Always been GC, but now afraid I'm becoming transphobic

[HouseOfGuineaPigs]

I've always been gender critical and 100% in support of safe spaces for natal women only. I'm completely comfortable with being gender critical. But I'm concerned I've crossed a line into becoming a full on bigot, which is something I don't want to be. Due to my own background of mental health and trauma issues I follow pages on this issue on Facebook. I just saw one with a graphic post saying Using Preferred Pronouns Is Suicide Prevention and it made me want to scream and throw things.

I've been suicidal, I've attempted. I've battled see harm and self destructive behaviours since childhood. I should be sympathetic about the struggles people are having . But I feel manipulated seeing posts like that one. I use preferred names when I'm addressing trans persons. I am kind to them, I don't mention their issues. I treat them the same as anyone else. I will call a bloke Sue even if his real name is Bob, it feels odd, but I will do it to be respectful . But calling a he a she is a step too far. I would either use their name or use they.

Why do I feel so strongly that I'm being manipulated ? None of the trans people I know have abused me in any way. They haven't infringed on my boundaries . I have 2 trans friends, another who is non binary and 2 acquaintances. They have all been decent .

I just feel resentful that I'm being made to feel responsible for someone not taking their life because I don't affirm their identity ?

I'm horrible aren't I ? Please sort my head out !

What a bizarre misunderstanding of my comment.

The social convention of acting without believing is positively routine in general social interactions as I already outlined so to exclude trans people from this is discriminatory.

You also don't appear to understand the link between discrimination & coercion. It's about consistency. Should people be coerced into using language they don't agree with. Of course not. However the workplace is subject to discrimination law where not adhering to universally respectful language could be deemed discriminatory &/or harassment.

The relevant point about Charlie Kirk is that the shooter believed the consequential harm from Kirk's hate speech justified his killing. GC's often site refusing to acknowledge using pronouns as a requirement to prevent societal harm. They are effectively saying this difference of opinion justifies discrimination in terms of societal convention as it relates to respect for human dignity. What these two have in common is that the basic respect for human dignity/life a person is entitled to relies on the particular opinion held. Is this really the world you want to live in?

Bearing in mind the context, your reaction is understandable…

but don’t allow others to label you as transphobic - a big part of the ‘trans’ movement has been a war on words - manipulating and misusing words to find validation where none exists otherwise… the labelling of people as transphobic has two purposes:

• to shut down argument or discussion (like playing a trump card)
• to add validation by categorising themselves alongside other historically accepted marginalised groups - eg comparing to homophobia etc.

at a logic level transphobia can not exist - a) phobia means being scared of - not anti or abusive towards and b) being trans / transgender is not possible (you can not transition sex or gender).

so even your self-categorisation of thoughts etc as being transphobic is the result of a deliberate strategy to fool / delude / deceive.

the simple reality is that there are a few people who have a genuine mental health condition of body dysmorphia and who therefore feel that they are in the wrong body - but that is a mental health condition and should be treated as such…

the rest of the ‘trans’ population are either being manipulated (think autistic young girls etc.) or doing the manipulation (think misogynistic men etc)

there is no situation for any category where continuing the pretence that people can transition will ever be helpful - if as a society we removed the ‘trans’ terminology tomorrow we would be doing the vast majority of people a huge favour - it would give access to mental health treatment where needed rather than that being overlooked in pursuit of bodily abuse, and it would remove the main supporting argument of the sector that has ulterior motives which as a society we do not want… therefore reducing their impact significantly…

whatever you do, don’t allow yourself to be labelled as a part of a war against women and society by a few - you are not ‘transphobic’ you are being rational and sensitive…

Sorry - there is a lot of inaccuracy here…

Social convention of acting without believing…
no idea what you are meaning here - to refuse to misuse pronouns is not discriminatory, just stating fact.

the minute you start to say that xyz ‘could be considered’ it is obvious that in reality it isn’t - and indeed there is no legal basis for correct use of pronouns being discriminatory… it is not discriminatory to refuse to lie - it is coercive to require people to lie.

as for your last para. the logic collapses when you realise that it is not discrimination to use correct pronouns (c.f. above)

so, sorry but this is argument sitting on a fallacy

• your stating that something is discrimination does not make it so
• refusing to be coerced does not = discrimination
• being truthful is not discrimination

it is these fallacies which have bolstered the harmful agenda and philosophies seen from the trans movement over the last few decades - they need to be challenged and starting by refusing to lie at the behest of others is a good place to start.

It is usually organisations rather than individuals that post these absurdities.

If you look them up, the 'data' will likely have been drawn from self-selected anon respondents to an online survey, and the results will be written in a manner that is beyond ridiculous.

In the example below, WTF does "will attempt suicide less" mean? Only 6 times an day, instead of once per hour? FFS.

www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/

"The Impact of Policies and Practices that Support Transgender and Nonbinary Youth
Transgender and nonbinary young people attempt suicide less when their pronouns are respected, when they are allowed to officially change the gender marker on their legal documents, and when they have access to spaces (online, at school, and home) that affirm their gender identity."

Nothing "bizarre" about my understanding of your comment. If you find people regularly misunderstand your meaning, you should take time to read before posting with the reader in mind and consider whether you could make your meaning clearer. It wasn't at all clear to me.

The social convention of acting without believing is positively routine in general social interactions as I already outlined so to exclude trans people from this is discriminatory.

Using opposite sex pronouns for people who don't like to be reminded of their sex is not "routine". It's a very new phenomenon. Major social changes like this require consensus from the whole population and any attempt to push it forcefully is inevitably going to meet with resistance from those who disagree with it. It's not discriminatory to use correct sex pronouns for everyone. This is simply treating trans identifying people the same as everyone else.

Why should I be forced to participate in another group's quasi religious belief?

Should people be coerced into using language they don't agree with. Of course not.

Well in that case, you shouldn't object to my right to call a male person a man and refer to him using male pronouns.

However the workplace is subject to discrimination law where not adhering to universally respectful language could be deemed discriminatory &/or harassment.

Conventionally, using standard polite terms in English, it's not disrespectful to call a male person "sir" and use standard English terms such as "Mr" and "he" when talking to and about him.

Read the link in my previous post to understand why using opposite sex pronouns can be a problem. It's much harder to explain why "Susan" makes me uncomfortable when "she" comes into the changing room when I'm undressed than it is to explain why John makes me uncomfortable when he comes in there.

GC's often site refusing to acknowledge using pronouns as a requirement to prevent societal harm. They are effectively saying this difference of opinion justifies discrimination in terms of societal convention as it relates to respect for human dignity.

It's not discrimination to call a male person a man. Facts aren't discriminatory. It's not discrimination to refuse to participate in someone else's fantasy or their delusions.

Where is your respect for my right to speak the truth?

What these two have in common is that the basic respect for human dignity/life a person is entitled to relies on the particular opinion held.

I've no idea what you mean by this. Perhaps you could express this more clearly.

Threatening suicide if they don’t get what they want is a key tactic used by abusers to manipulate their victims.

abusive husband - “ if you leave I’ll kill myself”
trans activist- “let us in opposite sex spaces or we’ll kill ourselves”
Susie Green - “affirm your child’s identity or they’ll kill themselves”

can you spot any difference in those three statements? Cos I can’t

It reminds me of this quote by Stephen Fry.

FB is generally infuriating, avoid as far as possible. The algorithm is trying to get you riled up. I only use 1-2 closed groups and thus avoid most of the bilge.

OP it is emotional manipulation that you are responding to. You are most certainly not alone in seeing it. The constancy of it can be overwhelming. As others have said, you need a break.

Do the people with transgender identities that you say are friends expect you to use the language that they have requested? I say requested but I guess all requests of this nature really are demands. Because how do you refuse a loved one’s request without losing the relationship.

Good luck OP. I hope you do have some support around you.

“While I appreciate your uneasiness in maintaining social conventions because you may believe they facilitate social harms, one could say that about anybody being 'let of the hook' for uncivilised/harmful behaviour. It's essentially saying 'because I disagree with you I don't have to treat you humanely'. And we all know how that ends: See Charlie Kirk.”

This is a remarkable statement to make. This is another victim blaming statement. If someone doesn’t do what a person demands then the person who feels they are harmed will retaliate. Maybe with killing the person who refused to comply with the language demand.

This is just like the ‘social responsibility’ post from a few days ago. The one where we were told that if male people don’t have access to any place they want to be, then they won’t get enough exposure to female people. Therefore we should not expect those male people to treat female people with respect.

Intimidating women and girls to comply to male people’s demand through vague threats on a feminist board.

"The social convention of acting without believing is positively routine in general social interactions as I already outlined so to exclude trans people from this is discriminatory."

This above is not really supported by the statement below.

"The social convention of acting without believing is positively routine in general social interactions as I already outlined so to exclude trans people from this is discriminatory."

There is no 'belief' required for the social interactions described by the first statement which were: 'please', 'thank you', 'Sir', 'Ms', 'Madam' or addressing people by their preferred nickname.

Please and thank you are expressions of gratitude. Sir, Ms, Madam are salutations and are based on a person's sex. Not on a person's belief about the person's sex. Those sex based salutations can also be fully avoided.

'Please' and 'thank you' are not comparable to using Sir, Ms, Madam, yet were included to support the point that people act without believing, to falsely support the point. There is no equivalence between using 'please' and 'thank you', using avoidable salutations in usually one off ad hoc situations, and being expected to use wrong sex pronouns for someone because they requested it or demanded it.

It is not 'positively routine' to use wrong sex pronouns. It requires the person speaking to make additional effort to ensure they are using the language requested / demanded by the other person. This effort makes it the very opposite of 'routine'. It makes it a significant effort because it requires the person speaking to act contradicting the routinised response which would be to use the correct sex language.

"Nothing "bizarre" about my understanding of your comment. If you find people regularly misunderstand your meaning, you should take time to read before posting with the reader in mind and consider whether you could make your meaning clearer. It wasn't at all clear to me."

Iv'e commented on various forums for years & only encountered misunderstandings here with a particular few which I suspect as wilful given the severity of ideological dogma they exhibit.

Using opposite sex pronouns for people who don't like to be reminded of their sex is not "routine". It's a very new phenomenon. Major social changes like this require consensus from the whole population and any attempt to push it forcefully is inevitably going to meet with resistance from those who disagree with it. It's not discriminatory to use correct sex pronouns for everyone. This is simply treating trans identifying people the same as everyone else.

What's convention is respecting peoples wishes to how they wish to be referred to. What's not convention is deciding it for them.

"Why should I be forced to participate in another group's quasi religious belief?"

You aren't. All you are being asked to do is respect their choices of how they wish to be known not agree with the choice. Big difference.

"Well in that case, you shouldn't object to my right to call a male person a man and refer to him using male pronouns."

As I said depends on the context. If its in the work place, the law rightly objects if not it should be your prerogative as it is for any other civility you are at your leisure to deny. My issue is its a degradation of the principles of civility & free speech to deny it particularly because of dissenting opinions. IE Believe JK Rowling & Cahrlie Kirk to be equally harmful in terms of disseminating hate speech but I defend their right to not only do so but treat them as I would any other human being in terms of civility & rights.

"Conventionally, using standard polite terms in English, it's not disrespectful to call a male person "sir" and use standard English terms such as "Mr" and "he" when talking to and about him."

Again, the convention being violated is the personal choice of another's wishes on how they wish to be referred to. IE Its not always about how you. Social convention is about respecting other people.

"It's not discrimination to call a male person a man. Facts aren't discriminatory. It's not discrimination to refuse to participate in someone else's fantasy or their delusions."

Again social convention is not about 'facts'. Its about preferences. You are entitled to your preferences of how you wish to be treated as are others. And if you deny those preferences to some but not to others, that is text book discrimination.

BTW gender identification is a fact. Right or wrong, societal standards of gendered roles are a fact.

Where is your respect for my right to speak the truth?

As I said I support your right to your own opinions & freedom to do so. What I don't support is your imposing those on others. Big difference.

"I've no idea what you mean by this. Perhaps you could express this more clearly."

Do you believe Tyler Robinson was justified in killing Charlie Kirk for his opinions however harmful? Nobody deserves to be deprived of their rights & dignity because of their beliefs. Now if you can't join the dots of how that applies to denying transpeople a modicum of public decency then I can't help you.

I look at it this way. I have friends who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc. I'm an atheist. Our differences in belief have never caused any problems. We're respectful of each other's differing beliefs.

But my exposure to those religions is also mostly very positive. For example, my local mosque does incredible community work and one of my kids goes to a lovely school which happens to be CofE.

Now imagine if the most fundamentalist forms of those religions had gained such influence that that was the only representation of those beliefs I ever encountered? And what's worse, those fundamentalist demands (fundamentalism by definition goes far beyond personal belief) had been taken up by institutions, media and even the police? It would be impossible to feel neutral about my friends' religions in this scenario.

It is not respectful to demand that others comply with your identity in the way that they address you, if your identity does not reflect material reality nor fit the conventions of the language being used.

You can believe yourself to be whoever or whatever you want, other people do not have to act as if they believe or support your identity. While there are social expectations around language use for some identities, those identities usually have some basis in being materially real.

It is false to declare that there is a blanket social convention that all people are to be treated as they demand, or that people's identities are to be validated in social interactions. It can also be said that it is not respectful that a person must act as if they comply with a belief that is not based on material reality.

There is no biological or neurological marker that is common amongst those with a transgender identity. The only commonality is a group of people hold a particular philosophical belief about themselves about their identity, and it is a belief that does not reflect material reality.

There is no societal expectation that any person must act as if they belief in another person's belief about themselves when it is not reflective of material reality or based in material reality.

If you are serious about this, then you need to stay off of THIS site.

I very much believe that people cannot change sex. That's my personal opinion and I would say it is based on scientific fact. However, I am also aware of where my personal opinions have no place, such as at work.

There were several posters here who made it clear that they think I should call pregnant trans service users "women" and "she" and basically argue with them about their identity and trans issues generally in my capacity as a midwife.

They want health care practitioners to essentially isolate them from the medical system unless they stop saying that they are trans. Some hinted that they should have their children taken away.

The fixation and obsession with trans people and the way they want to remove their rights and basically make their lives a misery is worrying. I think if any of them was in a position of authority or power over a trans person, particularly FTM, they would abuse their power to purposely harm them. They were essentially encouraging me to do this at work to labouring trans people.

If you care about your mental health and not turning into that type of person, keep away from this site.

Compelled speach is not social convention nor is is polite!
Refusing to lie about someone's sex is not harassment. Nor is refusing to participate in someone else's religion.
Its not socal convention to teach children to lie or participate in someone else's fantasy nor is it discriminatory to refuse to do so
If someone is willing to murder someone else.for refusing to participate in their religion we call them zealots and terrorist and we should be jailing them not appeasing them.
You can be polite to someone without having to lie about their sex and just use their name most of the time (if you know it) or correctly referring to their sex.
I will never refer to a man as a she or her nor as a woman, its rude to lie, its uncivilised and breaks social norms to ask me to and its abusive and harassment to expect me to.

Charlie Kirk was murdered by a religious zealot because he refused to participate in the lie of gender ideology that is not the fault of the sane majority but of the thinking and teaching of gender ideology

"As I said I support your right to your own opinions & freedom to do so. What I don't support is your imposing those on others. Big difference."

This is contradictory though. You are saying that while someone has their own opinions and beliefs, that they by refusing to act in compliance of another person's belief about themselves that the person is imposing their belief on that person.

Whereas, the person who is making a demand to be treated as something they are materially not based on their personal philosophical belief, is the one imposing their opinion about themselves on others.

The repeated mention of Charlie Kirk is actually rather concerning.

It reads as more victim blaming tactics. It reads as you need to comply with people's demands or else you, general you, could end up killed like Charlie Kirk. Compliance through intimidation. Not the first time we have seen it recently.

I’m GC too op. But recently I have felt that there are some very strong parallels between people who say they aren’t racist but go on far right marches waving our flag and don’t want immigrants to be here. Purportedly to “protect women” - and GC feminists.

Clearly the Tommy Robinson supporters are racist. They (well some of them) don’t feel they have racist intentions. They also say it’s about protecting women - I’m a woman. I don’t agree with them. I’m happy to share my country with immigrants - i feel enriched by them. It’s racism to say that one bad person reflects on a whole group…

This is so close to the whole toilets thing, it’s really making me question my GC convictions.

For your mental health, why not come off social media if it’s making you want to scream and throw things. You will always get opinions which are not the same as your own on social media. Often the way the algorithm works is it reflects back your own opinions, or things which are extremely against your own opinion. The idea is to increase engagement.

Do you believe in completely uncontrolled immigration though?

I think this take is likely to come about from affective coding whereby information that challenges, offends, or emotionally provokes is more attention grabbing and more memorable.

There are many posters on this board whose views differ to what you have described above, and there is diversity of views amongst these posters too.

I think there’s something self-destructive about you seeking out SM that has such a massive impact on your MH. Can you make yourself take a break?

If you have relatively healthy real-life interactions with non-suicidal Trans people then lean into those! Always the best way to deal with prejudice is by being among people and realising most of them are just flawed, regular human beings like us.
Usually it’s not too hard to avoid using pronouns, so just stick with actual names.

The fact that they exist and arent banned by the site for saying the things they do shows that this is a hub for extremists with those beliefs. There is a difference between saying that people cannot change sex and essentially wishing a lack of human rights on trans people or suggesting that a midwife disrupt someone's pregnancy and birth by arguing with them and threatening to have them assessed for parental competency.

If you are vulnerable or otherwise fragile and you spend too much time around people expressing these views whilst berating you if you do not share them. Telling you that you dont care about women unless you agree etc, then you will likely become radicalised by remaining in that environment. You will turn into the type of abusive bigot that the OP seems to fear.