Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

B O'Neill: Why I will never use female pronouns for Eddie Izzard

7 replies

Abitofalark · 05/11/2022 19:14

Brendan O'Neill:
"You cannot compel me to say something I do not believe."

www.spiked-online.com/2022/11/03/why-i-will-never-use-female-pronouns-for-eddie-izzard/

"How long will it be before only men are allowed to call themselves women? That might sound preposterous but all the signs for such insanity are already here. Women are frequently referred to as ‘birthing bodies’ or even ‘bleeding bodies’, in the words of a notice at the University of Calgary that went viral last week. They’re ‘people who menstruate’, ‘people with cervixes’, anything but women. Female-identifying blokes, on the other hand, like Eddie Izzard, are definitely women, and woe betide the filthy transphobe who says they aren’t."
...
"In refusing to use female pronouns for Izzard, Duffield is striking a blow for freedom of thought. ‘Preferred pronouns’ are one of the most troublesome examples of compelled speech. Saying ‘she’ in reference to men is not about ‘politeness’, as some claim. Rather, the extreme pressure to use ‘preferred pronouns’ is about coercing people into a new belief system, one that says we all have an innate gendered soul which sometimes differs from our biological sex. But many of us don’t believe that. We think it’s baloney."

It's not new (others have been there) but still it's good pointing out the way 'politeness' is used as cover and that Rosie Duffield is fighting for freedom but alas, not everyone can exercise that freedom, for practical and livelihood reasons. The fact is that women are being compelled to say something they don't believe and whether individually free from those practical life constraints or not, are having it thrown in our faces by courts, workplaces, the NHS, politicians, the media, among many others.

OP posts:
nepeta · 05/11/2022 19:25

The comparison to beliefs in transubstantiation is a good one as both beliefs are unfalsifiable. Some people believe that they have an abstract gendered soul not based on the sex of their bodies, others do not share that belief or the belief in the existence of a gender identity.

It's not just compelled pronouns that would force outsiders to believe in that. The same applies to 'cisgender' which is defined as someone whose gender identity aligns with his or her biological sex. Those who don't believe in the existence of abstract gender identities cannot be 'cisgender', even if they have never transitioned.

Demanding that everyone accepts that label is like demanding that everyone outside some religious sect accepts being called 'heathens' if that is what outsiders are called within the sect.

Believerinbiology · 06/11/2022 11:20

I like your transubstantiation analogy particularly as many followers of the faith while espousing their belief (of which transubstantiation is a significant belief which differentiates it from other faiths) will often admit that that in certain circumstances they do not fully believe it themselves ("well it doesn't literally change, it's just representative"...well no that's what I believe, not what your faith teaches and what you supposedly vilify me for, go figure?)

SquirrelSoShiny · 06/11/2022 11:24

Yes I've used the transubstantiation example both online and in day to day life. It helps people understand the problem in a way more complex arguments don't.

Other people can believe in transubstantiation if they want they just can't force me to believe it.

BrokeAsABone · 06/11/2022 11:30

It couldn't be more obvious TRAs don't believe in their own crap by the very fact these people feel they have to force others to pretend they believe and compel their very speech. They know that otherwise, no one will.

Datun · 06/11/2022 11:43

They definitely don't believe their own crap. What would-be woman labour MP would be taken seriously talking about taking her bloody shoes on and off and it changing her personality?

They know Eddie isn't a woman, a woman saying that would be ridiculed, not feted on the front page of a bloody newspaper.

I'm glad O'Neill is explicitly saying that it's got nothing to do politeness, and everything to do with compelled speech and forcing people to pretend to adhere to a belief system they don't have. And that it's sexist as fuck, to boot.

Men forcing women to spout a belief system that undermines every single thing about being a woman, even the name, and calling it politeness, needs shouting from the rooftops.

dawnfromgavinandstacey · 06/11/2022 11:48

Every day we seem to get a bit closer to the handmaids tale.

WolverineBlueyy · 06/11/2022 16:38

O'Neill nails it.

I found this interview with Redcar (formerly Christine and the Queens) in the Observer today fascinating as a less common example of things going in the other direction. A name change and request for male pronouns, which Miranda Sawyer humours despite it all. (Well I don't suppose it would have been printed otherwise.) "Poor Red," she sympathises at one point. Red will be making absolutely no changes to themselves but is now 'a man' and to be recognised as such.

Redcar is clearly from this interview a very damaged and vulnerable person going through a lot in public and it seems apparent the trans identity is part of that. I admire them so this was hard to read, and while somewhat understanding the reasoning given I can't pretend I suddenly see a man.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/nov/06/christine-and-the-queens-redcar-interview-adorables-etoiles?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

New posts on this thread. Refresh page