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

KJK

687 replies

Notaflippinclue · 04/11/2023 22:14

Why the fuck has MUMSNET cancelled her

OP posts:
Thread gallery
33
ArthurbellaScott · 08/11/2023 14:32

BonfireLady · 08/11/2023 13:04

Not verbatim. But telling me that my assertion (which I still stand by) that we should each be free to choose what pronouns we use for someone was why ground had been lost.

I posted a comment because she wasn't just saying "he" in the thread, like many other posters were, she was telling Rachel Johnson what she should/shouldn't be saying.

Ground has definitely been lost because of the compelled language around preferred pronouns, I totally agree. But each of us is still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons.

It comes right back to there being different ways of doing things and on this particular thread, Rachel Johnson was commenting on something in a GC capacity. I can't see the original post any more but it was in relation to something that Janice Turner had written. From what I understood from Rachel Johnson's comment, it looked like Rachel was supportive of a GC view but also wanted to draw a clear line in the sand because of her own previous involvement with India with specific reference to pronouns. Personally, I would completely understand why she chose to use India's preferred pronouns if she didn't want to muddy the waters and/or risk undermining the Channel 5 legal warning that she referred to.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought it didn't sound like something she'd say.

Froodwithatowel · 08/11/2023 14:38

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 08/11/2023 14:32

Muddled thinking by decision makers is surely an issue here?

David Lammy, one the the MPs at the centre of the GRA believes that men can grow a cervix.

These decision makers aren't bright.

Or well informed.

And they are awfully ready to outsource their thinking without bothering to check their facts before they chant nonsense like obedient little parrots.

You're left thinking this is someone who isn't really demonstrating capacity for a job of such responsibility. Frankly the entire political class of the moment seems a dead loss with major reviews needed about the kind of person getting into power and their route of access, because it urgently needs sorting out.

Thank you for Victoria Smith's article linked above. I particularly agree with her point that using pronouns is another 'yes dear' head pat that women are required to offer to the male ego as part of the price of being a woman and functioning in society. And it's so ingrained I know I do some of it without even noticing.

NecessaryScene · 08/11/2023 14:38

Decision makers understand the issues all too well, don't be fooled that they don't they merely picked which side they thought was easier to shit on without them fighting back which is why they are like rabbits in the headlights now that women are fighting back and being direct about it.

Coach Blade had someone say exactly this to her outright.

I actually took the president of Athletics Canada to to dinner and I basically said, 'Bill, please tell me- why is this happening? You know men have an advantage. And he kind of hummed and hawwed and kind of gave me a smirk.

I said, 'Oh, I see, okay. So I get what's happening here - you're afraid, our whole association is afraid, that these few men, male, self-appointed females or whatever, are going to sue you. You're worried about them, about another male suing the association'.

I said, 'but don't you understand that there are way more girls and women who are going to be disaffected that might also be suing you? So like the chances of a lawsuit are much higher by allowing this inclusion than other way around.'

And he looked straight at me, and said 'girls wouldn't do that'.

(Sasha gasps) Are you joking?

Coach Blade: I'm not joking. That's exactly what he said. I'm quoting exactly. He said girls wouldn't do that. So the assumption is that that we would just sit, we're supposed to sit and take it. We won't ever... Girls are nice, they don't sue.

People may not be so explicit about it, but that's the dynamic. Women are expected to be support humans, and not stand up for their own rights.

We're currently at the point lots of women are fighting back and suing, but people still seem to be surprised at this. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that more noise is required. We've kind of reached a tipping point at least in UK venue bookings where people are still defaulting to screwing women, but immediately realising their legal error, but still, what will it take for them to actually have second thoughts about screwing women in the first place?

EP 139 - Sex, Politics, and Double-Standards:Trans Athletes in Women's Sports w/ Coach Linda Blade

Chapters00:00 Introduction04:15 Linda Blade's early days in Bolivia10:50 Linda's first-hand experience with the doping scandal in the 1980s 19:07 The need fo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN0WKGUor_U

Helleofabore · 08/11/2023 14:42

BonfireLady · 08/11/2023 13:04

Not verbatim. But telling me that my assertion (which I still stand by) that we should each be free to choose what pronouns we use for someone was why ground had been lost.

I posted a comment because she wasn't just saying "he" in the thread, like many other posters were, she was telling Rachel Johnson what she should/shouldn't be saying.

Ground has definitely been lost because of the compelled language around preferred pronouns, I totally agree. But each of us is still free to make our own choices, for our own reasons.

It comes right back to there being different ways of doing things and on this particular thread, Rachel Johnson was commenting on something in a GC capacity. I can't see the original post any more but it was in relation to something that Janice Turner had written. From what I understood from Rachel Johnson's comment, it looked like Rachel was supportive of a GC view but also wanted to draw a clear line in the sand because of her own previous involvement with India with specific reference to pronouns. Personally, I would completely understand why she chose to use India's preferred pronouns if she didn't want to muddy the waters and/or risk undermining the Channel 5 legal warning that she referred to.

So you agree with Kellie Jay here then?

Why do you keep telling us about it then when you agree? You can see her point clearly and you agree with it.

Sure, you can keep saying you choose to do things differently. But it seems to me that you have trouble accepting that your choices have negative implications. However, we all have to accept that our decisions may have those negative ramifications and live with that very fact which ever way you seek to justify it.

Helleofabore · 08/11/2023 14:43

ArthurbellaScott · 08/11/2023 14:32

Thanks for clarifying. I thought it didn't sound like something she'd say.

No. I am not quite sure why it was positioned the way it was initially, but it is good to have that clarity now.

Helleofabore · 08/11/2023 14:48

Froodwithatowel · 08/11/2023 14:27

This is what you say to children. "My ears only hear nice voices".

This is what misogynists say to women. "You'd be listened to if you weren't shrill or hysterical".

IT's SEXISM

If you want to ask nicely for little girls not to be subjected to blokes with their tackle out living their 'best lives' (and fuck the little girl's best life, she's a tool in this, not a person) and for women to not be excluded from women's spaces so that any male who wishes in the moment can LARP about in there, then you crack on. You see if you get heard where all other women tried and failed.

And meanwhile I'm going to be blunt and plain and I don't care now if male feelings get hurt, because women have been actually raped while we try and explain that women are human too, and can they have a few rights please if no one minds, in our nice voices. *

Edited

Yes. how many misogynists have we had visit this board and tell women that they won't read a thing because women were swearing and not using nice language.

And we still have women telling us off for swearing, too. Life must be fucking limiting if your critical thinking ability switches off if you read something with a fucking swear word in it.

JanesLittleGirl · 08/11/2023 14:57

I have learned, I over time, that bluntness is the only way to get my message across. Where I come from, the expression "I shouldn't think so" is a hard "No". When I started working in London, I found that people thought that I was inviting a debate when I said it. So I started to say "No". Some people still interpreted that as being willing to debate the issue. I now tend to say "Don't be fucking stupid".

FreddysSquishyBollock · 08/11/2023 15:04

It’s proper give an inch and they’ll take a mile stuff, innit?

The first time I heard a feminist blatantly say that a transwoman was a man I was genuinely shocked at her forthright, give no fucks attitude.

I was sweet and wishy washy when I turned up here - thought it all might be a bit of a misunderstanding and that the terves and the tras just needed a nice, polite, moderate go-between and we’d be able to iron it all out.

That turned out to be utter bollocks and I have toughened up considerably, largely due to feminists and trans widows pointing out the vista from Malaga Airport.

Froodwithatowel · 08/11/2023 15:09

And this is the nub of it.

You can be nice and reasonable with nice and reasonable people who have the capacity and interest in reciprocation.

With someone with a problem and no such capacity, who is behaving abusively? You need to know what you're dealing with and have firm boundaries, or you risk being harmed or hoovered up/used.

Sadly with this lobby, you really need to know the difference. Hence all the talk about recognising abusive behaviour. Gender identity choices have no impact on behaviour. If someone is a boundary violator with no respect for others, then it does not matter what their gender identity or star sign is.

RethinkingLife · 08/11/2023 15:36

I found one of the scales upon scales post that I mentioned upthread. Scales are first mentioned on pg 3 (for those with the 100 posts per page view).

This thread has been astonishing. I thought the scales had fallen from my eyes several months ago and realise now the scales had only fallen from the scales. The process of burrowing down beneath the layers of gas lighting, compromising, desire to be kind and inclusive that have clouded the arguments and caused people to find these issues confusing is really a journey in understanding how massively the world is run by men, for men. I thought I knew that, but I didn’t really have a clue. I rarely post but I read avidly and am spreading the word in real life.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3364094-Debbie-Hayton-in-the-Times?reply=81111220&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

So many excellent posts in that thread but I'm highlighting another on the same page from Barracker (it's 2018 and it's interesting as a benchmark of where we are now).

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3364094-Debbie-Hayton-in-the-Times?reply=81111062&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

Why am I going in for this archaeology? It's a relic and demonstration of just how very many threads have been dedicated to similar discussions and how familiar the many arguments are although they continue to be new to some people: it's about Debbie Hayton and the thread includes mention of KJK. It's also a Whos Who of how many posters have since been felled by the then moderation around these issues.

That thread is worth reading.

Page 24 | Debbie Hayton in the Times | Mumsnet

[[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b]]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3364094-Debbie-Hayton-in-the-Times?reply=81111220

DameMaud · 08/11/2023 15:48

GailBlancheViola · 08/11/2023 13:40

Agreed. But having decision makers understand the issues is the key bit. If they don't like what they are hearing (too direct or not direct enough) they will switch off.

Do you seriously think the TRA side went to the decision makers and asked nicely or indirectly? Do you really think they caved because TRAs said pretty please?

Seriously.

Decision makers understand the issues all too well, don't be fooled that they don't they merely picked which side they thought was easier to shit on without them fighting back which is why they are like rabbits in the headlights now that women are fighting back and being direct about it.

I'm avidly following along with all of this, and can actually feel my brain struggling and learning!

It's fascinating, and wonderful. And why I'm so glad I found this.

Several posts here have 'landed' with me, but I this one from Gail was a major lander.

I relate very strongly with Bonfirelady's way of thinking and approaching contention (and I recognise your personal difficulties- and achievements- with this too, Bonfire- which are far more than mine), so have felt deeply, almost personally, involved in this discussion here.

The lightbulb that's just gone on for me though, is that I suddeny realise that I have a blindspot!

I think that, because I like to think deeply and critically about an issue (especially conflict)- to try to understand it, from all angles, and to work out where others are coming from/how it can be resolved, and because two of my core values are truth and integrity- I think, on some level, I assume that the same is true of others.
I think they too, just need to (and will want to) understand, and will choose to act on truth and integrity when they do.

Being a mediator type- and how we get to be one- is a complex thing- and in some situations its a gift. In others it's a curse, and I certainly have encountered lots of roads paved to hell with good intentions over the years.

Even though I have been gradually learning on a personal level, that in some situations, with some people, a simple, firm boundary is the only things that works- I think I haven't yet been able to fully translate this to society (the decision makers) as a whole. I realise I'm still holding the hope that the values I hold, and the power of understanding can win through in the end.

I read this board compulsively (and threads like these in particular), as it plays out my own internal tensions: to mediate, or to boundary.
As I'm reading, I go through the gamut of YES! NO-TOO MUCH! I AGREE! NOT SURE! AAAARGH!
It's pretty visceral!

Late in life, I'm in the process of trying to stand in my power as a woman- and the one good thing to come out of all this gender mess, is that this has been an unexpected learning point.

And what GailBlanche says here, about the decisions makers, struck like a sword of truth.

I am clearly seeing that this is a boundary point, not a mediation point.

(Recently re-watched the film Erin Brokovitch- and that came strongly to mind when writing this!)

Syrupycake · 08/11/2023 15:51

Actually @BonfireLady i thought you were a trans activist under a false flag when I read your posts.

BonfireLady · 08/11/2023 17:03

DameMaud · 08/11/2023 15:48

I'm avidly following along with all of this, and can actually feel my brain struggling and learning!

It's fascinating, and wonderful. And why I'm so glad I found this.

Several posts here have 'landed' with me, but I this one from Gail was a major lander.

I relate very strongly with Bonfirelady's way of thinking and approaching contention (and I recognise your personal difficulties- and achievements- with this too, Bonfire- which are far more than mine), so have felt deeply, almost personally, involved in this discussion here.

The lightbulb that's just gone on for me though, is that I suddeny realise that I have a blindspot!

I think that, because I like to think deeply and critically about an issue (especially conflict)- to try to understand it, from all angles, and to work out where others are coming from/how it can be resolved, and because two of my core values are truth and integrity- I think, on some level, I assume that the same is true of others.
I think they too, just need to (and will want to) understand, and will choose to act on truth and integrity when they do.

Being a mediator type- and how we get to be one- is a complex thing- and in some situations its a gift. In others it's a curse, and I certainly have encountered lots of roads paved to hell with good intentions over the years.

Even though I have been gradually learning on a personal level, that in some situations, with some people, a simple, firm boundary is the only things that works- I think I haven't yet been able to fully translate this to society (the decision makers) as a whole. I realise I'm still holding the hope that the values I hold, and the power of understanding can win through in the end.

I read this board compulsively (and threads like these in particular), as it plays out my own internal tensions: to mediate, or to boundary.
As I'm reading, I go through the gamut of YES! NO-TOO MUCH! I AGREE! NOT SURE! AAAARGH!
It's pretty visceral!

Late in life, I'm in the process of trying to stand in my power as a woman- and the one good thing to come out of all this gender mess, is that this has been an unexpected learning point.

And what GailBlanche says here, about the decisions makers, struck like a sword of truth.

I am clearly seeing that this is a boundary point, not a mediation point.

(Recently re-watched the film Erin Brokovitch- and that came strongly to mind when writing this!)

Yes, I agree. It was a really great post.

I am delurking on the thread (frankly it's gone way beyond anything that I could respond to - I can see that I'm a TRA suspect now too in amongst everything 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️) to say that I realised that I probably should have clarified that I was referring to the decision makers that I speak to directly when I made the comment to which I was responding.

But the main decision makers - those that are in government and senior healthcare and education beyond the local and regional levels at which I'm engaging - it's a very important point to call out that they are choosing what to listen to and that the delivery of it is incidental. There was a great post after this one too with the example from Canada. Ultimately it's all political game play and all stacked in the favour of those who have the most influence. I can completely see why too much accommodation and "niceness" has led to where we are. All I can really reiterate on this front is that I engage in as measured a way that I can on everything, but the boundaries on spaces, sports, safeguarding etc aren't negotiable. Not for anyone, gender dysphoria or not.

Also thank you for your kind words above. That's why I also felt I could delurk. I'm still reading the posts and finding them helpful. I feel exactly the same way about this type of thread, which is why I join them. Admittedly it's preferable if I'm not accidentally tripping up all over unintended consequences of a turn of phrase but even then it's still helpful to see the substance in the comments.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 08/11/2023 17:26

I confess myself somewhat surprised that BonfireLady revived this discussion instead of gracefully allowing the subject to rest. Forgive me for being perhaps overly direct due to my own autism, but Bonfire, do you enjoy being shouted at?

Or are you hoping that we will look at your exchange with KJK on twitter and come dashing to your defence? I have certainly gone and looked at it, but I felt absolutely no need to come rallying to your aid because the big mean lady dared to disagree with you. I do feel somewhat irked that you have managed to weave posts and posts and posts from her one line reply, but it's nevertheless been somewhat educational: I now understand why so many adults used to have such a clear boundary banning anything that could remotely constitute "telling tales"...

This discussion is one that I have been metaphorically sitting on my hands not to participate in, because I did not wish to escalate the situation, but in case it is not readily apparent, I have altogether run out of patience now.

Earlier on in this thread, you said: I'm really not ignoring what I'm hearing. It all summarises up to what KJK told me: that I'm "part of the problem". I will again say that I don't believe I am and that there are different ways engage in all of this

Yes, you are part of the problem. I appreciate that you do not believe you are, but in case you haven't noticed, there are numerous people who apparently do not believe the physical presence of men in women's spaces (e.g. sports, changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards and prisons) could negatively impact women. Does their misconception at all alter the situation? Does it reduce the negative impacts on women? The answers are no and no.

To be clear, I am not proposing that you be legally obliged to correctly sex people, because that would simply infringe upon free speech from a different political direction. But it wouldn't go amiss for you to acknowledge that you do not live in a vacuum and that what momentarily makes you feel like a kind person may also have negative ramifications for others later. This is a blind spot that reoccurs in your posts, across different threads.

Let's focus on this thread: the effects of knowingly mis-sexing people, as a courtesy to that individual. This is a practice I used to participate in myself, but which I stopped when I discovered that in prisons, female prisoners are being disciplined for not using 'preferred' pronouns. Every single one of us who chose to use 'preferred pronouns' contributed to the normalisation of it as a expectation; rather than a politeness that we may choose to extend, trans-identifying people are now seen as entitled to the pronouns they specify. That led to it being seen as reasonable to punish incarcerated women, because now they are deemed to have infringed the rights of male prisoners, who shouldn't even be placed in the female estate.

Women in prison cannot walk away or avoid these situations at all. They are locked in with these males, and it has been revealed time and time again that these males are not only trans-identifying, they are manipulative sex offenders who know the power they have. Moreover, more than one study has already found that an extraordinarily high proportion of incarcerated women show symptoms of brain injury (usually from previous domestic abuse).

It's hardly unusual for brain injuries to affect language use or impulse control, is it? This is absolutely going to be a factor in how easy these women find it to re-program themselves to always refer to 6 foot tall rapist Steve as she, as in "she drew aside the curtain in the shower to make sure I saw her penis". Incidentally, not a made up example. That behaviour has already been reported.

Research by the Disabilities Trust and Royal Holloway, University of London, found that of the 173 women screened at Drake Hall prison in Staffordshire answering questions about blows to the head, 64% gave answers consistent with having symptoms of a brain injury. The symptoms of 96% of the women suggested that these arose from physical trauma.
[[//Nearly 65% of prisoners at women's jail 'show signs of brain injury' | Prisons and probation | The Guardian

Don't believe me? Then let's hear from Dr Kate Coleman, who has come to the same decision as me:

4. Every time pronouns are used 'to be polite' it bolsters compulsory pronoun use including for women in prison, witnesses in court, children, etc. Compulsory pronoun use is gaslighting, totalitarianism & a safeguarding risk.

Twitter

Nearly 65% of prisoners at women's jail 'show signs of brain injury'

Call for screening as women tell study their injuries were caused by domestic violence

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/06/nearly-65-of-prisoners-at-womens-jail-show-signs-of-brain-injury

Melroses · 08/11/2023 17:31

All I can really reiterate on this front is that I engage in as measured a way that I can on everything, but the boundaries on spaces, sports, safeguarding etc aren't negotiable. Not for anyone, gender dysphoria or not.

Remember, people with power will take what they want anyway. Any hint of 'niceness' is an open goal. They don't get where they are by being nice, or measured.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 08/11/2023 17:33

The following is a copy of an article by Dr Kate Coleman, Director of Keep Prisons Single Sex.

article

Over the summer, I had lunch with a female former offender, who had recently been released from prison. During her sentence, she had moved around the female estate and had been housed in several different women’s prisons. One of the things we talked about was her experience of being held with male prisoners who identify as transgender. For those who don’t know, male prisoners have been held in women’s prisons in England and Wales since at least the early 1980s.

Although the criteria that permit this have changed over the years, the common factor permitting this is that these male prisoners identify as women. Another common factor is that the legitimate needs of women in prison to single-sex spaces for what should be obvious reasons of privacy, dignity and safety have been repeatedly and consistently minimised and ignored. I wanted to ask her what it was like being a woman held in prisons that are mixed-sex.

I’ve been ‘doing’ prisons for a while now and although much of what she told me was not a surprise, it was still shocking and upsetting. She told me about the sexual assaults she had both experienced and witnessed. She reported that sexually aggressive and physically threatening behaviour is run-of-the-mill and simply to be expected.

She said that all bar one of the male prisoners she had encountered, who were so much bigger and stronger than she, had been convicted of sexual offences. She told me that almost all retained their male genitalia: she knew that they did because they often liked to show them off, either by wearing tight clothing or by moving the shower curtain to one side when showering.

I knew this already, but it’s different hearing it first hand from a woman sitting across the table from you. Words on a page or numbers and percentages in a report are no substitute for hearing a woman describe what has happened to her and what she has witnessed happen to others. However, what shocked me the most was when she told me in a completely matter-of-fact voice, we have to call them ‘she’ and use their female names and if we don’t we get a punishment. Even the ones who are sexual offenders?! Yes. Even the ones who show off their penises in the shower with you?! Yes. If we don’t we get a punishment.

I am firmly of the opinion that the policy and practice of housing male prisoners who identify as transgender alongside women constitutes an unofficial punishment directed against female offenders and only against female offenders: whilst male prisoners who fulfil the necessary criteria are housed alongside women, no female prisoner who identifies as transgender is ever held in the male estate. Somehow when making decisions about who is allowed in men’s prisons, the prison service can see that sex is immutable and matters. In prison as in the outside world, men get to keep their single-sex spaces. It’s women’s spaces that become mixed sex.

Being held in a mixed sex institution is not a normal consequence of lawful detention. Neither is facing an increased risk of both sexual assault and sexual assault by a male. Nor is the psychological and emotional harm inflicted upon female offenders when they are housed with males. Throughout the criminal justice system, women in prison are recognised as being traumatised, vulnerable and are often the victims of far more serious, usually violent or sexual, offences than those they have been convicted of. This unofficial punishment has another dimension and a particularly sinister one at that. The punishment of compelled and coerced speech. The punishment of indoctrination.

I’m sure some will counter that if you are in prison you don’t get to complain. We all know the saying, if you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime. To this I say, it is imprisonment, the deprivation of liberty, the removal from society, the loss of time that is the punishment. Imprisonment is not a means to enable a punishment to be inflicted. Convicted offenders who receive a custodial sentence are sent to prison as punishment, nor for punishment.

This process of indoctrination – and it is indoctrination: you are required to only speak approved words to describe a reality that conforms to an approved ideology – robs women in prison of their language, their concepts, their experiences. It is a particular cruelty to women in prison. The data consistently report that female offenders have experienced high rates of violence and sexual assault at the hands of men, often since childhood. Women in prison know all too well who is a man, who is male and which of the two sexes presents the greater risk. However, the male prisoner, the man, becomes the risk that cannot, must not, be identified.

The woman I met told me that female offenders generally don’t complain because there’s simply no point. If a woman did make a complaint about the actions of a male prisoner, she would have to use female pronouns and that prisoner’s chosen female name. But it wasn’t a woman who was aggressive to her, or threatened her, or assaulted her, or showed her his penis. It just wasn’t. It was an adult human male: it was a man. The language she is compelled to use means she is forced to describe an incident that involved a woman. She is forced to agree that this prisoner is a woman, is female.

This is not just the denial of freedom of speech. This is compelled speech. This is forcing women to affirm an ideology. If we don’t we get a punishment.
Since my lunch with the female former offender, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that women in prison are expected to use ‘correct’ pronouns and may be punished for refusing to comply. In a reply to a written question asked by Lord Philip Hunt, Lord Wolfson explained that it is only where a woman makes ‘an honest mistake’ in using ‘incorrect pronouns’ that she can be assured that she will not suffer a penalty. An ‘honest mistake’? What about an intentional choice of language to refer to the adult human male she sees before her? What about a refusal to affirm gender identity ideology? Post Forstater, gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act (2010) and have been deemed ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’. What protection does this give the woman in prison?

Many who consider preferred pronouns to be a matter of courtesy and a kindness still draw a line in the sand and decline to use these to refer to a male who has been convicted of violent and sexual offences. Particularly if the very ability to commit these offences is intrinsically tied to the biological fact of being male. But pronouns are not prizes nor are they rewards for ‘good behaviour’. They are neutral with no value-judgement attached. Womanhood is not an honorarium to be bestowed on those males who are somehow ‘deserving’. Pronouns just are and womanhood just is.

It may not surprise you to learn that I won’t use preferred pronouns. Nor will I use the term ‘transwoman’ (nor any of the current variants). My reasons for this are informed by the requirements for safeguarding and my refusal to endorse gender identity ideology, even whilst expressing disagreement. Material reality matters and I make the choice that my language shall be free of concepts belonging to an ideology with which I disagree.

Now I have another reason. I have freedom of expression, but women in prison don’t. In standing by my choice I honour the fact that I, unlike them, have that freedom to insist on reality and reject ideology.

If we don’t we get a punishment.

Froodwithatowel · 08/11/2023 17:47

When I read that,

alongside the recent wittering from the male poster who has recently been enjoying himself here that male people who like to imagine they feel like they think being a woman would feel, should be in women's prisons because the treatment is nicer, they get treated and spoken to gently, all that shit about being submissive with other submissive people.....

my blood boils.

It's about happy penises. And control, and dominance, and enjoying the reactions from women as a supply.

And this is being enabled through a belief that women just don't matter like men do. Women aren't as human as men are.

And women have to be fucking nice about this or they risk not being listened to by the men busy dehumanising them and allowing men to go and rape and assault them rather than risk making a man sad.

Helleofabore · 08/11/2023 18:05

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 08/11/2023 17:26

I confess myself somewhat surprised that BonfireLady revived this discussion instead of gracefully allowing the subject to rest. Forgive me for being perhaps overly direct due to my own autism, but Bonfire, do you enjoy being shouted at?

Or are you hoping that we will look at your exchange with KJK on twitter and come dashing to your defence? I have certainly gone and looked at it, but I felt absolutely no need to come rallying to your aid because the big mean lady dared to disagree with you. I do feel somewhat irked that you have managed to weave posts and posts and posts from her one line reply, but it's nevertheless been somewhat educational: I now understand why so many adults used to have such a clear boundary banning anything that could remotely constitute "telling tales"...

This discussion is one that I have been metaphorically sitting on my hands not to participate in, because I did not wish to escalate the situation, but in case it is not readily apparent, I have altogether run out of patience now.

Earlier on in this thread, you said: I'm really not ignoring what I'm hearing. It all summarises up to what KJK told me: that I'm "part of the problem". I will again say that I don't believe I am and that there are different ways engage in all of this

Yes, you are part of the problem. I appreciate that you do not believe you are, but in case you haven't noticed, there are numerous people who apparently do not believe the physical presence of men in women's spaces (e.g. sports, changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards and prisons) could negatively impact women. Does their misconception at all alter the situation? Does it reduce the negative impacts on women? The answers are no and no.

To be clear, I am not proposing that you be legally obliged to correctly sex people, because that would simply infringe upon free speech from a different political direction. But it wouldn't go amiss for you to acknowledge that you do not live in a vacuum and that what momentarily makes you feel like a kind person may also have negative ramifications for others later. This is a blind spot that reoccurs in your posts, across different threads.

Let's focus on this thread: the effects of knowingly mis-sexing people, as a courtesy to that individual. This is a practice I used to participate in myself, but which I stopped when I discovered that in prisons, female prisoners are being disciplined for not using 'preferred' pronouns. Every single one of us who chose to use 'preferred pronouns' contributed to the normalisation of it as a expectation; rather than a politeness that we may choose to extend, trans-identifying people are now seen as entitled to the pronouns they specify. That led to it being seen as reasonable to punish incarcerated women, because now they are deemed to have infringed the rights of male prisoners, who shouldn't even be placed in the female estate.

Women in prison cannot walk away or avoid these situations at all. They are locked in with these males, and it has been revealed time and time again that these males are not only trans-identifying, they are manipulative sex offenders who know the power they have. Moreover, more than one study has already found that an extraordinarily high proportion of incarcerated women show symptoms of brain injury (usually from previous domestic abuse).

It's hardly unusual for brain injuries to affect language use or impulse control, is it? This is absolutely going to be a factor in how easy these women find it to re-program themselves to always refer to 6 foot tall rapist Steve as she, as in "she drew aside the curtain in the shower to make sure I saw her penis". Incidentally, not a made up example. That behaviour has already been reported.

Research by the Disabilities Trust and Royal Holloway, University of London, found that of the 173 women screened at Drake Hall prison in Staffordshire answering questions about blows to the head, 64% gave answers consistent with having symptoms of a brain injury. The symptoms of 96% of the women suggested that these arose from physical trauma.
[[//Nearly 65% of prisoners at women's jail 'show signs of brain injury' | Prisons and probation | The Guardian

Don't believe me? Then let's hear from Dr Kate Coleman, who has come to the same decision as me:

4. Every time pronouns are used 'to be polite' it bolsters compulsory pronoun use including for women in prison, witnesses in court, children, etc. Compulsory pronoun use is gaslighting, totalitarianism & a safeguarding risk.

Twitter

Neighbourhood You are spot on in that the apparent normalisation of using pronouns by some people would have indeed been leveraged in the guidance that women incarcerated had to use pronouns.

This is a ramification I did understand, but forgot as I have been so focused on sports.

But the same thing struck me when I read a post today or yesterday that a woman had to use pronouns or she would be fired from her role. This is where people using pronouns has been weaponised in so many ways.

Prisons, sports and job security. Thank you.

BonfireLady · 08/11/2023 18:11

I confess myself somewhat surprised that BonfireLadyrevived this discussion instead of gracefully allowing the subject to rest. Forgive me for being perhaps overly direct due to my own autism, butBonfire, do youenjoybeing shouted at?

Of course not. But despite the fact that it's still happening (and it's seemingly impossible to do anything about that) this kind of thread is really helpful for pulling out lots of different facets relating to gender identity. The reason I restarted it was simply because I wasn't quite ready to let go of figuring out how to take part in conversations when I'm aware that I come at things from a completely different angle. I was quite surprised that so many people made it past the wall of lettuce and bacon TBH so I didn't expect quite this level of engagement. I thought it was tapering out.

I don't need rescuing or similar though. I'm not here for the people pleasing.

@DameMaud this sounds very like me too:
I like to think deeply and critically about an issue (especially conflict)- to try to understand it, from all angles, and to work out where others are coming from/how it can be resolved

Your comment about visceral reactions on this type of thread resonated too as I found myself doing exactly the same on the Debbie Hayton thread that was linked in.

I also really love the idea that integrity and logic will prevail but I've learned from various journeys through work politics and other experiences that unfortunately personal motivations that completely lack integrity often top trump all of this. This is what got me "battle ready" for when I was liaising with CAMHS about my daughter's safeguarding.

GailBlancheViola · 08/11/2023 18:14

Excellent posts NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision. Proves exactly what KJK said to Bonfire was a pertinent and fair observation and, like you, I don't see that one line from KJK as the demonising, nasty horror it has been painted as, it was a direct, to the point response. Why have you made so much of that response to you from KJK @BonfireLady that you have needed to harp on about it for thread after thread page after page? Why do you use it to keep justifying your choices?

GrittyTunnocks · 08/11/2023 18:17

It is odd to bang on like this. Smacks of over investment and I do wonder why that is the case. I’m staunchly GC but wouldn’t self harm like this. I guess, like with Alphbloke, the motivation for this is an interesting point.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 08/11/2023 18:19

When people are under attack, they tend to defend themselves. Then yet another person feels the need to object to the defence.

DameMaud · 08/11/2023 19:46

I think s large part of the value of this board, is women coming to a feminist/woman centred understanding that they might never have come to without finding themselves here.
That's certainly true for me.

I get alot out of listening to people who are at various stages on a road to realisation, especially when thrashing things out with others, and I had my own kind of Damascene moment today.

I, personally, appreciate Bonfirelady's engagement, as the uncomfortable discussion that led to me hearing the specific point and words that I needed to hear, wouldn't have happened without her (you, @BonfireLady )

MavisMcMinty · 08/11/2023 20:10

DameMaud · 08/11/2023 19:46

I think s large part of the value of this board, is women coming to a feminist/woman centred understanding that they might never have come to without finding themselves here.
That's certainly true for me.

I get alot out of listening to people who are at various stages on a road to realisation, especially when thrashing things out with others, and I had my own kind of Damascene moment today.

I, personally, appreciate Bonfirelady's engagement, as the uncomfortable discussion that led to me hearing the specific point and words that I needed to hear, wouldn't have happened without her (you, @BonfireLady )

Mumsnet was the eye-opener for me too. I was on Twitter for 4 years and had 4500 followers, mostly leftie anti-Brexiters like me, lots of gay and trans people, and when they en masse said JKR was transphobic I thought they must be right, even though I read and re-read that essay trying to find the hate and prejudice I was assured it contained. I didn’t dare mention this though, it had been a bannable offence pre-Musk, and - to my shame now - I unfollowed JKR and avoided liking, retweeting or commenting on ANY gender-related tweets.

Then I got banned (unrelated to trans) from Musk’s Twitter a year ago, found MN, and my #BeKind #NoDebate blindness was laser-treated during my first week here. Maybe even on my first day!

Absolutely sterling work by the women of Mumsnet. I’ve learnt so much, and I pass on what I’ve learnt at every opportunity IRL.

I think my first MN post on the subject was something like So what IS an acceptable answer to the Gotcha question from journalists to politicians “What is a woman?” and that was the first time I ever heard of “Adult Human Female”.