John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

[slet]

It’s interesting how this is being discussed atm. I see Ash Sarkar has framed it as an example of competing rights between disabled people and victims of racism, forgetting about intersectionality. But there is a struggle from those on the extreme left to see how women’s rights are compromised by ceding to TRAs.

not expressing myself very well but thought it had some interesting parallels with the sex and gender debate.

That was supposed to you @BackToLurk

Your writing so measured and composed, but we all know:

"The Ku Klux Klan never dies. They just stop wearing sheets because sheets cost too much"

Thurgood Marshall

Yes, they are just words.

They are also offensive to some, slurs to others. But still, just words.

What I'm getting at, and I thought it was blindingly obvious, is that all words should be treated the same.

Why are so many people here (let's just take the thread as an example) happy to type so many other slurs, but not that one? What is the difference, exactly? Why is that particular one It-That-Must-Not-Be-Named? All words should be able to be named.

For the record, I think you and several others are reading things into my words that are not there. I am simply asking a question about language, and only about language because nobody has been able to a answer it in a logical (to me) way (and not just in this thread, but it's being discussed here and now and I am interested in that specific question).

Personally, I'd rather type 'the b word' than use it, but no one would know what I was talking about.

I'll also rarely use the n word in full if discussing issues like this one with my husband, as it's only the two of us so no one else will be bothered, when talking about the impact of hearing the word 'n'''r' - to say it in full, really brings home how shocking it is. But I don't see the need to use the n word in full in public discussions when everyone knows what we're talking about. Do you want to say it?

I also see many people say 'the p word' on Mumsnet (as a non-Brit I found that very confusing for a while), and 'the r word' or 'r''''d' when discussing disability. So that's not the only word people asterisk out or don't write. In old novels, writers used to dash out (I can't do it or it messes up the formatting) 'b'''y' or 'b''''d', and people still at times say 'G-d' if they're of certain religions.

I think it's clarity of communication that's important, so making sure everyone does know what you're talking about, as opposed to writing out every letter/saying the word.

These days, I think it tends to be that words that were the label for a demographic who have been wholly dehumanised in (relatively) recent history, are confronting to use, so should be done only when needed. As I said earlier, such words (and for me as a white woman, that does include 'bitch' when directed at a woman), which have no use but to remind the person they're directed at of their demographic's total lack of humanity in so many people's eyes, in recent history and the present day, are like a figurative slap in the face.

For me, it feels a little like unnecessarily rubbing salt in a wound.

Just to clarify - are you likening me to the KKK?

Why are so many people here (let's just take the thread as an example) happy to type so many other slurs, but not that one? What is the difference, exactly? Why is that particular one It-That-Must-Not-Be-Named? All words should be able to be named.

I don't use most slurs that denigrate someone based on a characteristic they can't control

b###h
t##t
c##t

n####r
p#ki
w#g

f#g
b#nd#r
p##f
etc

It normalizes their dehumanization.

I've seen the n word used in the context of discussing US politics. I've used it in that context. Here are two fairly recent papers or articles using it

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/to-fight-for-civil-rights-lyndon-b-johnson-settled-for-the-middle-ground-180981482/

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/pcharm/article/view/4342

If you don't want to download, the Carleton paper includes the infamous Lee Atwater description of the Southern Strategy quoted here

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

That is a lie. No one has said that no one should have been offended.

You’re (deliberately I suspect) missing the point of my post. This one word which can never be typed or said aloud has a potency above all others. But some of the people who have complained about the terrible harm they suffered hearing it have urged others to say it and said it themselves without experiencing (we can assume unless they’re massive masochists) this terrible harm.

So is that about control? If you know someone is going to say it and/or you say it, then the word is effectively neutralised? There is no logic because the whole thing is manufactured outrage.

Anyway this whole conversation is moot because it’s clear from watching the SNL clip and black celebs being interviewed that left wing America has decided that Davidson is a massive racist and think it’s fine to mock him and wish physical violence upon him.

I know who the victim is in all this and it isn’t the people with riders in their dressing rooms and chauffeurs

GenderlessVoid

I am curious as to which slurs you are OK with using.

Surely as they are a slur they should be actively avoided?

I have noticed that on MN

Gammon
Karen
KKKaren
and YT

seem to be ok to use.

It has been interesting to see some people come right out and say that they would lay hands on him.

Or that he should try that in "the hood" and they would "cure him" of his torrettes.

Thanks for your replies @OtterlyAstounding and @GenderlessVoid .

It is clarity that is paramount to me and I, like Otter, have often been left wondering what people mean when they don't quote the specific word. Admittedly, I find ambiguity in not necessarily obvious places.

Genderless says the use of such words 'normalizes their dehumanization' but I just don't see that is true in every single context. Such as Otterly's example, say.

Where we differ I guess is that I don't find any word particularly shocking when referred to it for information purposes (as opposed to call it to someone). A good example is the one you used of you discussing one such word with your husband.

I wonder what it is that makes them less shocking to me/more shocking to others. Surely it cannot just be a 'me' thing. There are not many chances to actually discuss this IRL and this thread was a small opportunity. It's not exactly the quest of my life, mind, but I do find it interesting.

I've used YT but not as a slur. On some forums it seems like a shorthand for white. It can be used disparagingly but often isn't. If the overwhelming usage on a particular forum or group was as a slur, I wouldn't use it. I haven't used it on MN but I haven't noticed it either.

I avoid using all those as slurs because they disparage someone based on their sex or race/national origin.

But if we use the logic that is being used in this case that its not the intent but the impact (which I agree with) then if YT has the impact of a slur then it shouldn't be used.

It doesn't have that impact for me or anyone I know. As shown by the articles I linked to, the n word has a long history of being used to oppress blacks. I haven't seen YT being used to oppress whites. Do you have any examples of that?

I didn't say oppress, I said used as a slur and yes I have seen it, both written amd spoken.

Usually as a generalisation and belittling white people.

But as I said are we going to use the same standard of someone being impacted negatively by the term?

Or does someone else have the right to tell people how they should feel about a slur being used?

I don't think anyone has a right to tell others how to feel about what they hear or read.

Its a shame that so many don't seem to feel the same way.

'YT' is very different to the N word if used negatively. It's more equivalent to calling someone a 'numpty' or a 'dumbass' if used as an insult.

As I said up thread of certain slurs:

It's more that the word is a sharp, intrusive reminder of the dehumanisation of an individual and demographic - and of the reality that many people still see that demographic as less than human. "Hey, you're not properly human, by the way - just in case you forgot about that, we thought we'd remind you."

This works for both certain racial slurs, and misogynistic slurs, where that demographic has been systemically dehumanised and objectified by those in power, suffered with less rights, and still doesn't have equality.

Caucasians, as a demographic, have not been systemically oppressed or dehumanised for the colour of their skin, so the term 'YT', if used as an insult, holds very little weight for the vast and overwhelming majority of white people. To be fair, I suppose on an individual level, if a white kid was raised in a predominantly Black community and bullied throughout their childhood for being white, it would be personally upsetting for them.
But on a larger scale? No.

The term is not a reminder of the widespread dehumanisation of white people by Black people, so it's not reasonably equivalent.

"Man here! So women can say they hate men, joke on mumsnet about killing their husbands and burying them in the garden, or complain about their ‘stupid’ partners giving them the ick, and everyone understands, laughs, and never mentions misandry. But if men say that they're not attracted to their wives anymore, there would be uproar and suddenly it’s misogyny” ass logic.

I rarely see the same rush for equal treatment and the inability to understand historical context or relevance when it comes to gender wars.

Balls! If I worked with this person and had had their condition explained to me, I would not consider their tics to be harassment. And anyone who did would be a wanker.

Many people will have a different opinion. And they will not be w*nkers.

We don't (and we can't) control the thoughts and feelings of others.

The person with Tourette's might take his/her case to an Employment Tribunal. And claim that their employer did not make reasonable adjustments to support them with their disability.

Conversely their colleagues might take their case to a different Tribunal. And claim the employer did not take reasonable actions to prevent racial/homophobic/misogynistic harassment in the workplace.

What the Employment Tribunal Panel considers to be 'reasonable' by all of those involved - employer and employees - will, of course, be pivotal. The heated debates, on Mumsnet and everywhere else, demonstrates that a significant proportion of people DO consider the targeted use of the N-word to a black person in their workplace to be racial harassment. It being said involuntarily and without bad intent, does not change this.

If/until this gets to court we can only speculate on the outcome of such a case.

Sadly, I expect all this publicity will make it even harder for people with Tourette's to find employment.

I wouldn't expect co-workers to listen to me shout slurs at them on a regular basis. It often causes stress and can set off a trauma response. I wouldn't want to set off anyone's PTSD/trauma response. I know how awful those can be. It's not just being mildly upset for a moment, it can be hours or days of pain and terror. Even if someone doesn't have full blown PTSD (but has some symptoms, which is common in trauma survivors), they may find it difficult to work under such circumstances.

A trauma response is not minor. It often leads to increased blood pressure and other health problems. I had at least one hypertensive emergency bc of my PTSD. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to regularly have increased stress in order to accommodate my Tourette's.

As PP noted, discrimination claims are always highly fact-specific. Maybe I had my own office and others could rarely hear me. Maybe I could consistently re-direct offensive verbal tics and could go somewhere private to shout. Maybe my tics were very rare. Maybe my colleagues weren't stressed by my tics. Lots of variables.

www.ptsd.va.gov/publications/rq_docs/V28N1.pdf

Did this theoretical “trans woman” have Tourette’s? Surely that’s the important question here?

Repent mother… etc

YT is very much a racial slur.

But with any slur I wouldn't be expect to be called it or have anyone use it in conversation.

I would report it, but then I don't accept racism off anyone.

The term is not a reminder of the widespread dehumanisation of white people by Black people, so it's not reasonably equivalent.

So we are supposed excuse and mnimise?

Racism in any form is not acceptable.

As is typical, the rush to find something banal to make into something as big as a slur is unbelievable.

Yt has never been a slur or used as one and pretending otherwise erases the entire concept of what a slur is.

Yt is simply a phonetic shorthand for white, the same way blk or blck is short for black or BP is short for black people or bw/bm is short for black women/men or ppl for people. None of these are slurs. They’re labels or descriptors and a typing convenience in fast‑moving online spaces.

The fact that some people use it while being hateful towards white people doesn't make it a slur because the hate isn’t attached to the shorthand. The hate is in whatever they're saying about yt ppl.

There's a clear line between hateful behaviour, which can be expressed with any word and a slur, which is a specific linguistic tool with historical and structural weight. That distinction matters because collapsing everything into “a slur is anything someone uses meanly” erases the actual mechanics of slurs and the harm they carry.

A slur requires a history of dehumanisation, systemic power behind its use, widespread recognition as a derogatory term, harm embedded in the word itself, not just the speaker’s tone or intention.

“Yt” has none of that.

There's this rampant equivalence-seeking I notice online and it seems to be the desire to claim that any criticism or negative sentiment toward white people must have a linguistic equivalent to anti‑black or anti‑asian slurs.

It comes across as either discomfort with being named (Some people react strongly to any term that marks whiteness explicitly, because whiteness is often treated as the unmarked default. So they treat being named in any way as oppression) or bad-faith framing (Turning a neutral shorthand or random word into a “slur” can be a way to derail conversations about behaviour, power, or racial dynamics).

This usually shifts the conversation from behaviour to vocabulary policing.

Surely its phonic for whitey?