Miriam Margoyles on pronouns

[ArthurbellaScott]

'Whatever they want me to say, I'll say it'

Noting Boy George is on the seat with her. A man convicted for false imprisonment and torture.

Ultimately, whether this is pronouns or toilets or whatever, it comes down to this conflict: either a male person is made to ferl uncomfortable or a female person is.
It's the same old patriarchy: the male person gets what they want and the female one is expected to ignore her own discomfort.
The fact that people see it as so shocking that a woman refuses to address a male person in the way he wants is a dire indication of just how far we have to go.

So your position is:

Calling a person a doctor because they say they are even though they have none of the attributes that qualify them to be so called is "bonkers" - no one would ever do that!

Calling a person a woman because they say they are even though they have none of the attributes that qualify them to be so called is "live and let live" - everyone should be happy to do it.

So where's the cutoff? Where does "live and let live" flip over into "bonkers"? What makes the doctor example laughably ridiculous but the woman example totally reasonable to the point anyone saying no is themself ridiculous?

That's better than what she said a few years ago when asked about JKR in an interview, basically implying that she's a conservative fascist:

She has a rather conservative view of transgender people. I don't think I do. I can't make it out. It's a matter of personal happiness for people and I think that's what you should concentrate on. If you seriously want to become a woman you should be allowed to. You can't be fascist about it. I think it's confusing.

At the show Josie Long called JKR an arsehole. MM said that she disagreed and didn't think that JKR had done anything wrong, she then spoke about how JKR had got a generation of children back into reading and spoke about her time working on the HP films.

Well, she can do what she likes, but she’s not going to convince me to pander to someone else’s delusion. ‘My truth’, as the phrase goes, is reality. Someone else can have their truth and I’ll have mine. Thanks very much.

I think that some posters don’t understand that already extreme trans activists have used people using wrong sex pronouns for male people has resulted in harm for female people. It can never be said too many times.

McKinnon / Ivy was very clear. They leveraged people using their pronouns to convince sporting bodies of the world to allow male people to access female sports categories.

These extreme trans activists have also now started to claim the word ‘female’. Because they keep telling the world that people accept them as ‘female’, meaning people use the female pronouns they demand as male people.

Ultimately, it is people’s individual choice. However, those doing so should not be under any illusion that it is ‘harmless’. Like fuck it is.

@FlirtsWithRhinos probably when you're falsifying qualifications so you can register with the GMC and practice medicine 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'm still not going to be an inflammatory pain in the arse if Sarah and work wants to be called Paul though, seems a spectacular waste of time.

And being a lesbian would she sleep with a 'woman' with a penis?

"If you need the validation of a couple of letters before your name to make you feel valued then go for it. I don't."

@Maddy70 and yet, and yet...you are happy to debase yourself and other women for the sake of porn addled men DESPERATE for validation.

Okay, various posters don't mind following counter-intuitive instructions about pronouns, if it makes someone else feel happy.

However, what should happen to people who DON'T abide by those instructions? Thoughts?

Nothing should happen.

Interesting that you picked a female wanting to be known as male as your example. As we all know, being male doesn't officially qualify you for much (unofficially of course, it qualifies you to all the privileges that the structural and unconscious biases of a system and culture shaped around male norms affords, but being implicit and in many ways not even conscious, a female person doesn't gain access to those just because she adopts (her idea of) a male identity). So you, deliberately or unconsciously, picked the most innocuous version of an assumed identity as your counter example.

Let's pick the more meaningful scenario where Paul at work wants to be called Sarah. That's fine, right? Only an inflammatory arse would engage in the spectacular waste of time of objecting. So Paul is now Sarah.

What happens when Paul wants to join the women's mentoring circle. Everyone apparently "accepts" (because they didn;t make a fuss about) Paul as a woman called Sarah now, right? So it's very hard to object to Paul joining the mentoring circle. The young women in the circle want to be kind and welcome Sarah. But they don't feel quite as comfortable talking as they did before. And Paul, even though he's trying to be "one of the girls" - well he just doesn't have the same experiences as they do and doesn't understand why they don't just promote themselves better.

And that prestigious industry conference looking for female speakers? Should we propose Paul? He has a great story, and it might look bad if we send someone else, might look like we don't really accept Paul as Sarah. So Paul gets a fantastic opportunity to build his professional profile internally and externally off the back of women's support.

Just a couple of examples to show you how accepting that a man can qualify as a woman means more than just being nice to Paul by calling him Sarah and avoiding mentioning he is a man.

But perhaps you think caring about women's opportunities is itself a spectacular waste of time.

So where is your line? Do you accept Paul as Sarah in name, but stop him participating as a woman in other ways which will hurt him just as much, maybe more, or do you go all in and open up everything aimed at women to Paul's version of womanhood even though it makes the supports that are supposedly there to support women no longer fit for purpose?

Nothing. I can just think you're being needlessly awkward just as you think I'm being needlessly pandering.

The world continues to turn, and we can all have a slightly lower blood pressure.

When you’re as big as she is, other people depend in you. Imagine the conversation with her agent / publisher etc re their shrinking commissions. I bet they threw a lot of emotional blackmail at her before she capitulated.

But it is disappointing yes. If elderly rich successful women can’t retain freedom of speech who can?

And on the doctor example -

Your line is falsifying qualifications. I envisioned a scenario where our so-called-doctor was offering advice in a social setting. No one is checking qualifications - would you tell the person they were talking to "actually X isn't a doctor, we just call them doctor because they want people to believe they are a doctor and it makes them happy" or not?

I always find that the most self righteously be kinders have the most limited understanding of what a pronoun is or the difference between talking to someone vs talking about them. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@FlirtsWithRhinos

The thread is about what Margolyes said, and on a day to day, meeting people and just going about our business way, she said it doesn't matter, and I agreed.

It doesn't matter where my line is, it's clearly not where yours is; I'm just being less argumentative about it.

Indeed. It's performative. The special ones get to display their demands and the Miriams get to display their allyship.

That's the third spaces live and let live argument. That people should be free to live according to their inner personal reality and those who feel like enabling them are free to and those who choose not to can politely use their own language and their own sex based spaces in mutual respect and harmony.

That's the point the lobby start on the death threats.

I have regular dealings with a young T person, I'm fond of them, and I won't be stating reality to her face, as far as possible I try to avoid using language that makes me uncomfortable and to also avoid using language that she would find offensive. But there are times I have to support the illusion rather than start a fight. And we've got close a few times where the situation is going to drive me to have to say, actually, no, you're not of that sex and I won't support this because other people have equal importance and needs to you.

Is it kind to play along to a certain point before reaching the one where you're forced to say no?
Is it kind to make someone pretend to believe something that they really don't, as if you're a child with an invisible friend everyone's nicely talking to and considering?
Is it kind to put someone in the position of knowing if they are forced to point out reality that there'll be at least meltdowns and distress and arguments, and at worst police reports and work disciplinaries and friendship groups devastated?

Because this isn't kindness, it's coercive control. It isn't an equal and reciprocal relationship, it's a child and enabler in role terms. I'm very uncomfortable with taking that role with anyone, where does my consent come in?

Who is this kind to? What definition of 'kind' are we using?

Telling the truth and retaining integrity is 'needlessly awkward'?🙈

You do understand and that, for the vast majority of men who pretend to be women, compelling women to lie is part of their fetish? They get off on the dominance and control. You know that, right?

"Telling the truth" in a normal day to day situation to the extent that it unnecessarily causes upset when it doesn't need to doesn't give you integrity.

@FinallyFinalGirl and we've come full circle to my first point 🤷🏼‍♀️

I don't think you are being needlessly pandering, I think you are being arrogant and naive - a dangerous combination.

Some things are worth being angry about. Some things matter enough to justify allowing a raise in ones blood pressure. I don't care if that makes me look uncool. I care about what happens to people.

For me, the moral and legal right of female people to have society recognise the reality of being female, to allow us to speak of our experiences and challenges and to establish at times female-only supports, opportunities and protections to mitigate the challenges of being female in a default-male society is important, and it all becomes impossible if we have no way to refer to ourselves that does not also include male people who are using our lives as some sort of metaphor to express their own personalities. And I think this is worth a little raised blood pressure.

There's no consideration here of the upset caused to the person to lie? And say things they don't agree with and feel are actively contributing to the harm of other women and children?

Again. Child and enabler. The enabler's job is to protect the child at their own cost. The child role has no responsibilities or social contract whatsoever.

Try going on to the relationships board and saying 'this person requires me to pretend x at all times for them to be happy, they don't care how I feel about it, and I know if I don't they'll refuse to continue the relationship'. It's not healthy or normal stuff, it's not the basis of a good relationship but of a fundamentally unhealthy one.