Misgendering.

[FloralBunting]

I've been musing about this for some time, given that it's billed as almost the very worst thing you can do to some people.

I've been pondering why that is. Obviously there's surface level stuff about it not affirming or validating an identity.

But the offensive nature of it, as billed, is a really interesting idea that I am trying to get the the nub of.

It's been used as a comedy trope forever - Miranda being the most recent example that springs to mind. So I suppose there is an undercurrent of mockery, culturally speaking.

But why should being called by the pronouns of the opposite sex being a shameful or embarrassing thing? What are the psychologies in play here?

Women not being stereotypically feminine enough? Men not being manly? That's part and parcel of the comedy trope, and absolutely part of the gender binary that restricts everything.

What is nonsensical about the TRA attempted enforcement of pronoun usage is it's entirely the other way. The offence in the older version of getting someone's sex wrong was because you assumed their sex based on whether or not they confirmed to external stereotypes. If they didn't look sufficiently manly, they were female, which was a great insult for a man (which is probably the heart of why I find it distasteful - being assumed to be 'lesser' if thought of as female.)

But the newspeak offense of misgendering is not about mistaking someone for a sex they do not belong to. It's about correctly assessing their sex and then being shamed for noticing it.

'Tis probably too late to get any more clarity in my thinking here, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. ( Though I don't doubt at this late hour, I'll probably get some stirrers too).

I'm absolutely sincere, I don't think you're in any way a bad person just because you don't understand something and, while how you feel is entirely your business, I wouldn't want to contribute to any internal unpleasantness as the result of miscommunication or a misunderstanding.

It's you who doesn't understand.

It's really PA.

I actually don't believe this person is posting in good faith now. It would be strange to keep hammering it in how unevolved they think I am while acknowledging my personal reasons for my feelings otherwise.

It's you who doesn't understand.

I agree, there are things I don't fully understand. I was referring to your comment where you described yourself as 'bad' for not understanding.

how unevolved they think I am

I really don't think you're unevolved or mentally limited in any way. I was concerned there was some sort of misunderstanding and I wanted to clear everything up as much as possible.

I'm not an expert on transgender issues but my understanding is that it signifies a separation from binary gender options, in other words, both recognising their differences without encroaching on biological female space.

well, let’s see. Would you consider advising women attending a woman’s march not to centre the march around their reproductive biology not ‘encroaching on biological female space’?

mobile.twitter.com/munroebergdorf/status/954775972863193088?lang=en

How about the cotton ceiling, and telling lesbians, particularly young lesbians who may well be caught up in the ideology themselves, that unwillingness to sleep with transwomen with intact penises is transphobic? Is that ‘encroaching on biological female space’?

How about Marie Dean who was jailed for what the Guardian originally reported as a ‘string of burglaries’ but actually consisted of breaking into the bedrooms of teenage girls and filming themselves masturbaiting into stolen underwear? Bit of an encroachment, do you think?

At least Marie Dean is in a men’s prison. Jessica Winfield, formerly Martin Ponting and a double rapist, is now in a women’s prison. Would you say housing a rapist in with some of the most vulnerable women in society, who are themselves much more likely to have been victims of rape than the rest of society, is an encroachment on biological female space?

None of which is to say I think transwomen are all dangerous or sexual predators. I don’t. I think they show a pattern of violence that is far closer to male violence than it is to female.

Either you don’t know enough about the issue or you’re not posting in good faith.

The word of a narcissist is not the same status as that of the victim.

To insist someone calls them something, whatever the something is, apart from the convention of their given name, is dominance behaviour - a sure red flag. Why else do we have titles that enforce patriarchical hierarchy like Lord, Sir, HRH?

It's obedience training as had been said before.

@SingeBuggerCack

What you quoted was a discussion specifically about new (non-binary) pronouns rather than transgendered individuals as a whole. Sorry for the confusion and the resulting time spent composing your post.

Apropos of nothing, I continue to muse about my belief that Kleenex will never go out of business.

Gronky Not sure why you believe SingeBuggerCack's point isn't relevent to the discussion?

I've never understood this 'creating an identity' thing. My identity is me - I'm Vicky. I am, therefore I am.

R0wantrees I was specifically commenting on its relevance to the quoted post, rather than the discussion as a whole.

Sorry for the confusion and the resulting time spent composing your post.

No time wasted at all. I’m happy to do it and I think it’s always important to remind people, lurkers included, why this is important. Thanks for the apology though.

From the outside I used to think pronouns were a stupid battle to fight, that it wasn’t important in the scheme of things. It took recognising that much of transgender ideology is in fact massively misogynistic, and that it is an act of oppression for a member of an oppressing class (that of men) to identify into an oppressed class (that of women). Pronouns are the thin end of the wedge.

Do you for example think it’s acceptable for a court to demand that Maria MacClachlan (sp?) refer to the person who assaulted her as ‘she’ when she was giving evidence?

How about a hypothetical rapist and their victim?

In any case if you’re not that knowledgeable about the issues as you say then it’s pretty important to establish what the stakes are beforehand, isn’t it? So were you aware of the examples in my previous post, even if, in your opinion, they weren’t immediately relevant to the post I quoted?

What’s your take on them?

Regarding giving evidence in court, it seems like a no-win scenario because doing either could potentially prejudice proceedings in some way because each carries with it a specific set of beliefs (right or wrong, scientific or unscientific).

My concern coming into the discussion was that I've seen similar calls from the alt-right (e.g. Jordan Peterson) who aim to use the cloak of personal freedom to throw us back to the days where men were free to use incredibly dismissive language when talking to women.

Gronky

According to Stonewall, the definition of a transwoman now includes a man who is aroused by the thought of himself as a woman and gets a sexual kick out of getting people to call him she.

Would you still feel that it was a question of manners, in those circumstances?

where men were free to use incredibly dismissive language when talking to women.

I don't understand your equivalence with words like bird and love.

Those aren't factual epithets.

He, is.

Men are still free to use incredibly dismissive language when talking to women. It happens all the time, apparently without censure, up to and including doxxing, and death and rape threats.

terfisaslur.com

A number of male journalists have commented on how little abuse they receive compared to their female counterparts.

Using biologically accurate pronouns is not the same thing as abusive and offensive language.

What Gronky seems to be saying, is that if we refuse to obey men and address them as she, it’s our own fault if men call us whatever unpleasant misogynistic name they like.
Sounds very much like a veiled threat to me.
Basically do what we say or else > now look what you made us do.

Absolutely hotrocker

If an effective differentiation can be made then that seems like a good way to avoid the trap that's potentially being set.

HotRocker, an exploration of the potential pitfalls of a line of reasoning is not a threat. I'm going to assume good faith but rewording what I said to make it inflammatory feels uncomfortably close to gaslighting.

What ‘pitfalls’? The exploration you seem to be making is nonsense for a number of reasons which have already been brought up and which you haven’t responded to.

The use of biologically accurate pronouns is not equivalent to abusive and offensive language, and the mythical golden age you are suggesting we are living in in which women are free from abuse does not exist. Women are routinely discriminated against as a result of their biological sex on a massive scale. See the number of bosses who will avoid hiring women of childbearing age for one stark example.

Potential pitfalls, e.g. approaching it from a standpoint of purely personal freedom rather than freedom from harassment (highlighting the importance of presenting forced biologically incompatible pronouns as a form of abuse in itself). If you don't think misogynists are capable of turning what seems like straightforward option into a trap then you underestimate how much they hate women.

I don't believe we are living in a gold age free from abuse but I do believe that things are better now than they were. I can remember being openly asked about my intentions regarding pregnancy. I also acknowledge that it's possible that, because I'm an older, less attractive 'target' I now experience less abuse.

What ‘pitfalls’? The exploration you seem to be making is nonsense for a number of reasons which have already been brought up and which you haven’t responded to.

This.