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?)

Hmmm. Would it be terribly cheeky to nominate this thread for Mumsnet Classics?

Delete Barracker
And watch her analogy
Spread out through the net

Silly TRAs
When you try to silence us
Our words reach further

Perfect. Another home goal.

You may try to silence one of our sisters, but we will speak her words and amplify her voice. You.will.not.win.

Floral Bunting why the slow hand clap for my post?

ThinkIveFoundYourMarbles

Do it, Think!

ThinkIve I agree, a true classic.

Original Poster: This topic isn't about Mumsnet, it's about the growing confidence of feminists to refuse to use the terms and language of gender.

What tips and tricks of language did you start using when you could no longer kowtow to the demand for obedience?

Barracker: Points out the inherent risks of being forced to use language that doesn't reflect reality.

Mumsnet: (likely to be responding to Sunday morning reporters who are furiously tiptapping their anger that Barracker has pointed out an obvious risk} Banhammer - not in the spirit

Lots of other posters: Huh? Eh? That's not on.

Thread lights up. Lots of people on other social media notice and start talking about it.

Classic.

Absolutepowercorrupts

It wasn't your post. If I'm responding to a specific post I quote it.

I'm trying not to get banned because clearly that appears to happen if you get too chippy nowadays. But my exceedingly sarcastic applause was for the mods.

It doesn't take an advanced level of reading comprehension to understand that the analogy was about compelled speech, not trans persons.

Embarrassing all round.

Thank you Floral, I'll join you in your slow hand clap for the mods today 👏..........👏...........👏

"Can we stop being obedient soon?"

Clearly fucking not.

Soma, yes.

Barracker

Thanks Codename

excellent twitter feed.

Barracker is a

Barracker is a shero.

Eurochick, or any other lawyers. I have seen it suggested that forcing witnesses to use compelled speech is, in effect, asking them to lie about what they witnessed.

Do you have any idea how a judge might respond if you put it to them that you experienced the rapist/attacker as male and feel that you cannot use the incorrect pronoun as you wouldn’t be describing what you experienced as you understood it at the time? Would you find in contempt of court.

Forcing someone to lie about what they witnessed is simply wrong and obviously it would be hard to make the point, but not sure it’d be harder than the alternative.

As for the OP:

I made my first ever “they” post the other day, complete with singular versions of the other words to highlight the nonsensical nature of it. They is going to have to etc.

Like another poster above, I use surnames only for any male person who’s transitioning. I refuse to use a woman’s name for the reason Barracker so marvellously summarised.

I refuse to use any word for a male born person that includes the inappropriate noun woman.

Whenever I see arguments about whether trans is an adjective, I point out that trans whatever is actually a noun with two words, not an adjective and a noun. And especially if the previous poster was racist, I might use the analogy that this is similar to comparing black horse with clothes horse.

Barracker

I am at the Bar and have used ‘the witness’ and so on. Not had to other than 2 trials so far. Made closing speech to jury difficult but I managed. It’s beginning to cause proper ructions at the family Bar.

Getting to the stage of thinking MN has been a useful jumping off point and that I might be wise to actually jump off at this point. The AWAs targeted FWR to shut women up, but so many of us have realized we have a voice outside of the confines of the internet and are clearly making an impact offline. If MN are getting into the realms of deletions and bans for refusing to acquiesce to compelled speech and correctly labelling it as abuse and coercion, I think this might be the hill I die on, because the only reason I still post here is because of the modicum of freedom I have to not call a male person a woman.

I made my first ever “they” post the other day, complete with singular versions of the other words to highlight the nonsensical nature of it. They is going to have to etc.

I had a discussion recently with someone about a couple of people's actions and whilst respecting one person's preferred pronouns they/their/them it became incomprensible because of the subsequent plural verb.

For accuracy of communication it must be they is (NB s), they are (pl)

To be fair, as said upthread, mn deleting this has only added fuel to its flames.

I found the deleted post in seconds via Reddit and then twitter. I have retweeted on twitter. I have posted in a GC group.

Classic thread. Well done mn.

There are eyes, there are lurkers. Don't go Floral, use mn as a tool.

I am at the Bar and have used ‘the witness’ and so on. Not had to other than 2 trials so far. Made closing speech to jury difficult but I managed. It’s beginning to cause proper ructions at the family Bar.

Heron what will happen when a witness is describing a crime, does not know those involved but would be required to describe what was seen. If for example there was an incident at Goldsmiths NUS does the Bench guide anticipate the extent to which preferred pronouns must be used by witnesses? Many pronouns will be unfamiliar to the majority of the population.

Not sure what the crown court compendium/bench guide (interchangeable)!says. One recent trial I was defending in, a witness was describing someone who asked fir the pronoun ‘they’ to be used. which caused difficulty only in uncertainty at times whether she was describing the individual or using it as plural. The judge intervened quite a bit in chief and used clothing to describe and clarify for the jury. I followed suit.

I hope that any victim of a crime that is forced to use incorrect pronouns, refuses, some day. It’s only a matter of time and I imagine the backlash from the public will be huge if they are punished by the court.

Surely using incorrect pronouns in court is lying and therefore perjury.

I had no problem with 'natal' men wanting to live their lives as 'women' until they started demanding the right to use the spaces of vulnerable women, until they started encouraging children to make permanent physical changes to their bodies, until they insisted on doctors treating them as physical 'women', until they insisted they could take part in female sports (putting women at a disadvantage and at risk of physical injury) and until they claimed to be spokespersons for women (despite not having lived their lives as indistiguishably female).

Now, I can't even say this without being called anti-transgender.

I see Fair Play for Women has posted the screenshot.

It's a shame Ursula K Le Guin isn't still writing science fiction. This would have made a great sequel to her 'Left Hand of Darkness'.

I see Fair Play for Women has posted the screenshot.

To their 17.8K followers.