How to respond he/she?

[Manchesteruser]

Out with friends. One friend's son has a TIM friend. Obviously male but fake boobs and wearing a dress, about 25. Everyone refers to him 'as she'. I asked one, 'why do you refer to him as 'her/she' rather than 'he' and was told that that was what he prefers.

How would you have responded?

Trans people aren't 'sick'.

If trans people aren't sick why do they demand medicines & surgery?

There's no such thing as misgendering. There is wrong sexing. This is not helpful to women.

Why are the only ones that matter trans people?

I'm sorry but we should be free to use the language that we feel is appropriate without vilification because it matters.

There isn't a hierarchy here.

I saw a bloke parading up and down around a children’s science festival the other day in a bright pink tube dress, pink heeled boots, pink Stetson. Full beard and Adam’s apple. Just flouncing around amongst all the croc-wearing millennial hipsters and their kids. Weird. No amount of ‘politeness’ could compel me to think of him as a ‘she’. He was clearly a young man with issues.

So why is it ‘abusive’ to call somebody the pronoun that our life experience best tells us match these people, and yet it’s not abusive to compel rest of the world to bend to your will? Again, weird.

Trans people aren't 'sick'.

Some trans people go to doctors for a diagnosis so that they can be referred to specialist gender clinics for treatment. If they're not sick, why do they do this and why are there specialist clinics for people who are not sick?

Some male trans people are autogynephiles. This is a different kind of 'sick'.

So I think that leaves us with the chancers (prison onset gender dysphoria), crossdressers and teenagers swept up in a social contagion.

Honestly, why should we pander to the unreasonable wishes of any of these people?

If trans people aren't sick why are we supposed to treat them as if they will collapse into a jibbering wreck due to their mental health if we don't?

You can't have it both ways.

I'd argue that they can be both. Gay men calling each other 'she' or saying e.g. 'Ooh, get her!' is clearly 'wrong' if we're talking about sex, but it is deliberately applying the wrong-sex pronoun to make a point, and is gendered.
NB yes I do realise these are somewhat old-fashioned and maybe reductive examples, but I don't think they're totally untrue.

And I should also say that, in the normal run of things, of course it's fine and not abusive to say 'he' when referring to a man, even if he says he's a woman.

They're super specific and only within an 'in' group. 99% of people would be calling these men 'he'

Alexander and Alex are both the truth in this example. One is just a shortened version of his name, not a wrong version.

Sure. But I didn't say it applied to everyone. The salient phrase is 'can be'.

Ultimately I don't think it changes the fact that the social convention is to use pronouns based on sex.

I never said it did.
Perhaps you haven't realised, but I'm firmly on the 'call a man a man' side of this argument. I was just making a small side point, out of interest, about language and how it is possible (not usual, not broad social convention, just possible) for pronouns to be gendered and not only ever sexed.
I kind of regret it now.
<<tired>>

I do know, that doesn't mean I can't disagree with you on this. I see the point you are making, I simply think it's too niche in the overall scheme of things to make any difference to the conclusions being drawn, but work away.

Some trans people go to doctors for a diagnosis so that they can be referred to specialist gender clinics for treatment. If they're not sick, why do they do this and why are there specialist clinics for people who are not sick?

Gender dysphoria is a distess condition related to being trans but not always. It is not the cause of them being trans

Some male trans people are autogynephiles.

As are some cis people but that doesn't make all cis people AG.

So I think that leaves us with the chancers (prison onset gender dysphoria), crossdressers and teenagers swept up in a social contagion.

ROGD (social contagion) is an unproven theory. Cross-dressers are not trans.

Christ.
I wasn't trying to make a difference. It was a tiny remark on a point of interest (maybe only to me, but there we go).
From now on I will be careful about contributing if I think what I'm saying isn't of any moment.

So people should ignore them because they're 'unwell'? I mean I think it probably is some kind of Mental illness in a way, but I suffer from mental illness and I wouldn't want to be shunned or people have to leave because they looked at me. Those people who would do so I'd consider arseholes.

What’s the difference between a cross dresser and a trans person though? I mean have you noticed how there don’t seem to be cross dressers anymore? Those who would have been called cross dressers 30 years ago are calling themselves trans these days.

(Eddie Izzard being one example)

Gender dysphoria is a distess condition related to being trans but not always. It is not the cause of them being trans

I didn't say anything about causes. I asked why people who are not sick are looking for a medical diagnosis and treatment if they are perfectly healthy.

And what do you mean by 'not always'? Are you saying that some people with gender dysphoria are not trans or are you saying that some people who identify as trans don't have gender dysphoria? Or both?

And I'm sure I've asked you this before (and you've declined to answer), but what do you think 'being trans' means? I'm asking here for your own personal opinion, so don't tell me to 'do my own research'.

As are some cis people but that doesn't make all cis people AG.

What do you mean by this? Are you just saying that some men with autogynephilia don't identify as trans? And I didn't say all male trans people were autogynephiles.

ROGD (social contagion) is an unproven theory.

So the sudden jump in kids identifying as trans in about 2014 was due to what? Something in the water? Climate change?

If you have an avoidant anxiety disorder it is best practice not to completely enable that avoidant behaviour.

Denial of sex to the extent of some individuals is very much text book avoidant behaviour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidant_personality_disorder

So yes there is potentially a clinically reason why we should not be enabling and pandering to unreasonable demands over pronouns.

Another example of similar patterns would be anorexia.

Indeed, anorexia and trans identification appear to be found in the same vulnerable cohort with a drop in presentation of anorexia as there has been an increase in trans identifying teen girls.

There's is also an overrepresentation of both in the autistic population which are known to have avoidant behaviour and enabling this behaviour where possible is also encouraged in this group.

So please don't start with this nonsense of suggesting we should just blindly go along with something because someone seems it impolite to do otherwise.

There is plenty of evidence and precedence to suggest we are doing significant unintended harms, to those who identify as trans not just women, by an affirmation only approach to pronouns.

Stonewall decided 'officially' that crossdressers fell under the trans umbrella.

They have since quietly reversed this position.

This was actually a deliberate strategy by some of the original TRAs, like Press for Change in the 90s.

There are some good posts about that on this thread (the discussion goes back much further than 2007).

Let's go back to 2007 | Mumsnet

The link should go to a relevant post by@PencilsInSpace which refers to this exact issue about how crossdressers were part of the trans umbrella even back then.

The various demographics have been inseparable throughout PFC history. They championed the use of the word trans as it did not discriminate between TS and TV.

So it was never a case of the trans (as in TS) umbrella widening to include TVs and cross-dressers, rather it was the TV and cross-dressers umbrella widening to include TS.

I recommend a read of that thread if you haven't read it before.

I was talking about language and what is and is not abusive. "Misgendering" (along with "deadnaming") is not automatically abusive, along with any other kind of truth telling. It is trans activists and allies who have taught trans people that they can expect us all to ignore our shared histories with them and that everyone must apologise if they "make a mistake". It is not a mistake if someone refers to my son as "he" or uses his old name, it is accurate, even if it makes him uncomfortable because he is trying to escape his past. If he is to become comfortable in his trans identity, he also needs to be comfortable with his past, because his past is and always will be part of his identity. Trans identity theory appears to do nothing to help people accept themselves; it is all about trying to remodel themselves into someone else, someone who is detached from their own physical reality. No wonder there is dysphoria.

[Names changed]

If someone refers to what Steve did or said as a toddler, is Annabelle to be offended because that person didn't revise history and refer to what "Annabelle" did when "she" was a toddler? Annabelle needs to grow some self esteem and not be so fragile about perfectly normal language. Annabelle literally was Steve. Likewise it would be foolish of DW to be offended if someone calls her by her pre-marriage name, especially if they are referring to her single days.

For me to go along with the gender identity conventions that activists have attempted to impose on society in recent years is to bow the knee to a new secular religion, and to encourage my son away from reality into a hazy world of necessity to conform to (trans)gendered expectations. It is my remaining role, as the parent of an independent adult son, to be a rock of reality. He can unmoor himself from reality if he chooses, but I will not accompany him on a potential journey of physical damage through poor choices over hormones or surgery. Just as if he was into addictive drugs.