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?)

But if is it important to speak out the truth as I see it, and this thread has really shown me how important it is, how can I deal with the possible consequences of that?

There's only one way to eat an elephant and that's in small bites

I think you have to start small to minimise the risk of sanctions and worse. For instance, 'transwoman' has to disappear out of your vocabulary completely. There are ways of being truthful, without causing a great stir:

• a man who identifies as trans
• a trans person

There are other terms that are against Mumsnet's rules, so I won't risk elaborating. Karen Ingala Smith is relaxed about using them in front of the Select Committee (see different thread)

When I've used them in real life, I've had a couple of people look at me with expressions of 'did she just say what I she think she said? Are we allowed to say that?' but nothing more. And it felt good to resist.

HairyLittlePoet is still around, terryleather.
She posts under another name unless there's a poem to be shared.

That's good to know Barracker..

- a man who identifies as trans

We used to have extremely useful (and factually true) acronyms for Trans-Identified-Males and Trans-Identified-Females but they were banned. MN caved in. We are not allowed to speak the truth.

I agree with PP, it's utter insanity that you get your right to speech (on internet and real life platforms) removed, for correctly gendering a person.
It's like being gagged. Seriously restricted. A form of bondage.

I usually opt for neutral ways to refer to a person who is male but wishes to be called a lady or whatever, such as by their initials, or "they".
And I have often used the technique of using "they" as a singular eg

"I just think they is obviously misogynistic and quite abusive, and seeing as they hasn't been reprimanded at all by anyone in the LP it looks like they is being enabled to continue with no repercussions at all so they has no reason to change their behaviour or be nice themself"

It's weirdly satisfying.

But if is it important to speak out the truth as I see it, and this thread has really shown me how important it is, how can I deal with the possible consequences of that?
and
There's only one way to eat an elephant and that's in small bites

The small wonderful everyday things we can do in conversation.

If we are aware and we can help make others aware, nobody can stop us.

The consequences really are quite minimal.

I was referring to real life conversation though.

I'm trying to remember the posters who made an impression on me when I first found my way here over five years ago...a good few are still here but I remember DonkeySkin and CoteDAzure, HairyLittlePoet too.

I saw Donkeyskin on a thread a couple of days ago. Can't remember which one.

There are other terms that are against Mumsnet's rules, so I won't risk elaborating. Karen Ingala Smith is relaxed about using them in front of the Select Committee (see different thread)

@MNHQ - given the whole debate in the thread - of the importance of language and impact of compelled speech, might a review into the terms we can use on FWR be timely?

Karen Ingala Smith respectfully explained why she chose not to use the term 'transwomen' to the Women and Equalities Committee. She used the factually correct (and to me, more neutral) 'trans -identified M/ F' term instead. The Committee accepted her reasoning and were happy with the term. Given this, doesn't it seem out of step that we cannot use these terms on MN?

I believe Transgender trend are also firm on correctly sexing people.

Compelled speech shouldn't be something Mumsnet support. It's coersive.

Excellent point. If biologically and linguistically accurate language is acceptable to a government agency, why is it banned here?

I believe Transgender trend are also firm on correctly sexing people.

Its good practice not to confuse children whose cognitive and linguistic development is well estalished but disrupted by adults who reinforce untruths.

See article by Kate Alcock (senior psychology lecturer Lancaster University) based on her speech at Lancashire ReSisters meeting about Safeguarding:

'Young children, reality, sex and gender'

concludes:
"But it isn’t a complete answer — some children can understand that men have penises and women have vaginas, but still think that changing clothing makes a girl into a boy, if they also think that a cat wearing a dog mask has become a dog. In other words, to get to a mature understanding of sex constancy you need to understand what makes a boy and a girl, biologically, and also understand that the underlying essence of a thing isn’t dependent on its appearance.

Now we come to the present day and the transgender agenda. Parents are, by and large, reasonably happy for their children to do things that are outside the range of what’s generally in the “allowed” stereotypes for their sex. That is to say, mums are happy whatever their children do and dads are happy for their girls to do “boy” things. Dads are much less happy for their boys to do “girl” things or wear “girl” clothes. This is 100% no doubt linked to the devaluing of things to do with women — lower pay, lesser status, “run like a girl” is an insult, “man up” a positive suggestion.

But of course children have their own preferences and influences and they like doing what they like doing even if that happens to be something their parents think isn’t “right” for their sex. It’s called personality. So, even when children realise that boys are “supposed” to like cars and wear jeans and have short hair, they may not actually want to do that if they are a boy.

So we now have children like “Lily”, here shown on the Victoria Derbyshire programme. Lily is 6. Six year olds think that if you change your clothes, you change sex. Lily therefore thinks that putting on a dress makes you into a girl. Literally makes you into a girl. Not “means your inner gender essence is a girl”. Literally changes your sex.

So, if we go back to the study that Mermaids quote above⁴, on young children “knowing what their gender identity was” — let’s unpack that a bit more.

Children know what they like. When society and the world tells them that the things they like are those that boys like — but they have been told in words that they are a girl — well, that’s easy. They already know that having short hair makes you into a boy. They know that playing with cars makes you into a boy. So it’s easy! Boy all the way. And their version of the world, at their age, means that changing sex is totally possible."
medium.com/@katieja/young-children-reality-sex-and-gender-3421f4f165f1

Its good practice not to confuse children whose cognitive and linguistic development is well estalished but disrupted by adults who reinforce untruths.

Definitely not a good idea to shame children who correctly assess a person's sex and use the pronouns appropriate the English language.

Yeah

I. Use their surnames. I hate having to lie and pretend

And forcing kids to lie is just wrong

How can we teach them about boundaries if they have to lie

That girl in your class is no t really a boy. Total and complete lie

What happens though is that parents/teachers/adults are coerced to modify their language. They then are naturally are likely to pass this modified way of expression to children.

We understand the world we live in by language.

Coercive language modifications do, as Jess Bradley claimed, change the world.

Yes rowan.

It’s not legal in law for any child to be trans anything

Schools shouldn’t be putting up with this coercion

Actually nobody should
I hav3 gone from being kind to seeing how damaging this is
drawn my boundaries.
No erasion of women and girls as a sex to satisfy anyone

Quite agree Littl
And agree with R0
As Lang said, way back in this thread and I repeated. We should all use a persons correct sex.

See current thread and the way that women's single se services have been compromised in Scotland.

Language plays a significant role here
So too manipulation and coercive control.

Its dangerous and will always impact those most vulnerable first and with more profound consequences: children, vulnerable adults, women in hospital, prisons, refuge, homeless services.... those who have been impacted by sexual abuse / male violence.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3597742-Forth-Valley-Rape-Crisis-Centre

I haven't used terms pertaining to my sex about people not of my sex ever since MNHQ brought in the Special Trans Rules. I asked for acceptable terms that did not appropriate my sex at the time, but answer came there none from MNHQ.

So it can be done.

But the whole point of this thread is that even when we not compliant and don't use appropriated words, the linguistic hoops we jump through end up in our meaning is obscured.

I find this as unacceptable now as I did when the rules were introduced. I stick to the rules as best I can but I object to them and always will. It's sexist and and it's patriarchal enforced compliance. I wish to convey my views and my meanings with clarity. My views are genuinely held and protected under EqA.

Can we consider this example which brough Cllr Sarah Fields to the issues?

from her recent speech:
So, I just want to start off by thanking the many women on the Mumsnet Feminism boards. You are a constant strength and inspiration.

About three years ago, not long after I was first elected, I was contacted by a woman in Leeds, for advice. Her six-year-old daughter had been verbally attacked and then subjected to a violent outburst by a 17-year-old male who had been allowed to join a local girls group as a helper. This was because he said he identified as a female. What had this child done? She had asked him if he was a boy. And then this six-year-old girl had been made to stand alone in front of the entire group and apologise to him.

And I couldn’t get my head around this. So I began to do some research. And this was how I found my way to gender critical thinking and radical feminism."

I have a decent grounding in feminist theory and history but for me this is simply and specifically about inappropriate adult behaviour, bullying and coercive control.

Recognising power dynamics is neccessary to identify abuse of power.

This is how Safeguarding works.

Oh Donkey is still here, thanks for that Eresh.

I try to optimistically presume people have just name changed but after the Great Banning one can never be sure...

I have to say that amongst the many things that hugely annoy wrt the special rules for the naughty vipers on FWR, the banning of the three letter acronym used by KIS is one of the most egregious.

As said above it's an accurate factual description that if reinstated would make discussion on this board a whole lot easier.

I won't say a man is a woman and no one should be compelled to do so. Ever.

That’s the bit I struggle with.

Direct quote from the guidelines:

“...it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them... [...] it’s likely that going forward our moderation team will delete these expressions.”

This seems to me to be unambiguous - if someone has preferred pronouns or a laydee name, you must use it or be deleted. This would include ‘they’, ‘h**’ etc, as this is also language consciously rejected - there are several prominent TRAs who specifically refuse ‘they’. Under the guidelines as written, there is no way to speak factually without deletion. However, it is only ‘likely’ that this will happen, as the mod team presumably have lives too and will probably moderate reactively rather than scanning every thread for proscribed language.

It also says ‘context is everything’. Is it? Where is the ambiguity? Is it to do with poster intent? I certainly never intend to hurt, mock or ‘out’ anyone by using factually correct language. I use it because it is unethical to do otherwise. If the information is in the public domain and the individual is an adult, it is reasonable to discuss the implications of their behaviour. Does it depend on how litigious the pronoun-user is likely to be?

This is how my brain processes the guidelines - it says comply with compelled language or be deleted. If this is not correct, a translation from the neuro-typical would be appreciated.

“...it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them... [...] it’s likely that going forward our moderation team will delete these expressions.”*

I don’t like this either. Lots of things said on MN I find upsetting, hurtful and sometimes mean. I often decide not to contribute or to leave a thread because of such things. To make specific exceptions and rules just for one group of people, seems incredibly biased and unfair to everyone else. MNHQ are making special allowances that they do not make in any other circumstance, and only applies to the feminism board. That’s misogyny.

Tirisfal
pronoun-user - I like that. Might adopt it as a euphemism.
Am heartily sick of their allies, the pronoun-enforcers.

Many trans people struggle to engage in a discussion with anyone who refuses to validate their self-belief. This also applies to people who believe in the trans ideology without believing that they themselves are trans.

Yet there are several MNers who identify as trans, yet manage to engage fully with the nest of vipers. There are RL trans people who accept the pronoun that reflects their biology.

So why this pandering to a minute demographic, most of whom refuse to engage with MN discussions on the topic?

I'm sure Jewish and Muslim MNers find it incredibly hurtful and offensive to have a fundamental part of their faiths referred to as child abuse. Yet that is not banned in discussions about circumcision. Why the double-standard?