Pronouns on socials

[itsapalaver]

Why would someone who's previously shared feminist views add their pronouns to their Instagram? I always assumed if you did that it means you support trans rights, I don't get how you can be a feminist and do that but happy to stand corrected!

I think that a lot of people (on both sides) speak as if people are either staunchly gender critical in all ways (and therefore wish harm on trans people) or believe that people can literally change sex (and therefore think it is OK for transwomen to power lift in the women's category). In my experience in real life off the internet the vast majority of people are actually between these two viewpoints.

I agree that other people often wrongly assume something along the lines of "everyone who believes x must also believe y and z because I believe x and to me it follows logically that x confirms y and z" and that often these kinds of assumptions can lead to misunderstandings, confusion and often to missed opportunities for mutual understanding and constructive discussion.

But in the spirit of not wanting to make assumptions, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "as if people are either staunchly gender critical in all ways (and therefore wish harm on trans people)"?

I'm not familiar with this viewpoint that being staunchly gender critical necessitates wishing harm on trans people - can you elaborate on how you understand this argument to be structured?

Posting your pronouns signals to other people that you think people can identify however they like and be treated as such.

Posting your pronouns signals to other people that you think people can have the right to correct others' speech.

Just to be clear it is not a view that I hold. But many people on the "TRA side" spread the narrative that GC people are actively and deliberately harming tran people. Have you really never come accross this?

Correcting people's speech is quite a common occurrence. It's not a trans thing.

Some people refer to women as girls on this forum and this is often jumped on and people say don't you mean women.

Sometimes someone on the step parenting forum will refer to their partners ex as a birth mum and will again get pounced on.

On the extreme end, imagine if a poster here decided to use cervix havers instead of women. I'm pretty sure most people here would feel like they had the right to correct that.

It absolutely isn’t.

It isn’t the same leap at all, is what I meant. And gender critical feminists don’t want to “harm trans people”. Radical feminists want liberation from men’s oppression. Gender critical feminists are critical of the social constructs and constraints of gender theory, and think those constructs harm women. Neither of those is necessarily about trans people.

Just to be clear it is not a view that I hold. But many people on the "TRA side" spread the narrative that GC people are actively and deliberately harming tran people. Have you really never come accross this?

I have come across people saying it, but usually in a hyperbolic way - I have never heard the logical argument on which it's based and to be honest, I had assumed that was because there wasn't one and it was just a way of shutting down gender critical views. I got all excited because I thought you might be able to explain what people meant by that, but I guess we're none the wiser!

I appreciate that it's hard for you to explain that view if you don't hold it yourself and have just heard other people saying it, but I think that similarly, if you can't explain a view, it can be unhelpful to frame it as "the extreme end of gender critical thinking" as it seems from what you've said that you're basing that description on a strawman idea of what some TRAs believe gender critical views are.

I appreciate that you were trying to illustrate the two extremes of thinking on this, but it seems that you were doing so from the particular perspective of what gender identity ideologues believe those two extremes to be.

It comes across as a biased comment because "gender critical beliefs as necessarily wishing harm on trans people" were set as one extreme, which would be a very extreme and bizarre view if anyone actually held it, with the belief that biological males who identify as transwomen should be allowed to participate in women's sports at the other.

Since these are both beliefs from the perspective of gender identity ideology (since the first one grossly misrepresents the gender critical view and the other one (on participation in women's sports) is relatively mainstream and uncontroversial among gender identity ideologues), framing these as the two extremes suggests that gender critical views are far more extreme than the apparently more moderate position that gender identity ideologues take.

I do absolutely understand how hard it is to try to appreciate both sides of all of this and to then get grief from absolutely everyone for trying to acknowledge and respect everyone's views while simultaneously grappling with one's own thoughts on the matter, and I've been there myself!

Some wise MNer told me several years ago that it's not possible to sit on the fence forever on this issue (which isn't what I thought I was doing at all at the time), but I see now that they were absolutely right.

Believing in gender identity ideology while also not believing in it isn't logically possible, and the two views will come into conflict in everyone's life at some point. Eventually, we're all forced to confront the question and pick a lane, and there's no avoiding that. It's not like being an agnostic in terms of religion and simply not going looking for answers and getting on with life, because the question comes to you. This idea of gender identity is so pervasive now that everyone is going to be faced with deciding what they actually believe eventually, and logically, it can't be both.

Correcting people's speech is quite a common occurrence. It's not a trans thing.

Being required to use 'she' in reference to a man is the opposite of correcting people's speech. It very much is a trans thing.

Given that sex discrimination at work is not a thing that no longer exists, being told to declare pronouns can trigger subconscious biases in others when 'she/her' is stressed.

It's also true that stating one's preferred pronouns does signal, at least in theory, a presumed acceptance of gender as an identity, because the list of preferred pronouns includes impossible ones if they are supposed to be sex-based, such as the neo-pronouns and they/them. When this is the list, the 'she/her' one picks is automatically assumed to reflect a 'feminine' gender identity.

And what does that mean? That the person wants to be treated like women are treated rather than like men are treated at work? This open a dangerous Pandora's box of traditional sexists views and stereotypes, but on this round they are now viewed as not just regressive but also progressive.

I understand that many who declare their preferred pronouns just want to be kind and supportive of transgender individuals. But the message is far more dangerous for women's rights than we are told.

'By supporting trans ideology you’re supporting gender stereotypes'.

Not really. I simply recognise the reality that the world we live in is full of gender stereotypes, whether or not we want it to be, and that is not likely to change within our lifetimes.

Shouting 'I don't think there should be gender stereotyping! I disagree with gender stereotypes!' doesn't help people deal with the gender dysphoria that they are experiencing here and now.

It is possible to respect the needs and rights of trans people living in our current world whilst still, ideally, wanting to live in a world where there is less or no gender stereotyping.

But a man pretending to be a woman can only ever be a man playing up to stereotypes of women. It can never be anything else.

By trying to confuse matters and say these embodiments of stereotypes are the thing they are parodying it’s reinforcing the idea that these stereotypes are true representations. It’s reinforcing and giving credence to harmful perceptions.

yes stereotypes exist, we should not be feeding into anything which reinforces and perpetuates those stereotypes. The primary thing that is doing the most harm in this area is gender ideology.to think you can buy into both GI and feminism is dangerously misguided.

of course everyone deserves rights, but men’s rights (even if the think of themselves as women) should never be allowed to curtail hard fought for women’s rights. The best thing to do to can for Transpeople is offer appropriate mental healthcare like would be recommended in every other dysphoric and dissociative condition.

I don't agree or disagree with your take particularly. I wish more people would recognise that this is not black and white, it's extremely complicated.

Personally I don't identify as either GC or as a TRA, because I think both of these boxes hold extreme views and are in opposition and that is not helpful. Everyone in this debate needs to listen to each other and respect each other a bit more.

Shouting 'I don't think there should be gender stereotyping! I disagree with gender stereotypes!' doesn't help people deal with the gender dysphoria that they are experiencing here and now.

Can you make room for the possibility that someone struggling with gender dysphoria might wrongly assume that non-trans people who declare their pronouns as matching their biological sex are saying that they actually have an inner sense of gender identity that sits comfortably with them?

One of my issues with non-trans people adding their pronouns to try to be supportive is that I've found it to have the opposite effect personally.

I've found that seeing everyone else smugly having discovered their respective gender identities (whether trans or not) actually made me struggle with my gender issues more, as it made me feel more different than I probably am in reality.

I thought there was something wrong with me when everyone was declaring themselves "cis" and telling me their pronouns as I couldn't understand why they could sense their gender identity but mine was completely missing.

It took me ages to figure out that many were just trying to be kind to make trans people feel more welcome, because in reality, their actions just made me feel more trans.

But I think it started off as being balanced, trying to listen then the TRAs waded in? Trying to obliterate women’s voices. It started off with people trying to be kind and understanding but quickly it turned into violent threats by the TRAs,

Certain matters are black and white. Men can never become women. Women’s spaces are for women, women’s rights are for women.

i don't use pronouns i have a name, this pronouns, gender ideology is very dark and leading us down a path to pedophiles demanding to being accepted, they will say liking children is a sexual orientation. its already started with the you cannot say anything to people if they dont identify as somthing and you have to respect that. the fact pedophiles have given themselves a name MAPS. the fact schools are pushing gender/trans/everything onto very very young children. its coming and it scares me

Personally I don't identify as either GC or as a TRA, because I think both of these boxes hold extreme views and are in opposition and that is not helpful. Everyone in this debate needs to listen to each other and respect each other a bit more.

What is it you find extreme about believing that sex is real and immutable and that it matters in certain areas of life such as sports/ and single-sex services and spaces where women and girls are vulnerable?

What compromises do you think women would have to make to be less extreme? Should we pretend that we think people can change sex? Or uncomplainingly use the wrong pronouns. Or perhaps we should pipe down about the unfairness of men competing in women’s sporting events?

I can’t quite work out how one takes a middle ground approach to this ideology. I mean you either believe that men can turn into women or you don’t. And if you don’t why should you have to pretend that you do? What does the middle look like? I’ve seen people on twitter professing to take the middle ground and 100% of them would be deemed to be terfs by trans activist standards.

Quite. Couldn’t put it better myself

I agree that gender critical feminists don't generally want to harm transgender people. I'm saying that it's a motive ascribed to them by others based on a misunderstanding of their position.

if you can't explain a view, it can be unhelpful to frame it as "the extreme end of gender critical thinilking" as it seems from what you've said that you're basing that description on a strawman idea of what some TRAs believe gender critical views are.

I was wasn't framing this as the extreme end of gender critical thinking. I was framing it as what extreme TRAs think of gender critical people.

Believing in gender identity ideology while also not believing in it isn't logically possible
This is the point I'm making. This attitude of "you are either with us or against us" with no room for disagreement on any aspect is common to both sides of this debate. There is no room for critical thinking or analysis of different aspects. It's one way or the other.

It's a bit like being an atheist watching two religions fight.

I think that's an unfortunate generalisation. The consultation on reform of the GRA led to a lot of critical thinking, you can pro

Probably still read the evidence online.

Kathleen Stocks book is very reasonable critical thinking, as is Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and Trans by Helen Joyce.

Definitely there is some critical thinking. I've listened to a lot of Kathleen Stock's talks and I think she offers a very interesting and nuanced perspective, as does Helen Joyce.

This doesn't mean that everyone who thinks of themselves as gender critical is a critical thinker though.

i don't use pronouns i have a name

I is a pronoun and you've used it twice in this short quote alone