, nearly all online forums have posting rules that people have to follow even if they personally find it difficult.

I don’t think MNHQ have any idea how stressful this is.

I suspect that they are inundated with reports to go through.

If you have autism or dyslexia or ptsd etc then you could argue you are disabled. You have protections from policies which subject you to a detriment due to the consequences of your disability (pronoun use)

I’d say at top of my posts or in my username that I’m autistic if I were you.

This is a helpful explanation of the law www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/discrimination/dad.htm

I am fully supportive of the disabled community and would love to see a more open approach to communication.

No, you are not. You are patronising and unhelpful. As a person with autism, I can say that you are making communication more difficult and onerous for us to suit your own political agenda.

Quick point, the OP asked if anyone else had reasons why the newspeak would be hard to comply with:
Does anybody else have a reason (other than the fact that they don't agree) that they find it difficult to follow the new language laws?

So autism is in-scope.

I agree with OP - it's a sad thing when some try to force others to call a person by a label which they do not appear to belong to ... it's not malicious or evil, it's people using familiar labels as they have done all their lives. EG if my neighbour announces that he is a giraffe and I have to use that label for him, then I would decline to do so but surely if he is free to choose a name/label for himself, then I am free to choose to use or not use it? Free country and all that??

I totally get that SA! My apologies once again. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

I regularly middle words. Sometimes this will present in wronfly ordered sentences (Sat he on her lap). Sometimes I will switch objects (her lap sat on him). And sometimes I will switch subjects (she sat on his lap). Obviously this occasionally results in misgendering. As far as I aware I don't have any disabilities but none the less I am very prone to linguistic mistakes.

I do not misgender - only correctly sex !!

Misgendering is pretty much accepted as being offensive

By who? Not by many of the people on this thread. I find it offensive to be compelled to lie about material reality, especially when that lie serves to obfuscate the risks (e.g. unwanted pregnancy and post-coital cystitis) posed to women by the subject of the lie. Calling someone a woman when they can impregnate a female partner obfuscates the risk posed by their ability to impregnate and obfuscates the need for that female sexual partner to navigate contraception, which often comes with health risks.

If trans activists gave a shit about women's health and safety, they would stop claiming to be women and lesbian.

My issue is that some posters started off by saying "I can't do this because of X".

When a person says they cannot do a thing it does not mean they will never be able to do the thing.
You are taking issue over something that is a simple statement of fact about their situation in the here and now.
This is a misunderstanding, I think.
It would be good for you to work on your listening skills if you do indeed work with children.

Usually when language changes there are no repercussions for using the old meaning alongside the new. In the case of pronouns, he and she still mean the same, and those requesting new pronouns are not wanting to change their fundamental meaning, in fact they desire the opposite.

Being unwittingly rude is not the same as having to lie about something. I’m overweight. If someone tells me I’m fat, I get a bit hurt. Them changing their language to say plus-size, cuddly, bigger boned, curvy, or not saying anything, to not hurt me doesn’t change the fact that I’m still fat!

I’d say at top of my posts or in my username that I’m autistic if I were you.

WHAAAAAT!

Can't you see how ridiculous such a suggestion is? What do I do in social situations/at work or college? Maybe they should make special labels that we can all wear so that I can be excused for my wrong think in public.

My issue is that some posters started off by saying "I can't do this because of X".

I just had a quick scan (up to mousses first post)and couldn't see anyone doing that. I saw posts referring to struggling, or can with difficulty... not people being defeatist but finding the combination of rules which are contextual and/or don't allow for truthfulness with the 'three strikes' sanction very hard to deal with.

those requesting new pronouns are not wanting to change their fundamental meaning, in fact they desire the opposite.

Except that they are trying to change the fundamental meanings of "man" and "woman" and "boy" and "girl".

Man: the objective definition of "adult human male" becomes the subjective circular definition "anyone who feels that they are a man".
Woman: the objective definition of "adult human female" becomes the subjective circular definition "anyone who feels that they are a woman".
Boy: the objective definition of "juvenile human male" becomes the subjective circular definition "anyone who feels that they are a boy".
Girl: the objective definition of "juvenile human female" becomes the subjective circular definition "anyone who feels that they are a girl", including fathers in their fifties.

My son would struggle enormously with these pronouns. He uses he and she interchangeably. His special needs affect every aspect of his life. I cannot just magically identify him out of it. I wish I could, sometimes, when I see him struggling to communicate.

The last time I left MN it was over a thread which MN allowed to stand where people were very offensive about children with special needs. One wonders why that is tolerated, but there is all this fuss about pronouns for trans people.

Except that they are trying to change the fundamental meanings of "man" and "woman" and "boy" and "girl".

And by extension, the pronouns that go with those words. "He/him/his/himself" are the pronouns for boys and men, whilst "she/her/hers/herself" are the pronouns for women and girls. Changing the definition of man, boy, woman, and girl changes the meaning of the associated pronouns.

Being unwittingly rude is not the same as having to lie about something. I’m overweight. If someone tells me I’m fat, I get a bit hurt. Them changing their language to say plus-size, cuddly, bigger boned, curvy, or not saying anything, to not hurt me doesn’t change the fact that I’m still fat!

That's an utter false analogy. Unless the person speaking is your healthcare professional, they have no business mentioning your size at all. I would be just as offended by someone calling me "cuddly" as I would by "beached whale", not because of their language but because it's not their business. By contrast, we all have to refer to people by third-person pronouns, and trans ideology forces us to lie when referring to a trans person.

This is often not the case and people can be taught, can change and can adapt and can work successfully.

Why should they? In the case of pronouns, I imagine that PPs have better things to do than learn how to use missexed pronouns. Assuming that it is even possible for all of them to do so.

Using sex-corresponding pronouns is not necessarily a sign of hostility towards trans people. The better solution would be for MN policy to recognise this.

Misgendering is pretty much accepted as being offensive

No it's not.

Beilng bullied and manipulated into lying is offensive to me, though.

What people always seem to ignore or minimise with pro-noun policing is how subconscious they are. In the past I have altered my vocabulary because a paticular word was offensive or problematic. After a couple of corrections you can generally stop using these words.

My issue with pro-nouns is how difficult they are to re-programme. I often use pro-nouns erratically now. e.g. Shon Faye - who I definitely consciously think of as a man - I often use female pronouns for them. I never go out of my way to use one form of pro-nouns - I shouldn't have to.

While I disagree with the banning of such terms as...can I even say this? Rhymes with trans-identified Kale. I can easily modify my language and begrudgingly use transwoman instead. Pro-nouns are so much more difficult to use in a 'politically correct' way.

DJLippy

If Mumsnet knows you have a disability then it cannot apply the same policy requirements on you as it would on non disabled posters (reasonable adjustment)

Likewise in the workplace or in the Labour Party etc.

No intention to offend, trying to think of practical suggestions to help people here. You need to disclose that you are disabled to be protected.

Personally I have PTSD issues and might contemplate mentioning it in my username if I thought I was likely to break the “rules” because of it. But I’m not a prolific poster and fairly slow tempered so probably not going to get into debates.

My apologies if I have offended anyone

The thing is, the meaning of pronouns isn't changing - it's not like all males are now she and vv. The rule of what is appropriate varies by each person so we are not just learning one new rule and that's it.

It requires real cognitive dissonance to - for some people only, not as a blanket rule - talk about penises and yet call a person "she". Even when it is possible to triple check your post and make sure you are writing what you mean to in the correct-speak way, it takes a chunk up of emotional energy that others don't even think about.

Woman run site, tells feminists to spend even more of their mental load on men than they do already...

@Elletorro

How will MN know if I'm being genuine or not? I can self-ID as dyspraxic - anybody could. Do I need to provide medical certification to MN? I would not be willing to do that on a matter of principle it's not their business - that level of disclousure is only really appropriate for people like my employer.

Some clarity would be good @MNHQ - can you give some feedback as to what adjustments (if any) you are prepared to make for those with protected characteristics? What evidence would we have to provide?