Can we stop being obedient soon, or will this coercion continue for evermore?

[theOtherPamAyres]

I know that Mumsnet moderators are hot on keeping respectful debate and for that reason does not allow misgendering, certain terms, and the like. It's their site and they make the rules and I respect that. This topic isn't about Mumsnet, it's about the growing confidence of feminists to refuse to use the terms and language of gender.

Karen Ingala Smith, speaking to the Womens Select Committee, showed how it could be done. As a result of the clarity of her language, she was able to cut through the nonsense and make her points forcefully. In contrast, Janet from Womens Aid, with her convoluted language about gender, sounded confused and muddle-headed.

When we are forced to use words like 'transwoman' and 'she' - for fear of prosecution, civil actions, job losses, imprisonment for contempt of court, exclusion, abuse and physical assaults - we have helped to normalise transgenderism. In effect, we are saying that a man can be a woman.

I believe that we can no longer support Trans Rights by default, by caving in and going with the flow. At some stage we have to assert the right to use our own terms - because we can't wait for legal precedents and government reviews. The more refusniks and recusants there are, the more confidence will grow.

What tips and tricks of language did you start using when you could no longer kowtow to the demand for obedience?
How did you write or speak about people/men/women who identify as trans? (Did you see what I did there?)

Using an alternate word/phrase for a thing that only exists within one framework of knowledge lends it validity.

OTOH accepting its use outside that framework also lends it validity. TheOtherPamAyres' point about letting it slip unnoticed and un-questioned into the census is very important.

non-binary creeping into public policy, like the census

The fact we are picking it all apart in a lighted hearted, non judgemental way on this board shows we are looking at the problem from all angles.
The issue is no less serious.

We do it to keep focused.

As Ro and others have stated,
there are only 2 sexes.

The best response to any ambiguous term is to seek clarification and definition.
When definitions/explanations provided contain more ambiguous terms, clarification of those should also be sought.

I have a very woke friend who breifly defended the "right" of non-binary identified people to demand counter-intuitive (rohypnol inducing) "they/their/them" pronouns.

I basically said
"All Non-Binary people are all still either male or female because sex is a binary".
She actually understood that and saw through the bullshit. High five me.

Love this thread. I too would have completely missed Barracker's post had the furore not happened. Loving the own-goal AWAs.

The best response to any ambiguous term is to seek clarification and definition.

Absolutely right. But what if there are no Joan McAlpines to ask the questions at government level?

... the "right" of non-binary identified people to demand counter-intuitive..."they/their/them" pronouns.

What right does anyone have to demand a pronoun? The only pronouns that any individual can claim for his or herself are the first person singular I/me/my etc. All other pronouns reflect the speaker's interpretation of what they perceive. So the third person pronouns in fact belong to the speaker.

If mis-pronouning is an act of violence, then then speaker obliged to refer to a male as 'she' is

is the victim.

This has been a fantastic, thought provoking discussion. There have been a few things said that really made me sit up and question my own eagerness to try to be inclusive - particularly a comment that pointed out that this tends to always stem from trans women (I.e. people born as male) and it made me realise that whilst there may be genuine cases, I wonder how many times a case is faked simply to get control over women.

I cannot believe MN banned @Barracker for her comment (which was amazing!), even if only for a week. She deserves reinstatement immediately when the 'regular' staff are in AND an apology for the way she's been treated.

I had a look at this site, it brought the expression “gender entitled” to mind. (Why doesn’t “entitledgender” work?)
Here, first they seem to be saying pronouns have nothing to do with gender, and then claim that using them as directed by them isn’t optional.
Anyway, I think the word “entitled” is important in this discussion since that’s where so much of the drive to either shove this BS down our throats or slip it into our drinks is coming from...

www.transstudent.org/pronouns101/

“Note:
There are no “male/female” or “man/woman” pronouns. All pronouns can be used for any gender and are gender neutral.
We also do not use “preferred pronouns” due to people generally not having a pronoun “preference” but simply having “pronouns.” Using “preferred” can accidentally insinuate that using the correct pronouns for someone is optional.”

Absolutely right. But what if there are no Joan McAlpines to ask the questions at government level?

We can ask the questions at the levels we can access. Hopefully those who can't answer will start to do the same,

We should also not contribute to the normalising of contested terms and concepts.

Anyway, I think the word “entitled” is important in this discussion since that’s where so much of the drive to either shove this BS down our throats or slip it into our drinks is coming from...

Entitled & naive in some cases such as on student campus.

Entitled, manipulative and dangerous such as those grown men who are accessing girls and women's changing rooms because they want to and have found using a made up concept (non-binary) protects them from being correctly identified as exhibiting unsafe behaviour.

So the long weekend is over and I assume the regular moderators are back. Is Barracker back?? I hope MNHQ are addressing our concerns.

Using an alternate word/phrase for a thing that only exists within one framework of knowledge lends it validity.

Presumably the main use of the alternative word would be in providing translations for the online unwoke (hereafter known as OU).

Consider this Twitter conversation, started by a non-binary identifier, with an interjection from a passing mumsnetter (PM)

AWA: Hi, I’m Ponylegs and I’m non-binary.
OU: Sorry, what does non-binary mean?
AWA: It means wokey word salad bla-di bla most oppressed ever out of every person who ever existed ever.
PM: It means unisex.

OU (frowning) that makes no sense. He’s obviously a man. Nobody’s unisex.... wait, did he say most oppressed?

PM: It means unisex.

OU (frowning) that makes no sense. He’s obviously a man. Nobody’s unisex.... wait, did he say most oppressed?

I think that's wishful thinking.
Unisex is a a term that people recognise. Some people may pull up short and say 'nobody's unisex' others may start thinking about the 'unisex people'.

Unisex is used euphemistaically to disguise the fact that some toilets/changing rooms are mixed sex.

What would be the reaction if a changing room were acurately labelled 'men & women' as opposed to using indecipherable signs, 'all gender', 'unisex' etc?

So we’d be better sticking to “he means he’s neither male nor female”?

Unisex is used euphemistaically to disguise the fact that some toilets/changing rooms are mixed sex

Yes, words can be used as a disguise.

This reminds me of Little Red Riding Hood.
My, what big teeth you have grandma.

Yes. Better to highlight this is a belief system, rather than anything fact-based.

Agreed. 'He says he's not a man or a woman', sounds like the nuttiness it is.

What would be the reaction if a changing room were acurately labelled 'men & women' as opposed to using indecipherable signs, 'all gender', 'unisex' etc?

An aside, where I live, there are loads of mixed sex toilets appearing. Most have images rather than words.

Entitled, manipulative and dangerous such as those grown men who are accessing girls and women's changing rooms because they want to and have found using a made up concept (non-binary) protects them from being correctly identified as exhibiting unsafe behaviour.

Yes. Also: see the thread about the phone call to WYP (about a phonecall from WYP). Recently a police force has been warned because it fined a woman for wasting police time about her escalating ex, who subsequently murdered her. Abusive males have always weaponised authorities (police, family courts, etc) as abuse proxies. And yet police are now blind to this all over again because I identify as - if it's changing police perceptions as well as our perceptions, it's dangerous. Women will be hurt. Some may even die.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3596855-Expose-of-West-Yorkshire-police-force

Surely better to say 'he believes he's not male or female'.

YY
Also he wants you to pretend he's not male or female.
He wants you to ignore the fact that he's male