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?

Between heavy make-up, airbrushing and filters I don't trust photographs of anybody to represent what they truly look like anymore. The clues we get about sex don't just come from the face though. Hips, hands, feet, movement/gait, voice ... all of these give us information also.

Correct Pronouns are bound to come up in the Parliamentary recognition of nonbinary debate today at 4.30. So prepare yourselves as we see what MPs think about this. Please post gender critical takes on the meaning of nonbinary on twitter while the debate is on. Few people have started.

Hashtag is
#NonBinaryRecognitionDebate

You can watch live here. Going to be surreal as the Commons turns into Tumblr:
committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/166136/legal-recognition-of-nonbinary-gender-identities-to-be-debated-by-mps/

Is there a reason why the people who wish to debate the newly thought up gender ideology needs to be called GC? Could we not be GQ - gender questioning? So we then put ourselves into an arena of debate ràther than confrontation? 'Critical' is very emotive...

When the other side literally has men calling themselves women I don’t think calling on one side to restrict themselves to “non emotive” language is reasonable.

But there appear to be thousands upon thousands of school aged children involved who probably are totally confused and would welcome discussion rather then people being 'critical'. We don't need to fight fire with fire, surely that will just alienate the young people who are the most vulnerable to this whole debacle?

There was a thread about this recently: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548447-gc-is-a-slur

Are you maybe not clear on what critical means? What about the phrase critical thinking?

It doesn’t mean disparaging, or attacking.

There really is no need to patronise me.
Of course I know what the both the word and the phrase mean.
People aren't calling themselves 'The critical thinking about gender group'. They are using the term Gender Critical. This appears confrontational. Surely you see that?

People aren't calling themselves 'The critical thinking about gender group'. They are using the term Gender Critical. This appears confrontational. Surely you see that?

I don't think it's confrontational. It is, however, taking an actual position which 'critical thinking about gender' is not. I would hope that people on both sides of a debate can do 'critical thinking about gender' whether or not their starting position is that sometimes sex is relevant and not gender.

Gender questioning makes it sound like we are questioning our own gender though. (I thought 'questioning' was one of the letters in the LGBT+ if you wrote it in full rather than using +)
Gender critical means we are critical of the whole concept/stereotypes.

A subtle difference.

A bit like the difference between atheist and agnostic.

Ha. I used to ride a suspected rig. (At best gelded way, way too late). I don’t think that the lovely grey thoroughbred mare on the next farm over was a social construct to him.

More of a constant challenge in escapology.

No, not at all. It is a neutral, descriptive term. The reason I asked is because of this, the meaning is not confrontational,.

There really is no need to patronise me.
Of course I know what the both the word and the phrase mean.
So why are you saying it's confrontational? It's not.

I can only assume since we have had no sign of SeldomHere, that they will be now ‘NeverHereAgain’.

As I missed the final posts, did they follow a quickly escalated flame out pattern?

Perhaps it was a slow weekend somewhere.

They'll be back in the style of Arnie

definitely. I believe they usually are .....