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).

Conceptually it's the same. You're equivocating. It strikes me as more abusive for narcissistic people to make others walk on eggshells around them.

There's no need to @ me, I've recently posted on the thread.

I'm presuming you would draw a line somewhere, right? Where would that be?

I absolutely agree that it's open to abuse but so is the alternative. I would draw the line at having to use honorary titles. If someone wants me to use a pronoun to describe them that I'm unfamiliar with, I'll still use it because that makes them comfortable on the understanding that I won't necessarily get it absolutely right initially, just as I would make every effort to address someone with a name that doesn't align well with the English language properly, even if their name sounds a bit silly to me (which I'd definitely keep to myself).

You've drawn a false dichotomy between wanting to please and making mistakes, and maliciously trying to upset someone. There's a third possibility and it applies to most GC women like me who don't like using preferred pronouns. I don't believe males are women. I don't want to pander to this worldview. I believe it's harmful, abusive when coerced, and damaging to women's rights. It's not personal.

If you are an atheist and it was mandated that everyone had to respectful to theological beliefs and use language which affirmed the existence of god "to make people feel comfortable" would you be ok with that?

I am an atheist and I have no problem addressing the clergy by the given titles of their particular order. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember a time when it was acceptable to call women things like bird, darling and love (in the sense that basically any HR employee would laugh at you for complaining) but I certainly can and I'm a lot happier with having to pander to the occasional person and having my wishes respected too when I'm being spoken to.

I don't believe that mistakes should be criminalised but a little tolerance and compromise goes a long way.

It's not about addressing them by their titles. Why are you so determined to avoid the issue?

Why can't you engage with the actual argument? You would draw a line, wouldn't you? There are limits on what you would pretend to believe to make people feel "comfortable" (yes having power over others probably does feel "comfortable). What are they?

I also found it hugely helpful when someone pointed out this "it's not so hard to find out and learn my pronouns" stuff is males demanding emotional labour from women, again.

This. Its pure narcissism. Not just a "social convention". I have no problem with addressing someone by whatever name they wish. That's their choice. They don't own pronouns that I use in the third person to talk about them to someone else.

I changed my first name some years ago, so I have no issue with people doing that and expecting others to accommodate that sort of change. That is courtesy.

There are times when I will be polite and use the pronouns that seem appropriate for an older transwoman; for example, in a situation at work.

But requiring me to use brand new words in general language as part of normal conversation, like ze, sir, fae etc, or getting pissy because I am not consistently using she for someone who is clearly a male is going way beyond expectations of politeness and is much closer to coercive behaviour and I will not encourage or support that sort of thing.

But requiring me to use brand new words in general language as part of normal conversation, like ze, sir, fae etc, or getting pissy because I am not consistently using she for someone who is clearly a male is going way beyond expectations of politeness and is much closer to coercive behaviour and I will not encourage or support that sort of thing.

Absolutely this. As I have said, it is personal to me as someone who has been subjected to coercive control in the past.

As is stated in this guidance, there are potentially an infinite number of pronouns. Instructing people as to their subjective, objective, possessive, and reflexive part will have an impact on description, language and communication. It will also be exclusionary for many people with significant consequences.

How would one know in many situations which pronouns to use? The function of pronouns is being changed by specific groups of people.
www.transstudent.org/pronouns101/

There's a third possibility and it applies to most GC women like me who don't like using preferred pronouns. I don't believe males are women. I don't want to pander to this worldview. I believe it's harmful, abusive when coerced, and damaging to women's rights. It's not personal.

Exactly.

It is narcissist to force someone to pretend they are what they are not, the politeness argument is their way of justifying their demands. There is no comparison with calling women derogatory terms and calling males him/he.

Also those that argue it is just polite to refer to male’s as she/her and disrespectful and mentally distressing to these men to refer to them as he/him never address the fact that it is disrespectful and mentally distressing to many women to hear a man being referred to as if he was a woman and that it feels to many of us exactly like gaslighting.

Neither do those who say it is just polite ever seem to address the issue of men who have a sexual fetish for being perceived as women and derive sexual thrill’s from being referred to as she/her. Do they think we all should just ignore that men can have this fetish? Do they think women should try to determine which men do and do not have this fetish before they agree to call them she/her? How do they propose to determine which men do and do not have these fetish motives? If they are not bothered about men having these sexual fetishes, would they also refer to a man who liked BDSM as ‘master’ if that was how he wanted to be addressed? I fail to see how it is reasonable to force women to be part of someone’s sexual fetish under the guise of politeness.

If they are not bothered about men having these sexual fetishes, would they also refer to a man who liked BDSM as ‘master’ if that was how he wanted to be addressed? I fail to see how it is reasonable to force women to be part of someone’s sexual fetish under the guise of politeness.

Yes exactly! I was going to use that example next!

Or indeed 'mistress'!

I'm sorry that I find it hard to draw an exact line, it's not an easy question to answer.

No, it's not. I didn't mean to criticise your view so much, it's your personal opinion, but I don't like the assumption by many that women's feelings about coercion and abusive behaviour are unimportant and that people's "identity" must be pandered to at all costs and it is reasonable that this should be enforced.

Really? It's not that challenging for me. I'll call people whatever they say their name is, but I won't accept being forced to use made up or inaccurate language through the threat of prosecution or appeals to 'politeness'.

Or indeed 'mistress'!

YY.

Like Hailey Heartless, the MTF "Domme" who lectured women at the Vancouver women's march about femininity and actively campaigns against women's rights and feminist organisations including Vancouver Rape Relief with pal and fellow abusive TRA Morgane Oger.

Sorry R0, italics fail

I don't like the assumption by many that women's feelings about coercion and abusive behaviour are unimportant and that people's "identity" must be pandered to at all costs and it is reasonable that this should be enforced.

Absolutely this.

I think sadly many women are so in the habit of prioritising men over themselves and other women, that it is automatic for many to empathise with how they think men may feel, and they are extra careful about not upsetting them. In contrast, most women are not used to prioritising themselves and other women, so often it doesn’t even occur to them that they may be harming women by going along with these male’s demands, even though they are women themselves. To prioritise women over men means going against female socialisation and internalised misogyny, I think this explains, to a large extent, why many women empathise with these men over women and tend to indulge these men to women’s detriment.

In contrast, most women are not used to prioritising themselves and other women, so often it doesn’t even occur to them that they may be harming women by going along with these male’s demands, even though they are women themselves. To prioritise women over men means going against female socialisation and internalised misogyny, I think this explains, to a large extent, why many women empathise with these men over women and tend to indulge these men to women’s detriment.

YYY. Spot on.

It does make you wonder what’s in the backgrounds of the most handmaideny of the handmaidens (the human shield contingent that the activists call on) that makes them willing to take on that role.

If a man wants to be addressed as 'darling' because that genuinely makes them feel comfortable, I don't see the problem.

I can understand that you do not care. What I cannot understand is the claim that you do not see the problem.
Give a moments thought to the cost to women of this kind of conditioning to obey men.
If you still do not see the problem, please read this.
yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/