Stock leaving x, what have I missed?

[antigome]

Not sure what I've missed as I've been away from socials for a couple of weeks.
But what's Happened? Stock is leaving twitter, KJK posted about the disappointment of your generals giving away what you e fought for.
Is this about pronouns?

It was Janice that called women who don't call a man 'she' 'ultras'.

It was Janice that called women who don't call a man 'she' 'ultras'.

So what if she did? She's just a journalist and has an angle that the paper decides is worth printing.

Everyone on twitter who has got worked up about this, is in fact going along with the notion that because she is part of the MSM, she is important.

And by bothering to respond make her important.

This is the whole problem with twitter. Its so pathetically competitive.

Not sure how many hours of twitter time this has taken up, but in terms of all the issues that women are facing, this is so trivial.

Just think of all the more significant and worthwhile things all those who have got caught up in this.

For all you know there's a women's group or local issue needing help and support, and in engaging with that something real might be achieved.

I'm okay with being called 'ul', but the 'tra' bit grates a little 😁

Perhaps, 'ult-terf' (pl. ult-terven')?

Ult-terven…I like that, it sounds a bit Tolkien

Hmm....UlterviaPlanitia? 😃

That sounds like a Roman centurion.

Janice Turner has done and become effectively abusive by coining a new derogatory term for people who feel that pronoun usage is not harmless or respectful when the outcomes are considered collectively for women and children.

I don't like that she used "ultra" but ffs, it's not abusive.

The abusiveness comes from the power that Janice has. And I don't believe that it can be denied that Janice has more power than those she is derogating. But I am sure some people will deny it.

Janice has more power than those she is derogating

What "power"?

Seriously she writes for a posh broadsheet that hardly anyone reads. As far as I know she isn't constantly appearing on tv as a commentator. I suspect 99.999999% have never heard of her

This obsession with what she says or writes says far more about the values or maybe aspirations of those who bothered to worry about someone of such little relevance.

All those who are getting into a huddle about this are in fact the ones making it an issue. It is those who are responding who are giving her "power".

Cake and Beetle - I wish I had your cleverness 😂😍 I love the Roman Centurion version of my username

Are you seriously trying to say that The Times is not read? Yeah. Ok.

Or....

@IwantToRetire
Thank you for that account of the final conference of the Women’s Liberation Movement. Interesting.

I think what people often underestimate is that excess passion or argument can in itself become off-putting and repulsive to onlookers, even if the cause itself is intrinsically a good cause that they would otherwise support. Doubly so if infighting is involved!

As already mentioned, Janice is a columnist who is paid to write things for a newspaper. She should be able to write what she thinks and the paper should be able to publish it should they choose (so long as it's legal). Readers can and should be able to critically appraise her writing too.

I think bringing ideas about 'power' reflects significant over reach, perhaps arising from the absence of a more convincing critique to explain the level of upset her views elicited. I can see the level of upset, but am still struggling to makes sense of it.

I get that some have found her views are unpalatable/objectionable, but the level of hyperbole and moralising in place of reasoned argument seems aligned with the TRA playbook. I think this is what is upsetting many.

if you are struggling to make sense of it, here it is.

Loads of previously quite strident women and men that are usually on the side of reality seem to have been taken in by DH, and who are parading him and his situation around in support of his new book. It seems endless at this point.

Loads of other people are going 'What the fuck - how can you parade him around when he wrote the actual policies you are railing against and have been for years, please explain'.

For that criticism, and some [as always] took it too far or were just vile in their responses these people have doubled down and said things such as 'You are Ultras, extremists, nazis and haters, pronouns don't matter when kids are being mutilated and sterilised'.

And the previous 'What the fuck' people are saying 'Don't you get it, DH and pronouns ARE the fucking problem that lead to the mutilation and sterilisation'.

Various splinter organisations are ganging up on the WTF people, to the extent of calling lesbians who wear 'men's clothes' the same as AGPs. Or saying 'The Preferred Pronoun People are in my gang'. Or 'ULTRAs are just like TRAs'.

So those that are of the 'WTF - Pronouns are Rohypnol' persuasion are just doing what they always did, in complete bewilderment at the 'Be Kinders' who cannot see that this is how we got here in the first place.

And all because they inferred that they would respect DH's pronouns. Which he has already said he 'doesn't mind' [big of him, after taking the rights of all schoolkids and teachers to single sex spaces away].

Wish there wasn't so much infighting on this. I understand the need to use preferred pronouns in some situations. It doesn't mean I really believe anyone has changed sex. I don't think those that always use correctly sexed pronouns are wrong though which is why I'd prefer we didn't fight about it

I think that Janice must regret some of the words she used in the heat of the moment, and in response to some of the harsh words to which she too was subject. It is important, though, that she continues to write about this issue as her columns are influential.

Not sure how many hours of twitter time this has taken up, but in terms of all the issues that women are facing, this is so trivial.

Just think of all the more significant and worthwhile things all those who have got caught up in this.

For all you know there's a women's group or local issue needing help and support, and in engaging with that something real might be achieved.

Why are sex-based pronouns so trivial for women that we should really be doing something else, other than talking about it.

Yet so important for people who want non-standard usages that Pride groups put pressure on at work to change email signatures, how we introduce ourselves, have badges available. And the NHS has rainbow schemes and pronouns badges. Children are taught that misgendering is illegal, the police think it's hate speech. Even judges "respect" a rapists request to be called "she".

It's bloody Schrödinger's level of significance: trivial yet vitally important at the same time.

Loads of previously quite strident women and men that are usually on the side of reality seem to have been taken in by DH, and who are parading him and his situation around in support of his new book. It seems endless at this point.

Not agreeing with your assessment doesn't mean they have been "taken in". Not agreeing on how to deal with pronoun requests doesn't mean they are inconsistent or stupid. It all just means they don't agree with you. There are many reasons they might not agree with your assessment, from a different view of the nature of paraphilias, to pragmatism around political approaches, to different views about the way we manage social fictions, and others.

Of course when people say they must be inconsistent fools for disagreeing, they will feel enraged. As someone upthread said, the rhetoric is like TRA talk, people who don't "get it" must be either evil or fools who should educate themselves. No wonder someone like KS would be enraged, it's just like the thinking that drove her out of Cambridge.

I find it difficult to credit that being poor at reasoning would be the explanation for KS disagreeing with anyone, or JT for that matter, they are both very clear thinkers. It seems like it's an inability to imagine that anyone might come to different conclusions, it's such black and white thinking.

It seems like it's an inability to imagine that anyone might come to different conclusions, it's such black and white thinking

This.

I have read quite a bit of )what sounds like) resentment for the disagreement not being 'put to bed' because the argument has been won and it isn't fair to keep going due to all of the labour going into spelling it out.

I have also seen claims that opposing views can be dismissed because they represent capitulation and can't be argued on merit. Yet I see arguments that I am convinced by.

FWR seems to be going through a bit of a dry spell when it comes to discussions that reflect detailed and reflective critical thinking.

I

I find it difficult to credit that being poor at reasoning would be the explanation for KS disagreeing with anyone, or JT for that matter, they are both very clear thinkers. It seems like it's an inability to imagine that anyone might come to different conclusions, it's such black and white thinking.

Have either of them set out why they think what they do about DH?

JT said that she believes DH respects women. I disagree with that, but I'd like to see her explanation of why she thinks being abusive to his wife and taking his fetish to work, where he makes teenage girls participate in his fetish, indicates that he respects women. I can't see it myself, but I'm open to reading her explanation of why she thinks this.

It's not necessarily anything to do with reasoning. It could be more of an emotional response. If JT knows and likes DH, perhaps he's very charming, this could influence her view of him. If she's met Stephanie and been convinced by her that she is happy with the way things are, this could also influence her.

I find it difficult to credit that being poor at reasoning would be the explanation for KS disagreeing with anyone, or JT for that matter, they are both very clear thinkers.

I think you have captured the issue in this turn of phrase.

”to different views about the way we manage social fictions”

The issue I am referring to being the inconsistency that people are reacting to. Fictions. I think it is rather hard to be a ‘clear thinker’ when you are supporting ‘social fictions’. Once that fiction element comes into play, logic can be suspended because you are dealing with fantasy. Some people believe that people’s personal fictions should be respected. Others don’t.

That is more of an emotional response rather than a rational one.

"Some people believe that people’s personal fictions should be respected. Others don’t."

I think that's a succinct summation, and probably fair to both positions.

I'd rephrase that as "Some people believe that people's personal fictions may be respected on occasion, and it's the respecter's choice."

I'd rephrase it further as, 'Some people appear to believe that people's personal fictions may be respected on occasion, and it's the respecter's choice and that anyone who questions that choice is an Ultra' .