Andrew Doyle

[MalagaNights]

Anyone been following this on twitter? He's been attacked for calling Debbie Hayton she in an interview.
Some horrible homophobic stuff and he has left twitter.

https://x.com/fem_mb/status/1754747745967988982?s=20

The attacks on Janice Turner, Stella Creasey, Kathleen Stock and now Andrew Doyle, people who've been at the forefront of putting themselves on the line over this issue, for years, is so utterly depressing.

Sure, disagree with their decisions make your point but accept good people, really good people in these cases, may make come to a different decision to you sometimes. Particularly when it's complex, tricky, and still being worked through.

Some GC feminists are really revealing themselves to be as authoritian as the TRAs.

It is the purists who are being pragmatic; they have seen how even small compromises have been used to throw the door wide open to the destruction of women’s rights.

Those you label ‘pragmatists’ are the ones dealing in the theoretical rather than reality.

Purists and pragmatists is an interesting positioning in itself.

I only engage here, have done no feminist reading, am on Facebook but not openly gender critical there, read the news and items posted here and on FB.

I see some of the ‘vote labour’ folk as purists- the academic feminists who worry about being tainted by the far right.
I think they probably see themselves as pragmatists, making concessions to win the Labour Party and the ‘my best friend’s child is trans so we must be kind- but actually I have some worries’ women over.

I see KJK as a pragmatist, welcoming any woman who has anything to say regardless of their alliance, background, political or religious drift. Someone might see her as a purist for shouting, ‘he’s a man’ even when it’s rude and embarrassing.

I typed too slowly, clearly.

Twitter is always a shit show, and always has been, but at least you get banned less for acknowledging biological reality now. I don't blame Andrew Doyle for stepping away, tbh but I don't think he'll keep to it unless he deletes his account entirely, so few people do. Twitter draws people into petty squabbles and bunfights and encourages addictive behaviour.

Yes, I hardly think you can call the transwidows the purists.

It doesn't get more pragmatic than being married with kids to an AGP and having to negotiate leaving.

Again. It's like the women at the coalface, the actual women who are going through the fallout of this are invisible.

It's utterly bizarre.

IMO we need to focus on what comes next. What do we do if Labour get into power and try to dismantle The Equality Act?

But great minds think alike. It's funny what happens once a Labour victory seems plausible, when now founded on Tories foundering. There's been purity spiraling in 'ver GC movement at the VIP level for some time.

Ed: That's to Pickled and Saffron.

Purists are the people who think a rule applies to everyone in all conetxs at all times. The dogmatic. The ones with no space for nuance or complexity or flawed but good people, or things not worked through yet.

It's the same compelled speech crap. I won't be told what I should say by TRAs or GC feminsts I'll make my own decision.

FWIW I've met DH. I was on a panel with him at a conference. I didn't use female pronuns I just avoided it. He was pretty self absorbed was my take away.

And although I'm hardline on using sex based pronouns I resreve the right to make a particular decsion abuot this within a context I will judge, and anyone who claims that exercising that right is somehow undoing everything is just being harmfully dogmatic.

The trans widows make a good case about pronuns and how it effected them, I agree with them, but that doesn't mean anyone who ever doesn't follow this logic desrves to be attacked.

BTW DHs wife has wriiten an article today I saw Janice Turner (someone else who's failed the purity test this week) has shared. I haven't read it as I don't have access, but I loathe the way that when a womens' story doesn't fit they are disregarde, as is also happening on twitter in resposne to this.

Malaga, do you truly think that objecting to using words that a man has explicitly told you arouses him can be described as some kind of purity?

100%

No Datun.

I think insisting other people who you know generally agree, but who may make a diffrent decision for a variety of reasons, apply this rule without exception, is a purity test.

I can get why people are confused about why AD made this exception, but he did, and he's a good bloke generally, so fair enough to ask him why and make your case, but also fair enugh to be respectful to his decision.

Give good people the benefit of the doubt.

Yes to the whole purists and pragmatists thing.

Diversity of opinion (and different life experiences) means that kind of division is inevitable to some degree. But when it becomes a high-profile public row, it discredits the cause and only helps opponents.

I'm thinking of factionalism in hard-left politics, and in faith groups, where fury over relatively minor differences becomes all-consuming.

Oh no, I'm frequently not the least bit respectful of people's decisions!

And I wasn't really talking about Andrew Doyle.

I was talking generally about the concept of an objection to she pronouns being called a purity spiral. (And more specifically you related it back to Janice Turner. )

Which I certainly don't think it is (a purity spiral) and I think you agree with me.

And in terms of doing it for a known AGP man, I can't imagine what justification there is?

You talk about a variety of reasons, or exceptions, which I'm perfectly happy to accept. But I wonder what they are?

Yes it all feels horribly familiar.
Seems to be a precitable pattern.
And the idea that 'surely Gc feminists wouldn't fall into this, it must be someone else' shock! is just laughbale.
Turns out GC femininsts are just as likely to become ideological zealots as the next person.

In a way it's been great becuase it's revealing for me who really has free speech, diversity of opinion, tolerance, as principles alongside challengng GI, and who doesn't care about any other principle except GC and doesn't care what else or who they destroy in the process.

There are a good bunch of women on twiiter still in the iberal values, stand by a good bloke category, and my admiration for them has increased.

Its all very revealatory.

Purists are the people who think a rule applies to everyone in all conetxs at all times. The dogmatic.

Not quite. They are people who think THEIR rules applies in all contexts at all times and those rules are based on some theoretical belief.

You are not a purist for insisting sex is real.

I agree having the opinion we should only use sex based pronuns isnt a purity spiral, it's the test that others fail if they even once make a diffrent decision that makes it a purity test.

There may be lots of reasons someone may decide to use a preferde pronoun as an exception. I'm sure you can think of some even if you disagree with the decision.

I'm not going to provide exmapes as then iit beceoems a discussion on whether they are rigt to do so which isn;' the point.

The point is that even if you disagree with their decision they don't dersve to be attacked and hounded by the very people they've prevsiouly supported at great cost.

We have one side in this spat complaining of ‘pronoun police’ ‘screaming people’ ‘authoritarian’ ‘ultra’ ‘extremist’

The other side are arguing why pronouns matter

One side name calling. The other arguing their position. 🤔

It's my understanding that most women said that gender critical women wouldn't use homophobic slurs. Not that they wouldn't object to him using she pronouns.

if you're gender critical, you would criticise society expectations of gender roles, which would encompass insults to homosexuality.

People might be calling themselves gender critical, who aren't tho, of course.

we get it here all the time.

"I'm as gender critical as they come but...<insert the opposite of being gender critical>"

Pronuns are a social construct. A language rule.
They are not reality like sex.

Yu can argue the rule should be sexed based, but you can't argue it's not an arbitary rule that could be chnaged if people agreed.

However much we all agreed sex should chnage it wouldn't be real.

Nope the pile on went beyond just the homophobia.
Just like it did with Janice Turner. Horrible things were said abouot her. On here. Pople saying they'd cancel their subscriptions because she used a preferrde pronound etc.

You can accrue years of respect for your work and then be wriiten off for one rule 'failure'.

Quite. Purists make up their own rules around language based on belief systems and demand everyone follow them.

Pragmatists use language for shared understanding.

Okay, so you've gone from its a purity spiral to object to she pronouns, to it's not a purity spiral, but it may appear to be a purity spiral if they do it only once, and there are exceptions and lots of reasons to do it, but you're not going to give any examples because in this specific instance that we're talking about, it's to do with accommodating a sexual fetish and that's clearly not something that you would agree to support.

Ending with a strawman that people don't deserve to be attacked and hounded if you disagree with them.

It wasn't a rule failure.

It was accommodating a fetish. And the topic of whether she realised it or not, was discussed here at length.

Maya Forstater said on her tribunal that she used preferred pronouns at work.

Many women on here say they use them in their office.

It's really disingenuous to make it about something it's not.

It's about accommodating a man who has specifically told you that doing so arouses him. Whilst at the same time, flatly disagreeing with the entire ideology that he is using to get you to do it!!

And then doubled down on Twitter!

It's not about rules, and purity. It's about bizarre behaviour that's difficult to comprehend.

Ending with a strawman that people don't deserve to be attacked and hounded if you disagree with them.

It;s not a straw man it's my whole argument all the way through the thread.

You are trying to make me discuss whether prefferde pronuns should ever be used. That's not the issue of the thread and because you can't draw me on it you accse me of strwmanning.

It's sneaky.