Do pronouns feel alien to anyone else?

[janeseymour78]

By this, I mean I have friends who are 100% pro pronouns as a show of support and we've had our debates, and then there are others who say it is unhealthy to reinforce stereotypes, eg. By using them on work signatures

For me though, adding she/her pronouns to everything and even having being asked what they are verbally, she/her feels alien to me in a visceral way. I'm curious about this because I have several friends who don't share that feeling at all.

Im GC and I don't believe people are binary. I have elements of feminity and masculinity that whatever else that form who I am. I know I'm a woman, I have endometriosis so I'm painfully aware, as well as all the other reasons women are made aware of their sex.

It comes down to adding 'she/her' to everything would not feel right to me, as though it didn't reflect me. It would like I was falsely reinforcing my womanhood when I don't live my life that way or feel that way. Am I making sense? Do others feel this way?

but there’s really nothing there, is there?

No.

No. It. Doesn't.

That's the strawman you keep projecting. Over and over. In reality, they're the ones that have it right.

If they're a woman, and say they use she/her pronouns, that simply means they feel comfortable as a woman, and feel comfortable with people using she/her pronouns.

Nothing. Else.

Also, I'd love to see what evidence you have of this:
How is GC women voting for the Republican party to "reign in the trans agenda", empowering Republicans to achieve those goals, irrelevant?
Where are the opinion polls that GC women are voting Republican?! Was there a poll done where women were asked if they are gender critical and what party they're voting for? Can't wait for you to show us where that is! I'm disengaging now, it's too ridiculous, good luck with your A levels.

yet we are asked to relinquish our ability to fight the sex-based mistreatment. That is an unacceptably high price to pay.

It is, and it's completely unreasonable to expect it.

Again, what makes you think anyone would care to "manipulate her into thinking she was born into the wrong sex"?

that simply means they feel comfortable as a woman

Why though, if they are a biological male?

She can, in fact, be a boy.

Because being a "boy" or a "girl" are both a matter of gender rather than "biological sex"

Learn to follow context please. We're talking about non-trans women who put pronouns after their name or in their bio.

As I've said, it sounds like you need to do some more reading:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-gender-clinic-converting-gay-children-tz8cs77p3
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/gender-identity-clinic-whistleblower-wins-damages
www.bbc.com/news/health-51806962
www.bbc.com/news/uk-56539466

@SeldomHere

Oh people most certainly do care. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have a whole forum dedicated to gender. We wouldn’t be required to put silly pronouns onto emails (which I don’t do) etc etc etc.

Like I said it’s a good thing she hasn’t got anybody around her who buys into this nonsense. She can never be a boy. Just like she could never be a cat.

Therefore she accepts herself for who she is, a female!…..This being the mentally healthier option more grounded in reality.

It’s a strange thing, to have to signal your comfort to other people. Why do they need to know I’m “comfortable” with being a woman? They don’t get to know my comfort in relation to anything else.

I don’t like to signal pronouns because it’s part of an ideology I don’t agree with (namely the idea that we have a gender identity which does or does not match the sex we get assigned at birth. Disagree with all of that). But also I’m in a male dominated career and I don’t want to activate stereotype threat in myself nor do I want to trigger people’s unconscious biases.

if I strongly state “I’m a woman , she her” then it’s more likely that people around me will activate their stereotypes about women. I don’t want to be judged on my work by my sex.

I've been trying to keep up with this thread while trying to programme my wolves, drink my breakfast and barter a lorry... oh, sorry, words have clear definitions, don't they? Walk my dogs, eat my dinner and sell a car.

See how confusing it gets, @SeldomHere when you screw around with what words mean?

Anyway, pulling out the things that especially bugged me...

Why does "woman" need to be a "sex-based category"? Why do we need rigid, socially and legally enforced "sex categories"?
I've already explained that one once. Your brain clearly blanked it.

Because not all people want to be resistricted by your rigid binary and feel much more comfortable with different labels.
It's not 'our rigid binary'.
Sex is biology's rigid binary (with a tiny % of DSDs in the middle, usually leading to infertility). Like it or not, you have the genetic code you have been dealt. I couldn't decide to be a man tomorrow, not when every cell in my body is XX. I could present as a man and call myself Harold and ask people to say 'he', but I'm stuck with the biology I was dealt at conception.

As opposed to your need to impose your linguistic framework on trans people?
See above. You are arguing for full-on PoMo madness here. To suit your argument, you're trying to redefine words which we need, for legal reasons never mind basic descriptive ones. You can't have those words. They are already taken.

The words "man" and "woman" are a social construct, not biological reality.
And the word "marriage" was the name which had been given to a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of making babies.
The words man and woman describe material reality, the sex binary (see above about biology). Marriage, as you seem to be failing to realise, describes something that people created and that people can, therefore, change. I am not the only person on this thread to make this basic observation to you

And in response to me asking, fairly politely, not to be called 'cis':
Can you desist from saying "transwomen" instead of "trans women", and from policing whether trans women are referred to as women?
You're the one changing the rules and the meanings, not me, so it's up to you to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. You're not doing a very good job of it so far.

Why does "woman" need to be a "sex-based category"? Why do we need rigid, socially and legally enforced "sex categories"?

This has been explained to you on this thread. This has been explained by GC women over and over and over.

For someone who believes in respecting identities you sure aren't respectful of our reality-based, biology based 'identities'. It is has been explained to you why it is important to retain women as a class based on their sex, GC women have explained this over and over. We actually have a world of data and evidence of why this matters, and the harm and disadvantage done to women by removing women as a class of people based on their sex.

You are ignoring all this because you have to ignore it. To accept it would mean you would have to change your position. And then all you have left are insults.

@SeldomHere

Trans boy? No such thing. That’s just a biological female in fantasy land.

She’s a biological female who’s never going to be a biological male.

She is thriving. She isn’t some messed up teen who doesn’t know if she’s a boy or a girl. The latter type needing far more psychological intervention than my niece ever would.

Is it ok for society to redefine tickling as murder, and then say that there is no need to investigate or prosecute murder as statistically most of it is trivial? Would we maybe need another word for "deliberately killing someone"?

@divingskies
> For someone who believes in respecting identities you sure aren't respectful of our reality-based, biology based 'identities'

You're free to define your identity by your physiology. You're not free to define everyone else's identity that way.

Again, that's cause she isn't trans. A trans kid would be a miserable mess in her situation.

Well, if she were a trans boy your repressive bullshit would likely drive her to suicidal ideation by now, but sure.

That seems like a fairly huge assumption on your part.

You're free to define your identity by your physiology. You're not free to define everyone else's identity that way.

We are perfectly free to do this. Take it up with the Human Rights Act and the protected characteristic of belief in the EA 2010.

Otherwise you'd have to confront the fact you're just attacking people for breaking away from the rigid gender norms imposed on them based on their "sex"

No, we want people to feel free to be who they want to be, without reference to societal expectations based on their sex. We just don't want them to feel they have to reject their sex to do so. No-one here has a problem with butch women or effeminate men.

Because being a "boy" or a "girl" are both a matter of gender rather than "biological sex

The dictionary says a "boy" is a young male.
So no. A female can't be a boy.

Why can’t people just feel how they want to feel without imposing pronouns etc on others?

Weird

And most of this stuff is regressive gender stereotyping of the kind we have been fighting against for years.

Did you say this to black people who objected to Rachel Dolezol?

You must have done as the logic is exactly, and I really do mean exactly, the same.