Listen up cis people! Educate yourselves!

[BettyBooper]

Read this and be told!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/30/will-ferrell-harper-steele-netflix-documentary

Oo-er, it's all gone a bit Hawkwind....

Hawkwind you say

Briefly wonders if I can be arsed to Google Hawkwind ? Who ?

I think you probably had to be there.

And if you were there, etc etc...

Thirded!

Wow. So many fantastic articulate posts 👏

Just popping back to return to my thought about the contradiction about why it’s fair to police trans speech but not the reverse (and apologies for derailing the thread somewhat!). I understand the points, I still can’t get my head around the fact that for a lot of these points couldn’t you argue the opposite from the trans perspective? Ie you could turn around and argue all the same things about imposing a belief system on someone else by refusing to use she/her pronouns? I think I’m going to take the thought away and ponder it on a little more.

Anyway just wanted to say thanks for the considered and thoughtful responses which I've found really interesting - especially MissScarlett - I thought this was a particularly cogent and persuasive thought: Identifying as us is the whole point. They don't want their own box, they want to force their way into our box and then force us to remain in it with them. It only works as long as the rest of us (whether enthusiastically, grudgingly, or out of fear) play along and pretend we are all part of this imaginary sisterhood.

lcakethereforeIam · Today 20:07

Where do you get that stuff?

Boiledbeetle · Today 20:12

Briefly wonders if I can be arsed to Google Hawkwind ? Who ?

What? They started in the 60s and were still gigging a couple of years ago.

Silver Machine?

Zebrassiere · Today 21:07

Just popping back to return to my thought about the contradiction about why it’s fair to police trans speech but not the reverse...

Is it really? One says,

"Don't call me that, it's unnecessary and redundant."

The other says, "You must call me this and accept that I am this, or I will call the Police."

One is based on reality, the other on fantasy.

I'm drawing a blank. But then you are talking to someone whose music collection, whilst there is a lot of it, would make proper music fans weep! (I'm particularly attached to my signed copy of Owen Paul's My favourite waste of time)

Hawkwind were / are a psychedelic band, Lemmy from Motorhead was in them and wrote the song "Motorhead," then left and hence the new band name. It was said of Hawkwind that, if they moved in next door, your lawn would die. Probably a good job there was no AIBU in 1973...

Yes but again that's your point of view. It's the opposite to a trans person. I don't disagree with you. I just think there is an element of hypocrisy.

The initial post I was responding to was saying "don't call me cis!". Appreciate that pp didn't say whether or not they would use preferred pronouns or not but that's obviously a common position

Ie wouldn't it be more fair if it was either "don't call me cis and I won't call you a man" or "you can call me cis but I can call you a man"

But cis is an unnecessary term, made up by the TRA brigade. There's no need for it. Not agreeing that a transw is a woman, or female isn't the same. Neither is true, they aren't women and non-trans women and men are not "cis." People have been managing for thousands of years, by referring to an easily identifiable binary of woman / man, or whatever the equivalent words are.

One side is simply pointing out an observable fact, the other is trying to enforce language, so that they get their kicks by bullying. As you'll have noticed, it doesn't wash any more, especially from a legal standpoint.

That isn't to say that I'd meet a transw and go, "Eurghh! You're a bloke in a dress!" On the other hand, if they did a performative, "Do you think I'm a woman? I am, aren't I?" as Willoughby and others do, I'd say no.

you could turn around and argue all the same things about imposing a belief system on someone else by refusing to use she/her pronouns?

Not using wrong-sex pronouns, or saying a male person is a man is not a statement about his belief system. I am not imputing any beliefs to him, just making an observation as to his sex - his physical sexed body. Like saying he is tall. Or 45 years old. That observation is perfectly compatible with his belief that he is a woman because of his subjective gender identity.
If he calls me a "cis" woman, he is saying that I have a gender identity, that I believe in gender identity ideology, that I embrace feminine gender stereotypes, that I believe he is a type of woman. That's the difference. Cis does not just mean "not trans".

But how does this work?

To me, it only works if you believe that material reality is a ‘belief’.

It was in the .gif, I just typed in 'Lemmy'.

No @Zebrassiere I both disbelieve that "trans women" are women and I don't acknowledge "cis" as a legitimate term. It's perfectly consistent.

Helloofabore

I suppose that's part and parcel of my point. Yes one is material reality and one is a belief system. But not to a trans person. To them their belief system is a material reality. Like a Christian thinks the existence of god is a fact. I just find it problematic policing other people's right to talk in terms of their belief system while maintaining the right to speak in terms of your own belief system - ie aren't you imposing your belief system on them from their perspective when you address them as sir? Yes you can speak in terms of your belief system but I don't think it's fair to deny others the right to do so in the same breath

Not all belief systems are equally valid.

But not to a trans person. To them their belief system is a material reality.

I don't want any part of their belief system. I don't believe that they are the opposite sex. They can call me "cis" as much as they like, and I will continue to point out its presumptuous nonsense.

This isn't the killer gotcha you think it is.

Just like some people are more equal than others?

I just think it does a disservice to your ultimate argument if these double standards and faint whiffs of authoritarianism start drifting in

I don't think it's a gotcha - I'm just interested in testing the thought in the spirit of intellectual rigour

@Zebrassiere

I understand the points, I still can’t get my head around the fact that for a lot of these points couldn’t you argue the opposite from the trans perspective? Ie you could turn around and argue all the same things about imposing a belief system on someone else by refusing to use she/her pronouns?

Yes. The two belief systems are incompatible. You cannot simultaneously respect the belief that a woman (or man) is exclusively a person with a female (or male) body and the belief that a woman (or man) is a person of either sex who has the mental character of a woman (or a man). This is one of those times there is no middle ground... either women are exclusively female or they are not.

MissScarlet's post nailed it. It's not really about the beliefs at all, it's about the redefinition of words. It's a sleight of hand that makes it hard to see the trick that is being pulled because it's pulled behind the language that describes it. By the time you find yourself trying to justify why men can't be women it's too late, you are already pulled into playing a rigged game.

The only way to make the trick visible is to ask the obvious question "if sex and gender are different why can't they have different names?" Once you see that, you realise all the arguements about why trans women need to be in women's spaces, sports etc rest on nothing more solid than taking the existing word for a new set of people and claiming that means all those things set up for women must have been intended for them too.