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?)

So, given that Sophie has highlighted that it's the comparison between the compulsion of female pronouns and the specific drug Barracker referred to, I'm assuming it's OK to use a different substance, voluntarily consumed?

Obviously this changes slightly Barracker's original message but there was such a strong point in the original post about the lowering of boundaries and lessening of defences, it would be a shame to lose it.

To avoid any doubt, the use of pronouns in the example below is assumed to be voluntary, as is the consumption of gin.

The reasons pronouns matter isn't because it spares hurty feelings. There's no worth in that compelled 'she' when you know the speaker doesn't mean it. No the reason pronouns are such a massive deal is because female pronouns act like a couple of gins. They lower inhibitions, make you feel safer, lessen defences.

"She's sad she can't join the girls in the changing room"

Emotional response: aw, why are the girls being mean?

"He's sad he can't join the girls in the changing room"
Emotional response: bolt the door NOW girls and call for help.

"The girls don't want to undress in front of Jane"
"The girls don't want to undress in front of David"

Sounds like that's a no OP, assuming that all the deletion messages are to do with controlling language. I genuinely don't know why my post was pulled. I referenced identity, fantasy and reality, I said nothing about date rape drugs or any drugs for that matter.

Hope Barracker hasn't been banned.

@mnhq

Could the post perhaps be reinstated without the offending line? (With Barracker's agreement of course)

There was a valid point made in the post in that the emotional response we have to a situation depends on the language used and the she vs he just wanting to use the changing rooms with all the girls was a good one to demonstrate this.

pombear beat me to it!

This thread will go soon. I am getting really tures of this "not in the spirit " bullshit from MNHQ.

So an analogy to a date rape drug has caused offence.

Let's go with gin then, or just consumption of alcohol.

Loss of inhibition, memory and personal boundaries minimised.

Tired.*

We must try to keep this thread going.

We deleted Barracker's reported post because we felt the comparison between the use of female pronouns for transwomen and rohypnol - a date rape drug - just wasn't in the spirit. We've been in touch with Barracker off the boards.

The comparison was between the imposition of compelled speech and Rohypnol. Let's be very clear about this Sophie. The point being made was one of manufacturing consent through language, a la Chomsky. It was nothing to do with the character of any one transperson or of transpeople as a group.

Have you banned Barracker for a critique of the dynamics of compelling speech?

It gin not super handy anyway as it has its own emoticon.

And some people consume gin willingly, others might have their drinks topped up more strongly than they would like but feel nervous to say so.

You might feel obligated to consume gin if everyone else in your workplace is doing so.

You might not know what your tolerance to gin is if you haven't had much before

I thought Barracker's post was thoughtful and intelligent. It should be reinstated.

Gah. Can't help but type more. I'm really fucking pissed off about this.

Barracker's post proposed that the compelled speech of correctly sexing aka "misgendering" is a propaganda model designed to manufacture consent. She used Rohypnol as a metaphor to illustrate this.

THIS DOES NOT BREAK ANY FORUM RULES NOR DOES IT PROVIDE ANY GENERALISATION ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE.

FFS.

'Oh but I drink gin every day and I'm totally fine.'

*is gin not super handy

I think something like alcohol is good as some people consent to it. I can relate to how muddled things have become in the media because those who are habitual gin drinkers are trying to puzzle their way out of this without putting down the gin bottle.

If you can't see the sex, you can't see the sexism. If you can't say the sex, you can't say the sexism.
That should be repeated again and again and again, whenever we get one of these 'violent woman turns out to be transwoman' stories.

More silencing of women I see.

I agree completely with Barracker. I have thought this for a long time: if we consent to have our language policed we are already conceding a huge amount of ground and weakening our own ability to argue coherently. If you say, for example, "Rachel McKinnon, a trans woman, is competing against biological women in cycling", it invites sympathy towards Rachel. If you say, "Rhys McKinnon, a man, is competing against women in cycling" it evokes a completely different response. The lie of having to refer to out-and-out misogynists like Lily Madigan and Jess Yaniv as "she" absolutely sticks in my throat.

I hate organising meet ups and things as I quite like being on my own but at least in person nobody can delete your words.

This is motivating me to organise something in person.
A book group or something.
Something not too hard work

Someone like Gregor Murray can help in this.
Obviously Gregor Murray is a non binary person whose pronouns are they and them.
But who is called Gregor Murray and who looks like Gregor murray

So if I'm chatting and I say 'well under the stonewall definition I'm Trans and Gregor Murray is in the category of people I'm attracted to, but I feel it's more appropriate to use a different definition' it can help

If we want to keep talking about enforced obedience and undermining the feminist perspective with trans language, we need to steer clear of naming trans individuals as examples.

Please don't put Mumsnet in a position where the moderators have to enforce rules. We can do this without breaking the rules!

This is our only platform, in the absence of a real life event or space to discuss the plight and work on ways to take back control of our speech.

The argument can be that transgenderism is the new gay in that the past generation couldn't bring themselves around to be liberal enough to accept gay people have a right.

Except that transgenderism, in prioritising gender over sex, is the equivalent of the people who couldn’t accept that gay people have a right to be exclusively attracted to their own sex.

As illustrated by Pride & Stonewall’s homophobic reactions to lesbians defending our sexual orientation.

The enforcement of compelled speech is itself a form of grooming.

I don’t know why anyone imagines this will stop at pronouns. Once a populace has been conditioned not to believe their own lying eyes and not to speak the reality they see with their own eyes, well there are all sorts of things you can compel people to believe and to say.

It’s all an exercise in social control, and while I understand MN is under extreme pressure from potential litigants, I’m with Lang: I don’t see how an analysis of manufactured consent via language violates spirit or rules.

The way that language has functioned to erase, diminish, or coerce women into subjugation has long been a part of feminist analysis. Just as the way that language has been used to buttress totalitarian regimes has long been a part of political analysis. For instance, Hannah Arendt and George Orwell.

Completely agree Bickerin...