Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Taskmaster: if you don’t use ‘correct’ pronouns you’re a philistine…

533 replies

Sugarleaf · 24/10/2026 22:47

…Who’s stuck in the past. To be ‘cool and curious’ you need to use non- biological sex based pronouns. And this is about a ‘certain generation.’ I mean I’m 32 and think it’s bollocks.

plus, as a bonus, ‘if you don’t like me, fine, as long as you use my correct pronouns.’

ffs

Taskmaster: if you don’t use ‘correct’ pronouns you’re a philistine…
OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 21:57

I thought gender was about self determination - without outside control?

If its actually about socially constructed roles and behaviours, its can't be self determined. Do x, you're a she, do y, you're a he, do fuck all/everything, you're a them.

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:57

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 21:51

Exactly.

Which is why someone's "identity" is irrelevent to needs and rights, language and anaysis, concerning the impact of an inherent trait like sex.

And therefore why using the language of sex, including the very-much-originaly-and-for-most-people-still-sex-based words "man" and "woman" to mean anything to do with gender is such a bad idea.

Edited

And yet identity is relevant to needs & rights otherwise we wouldn't have anti discrimination laws. Sex isn't an automatic right to a space but requires proofs of disadvantage that meet a threshold subject to context.

nutmeg7 · Yesterday 21:57

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:49

No offense but you sound like a gametal obsessive needing to know everyone's sex. Just use 'there's a person over there' & describe them if you are unsure.

Oh dearie me. So we can’t use the basics of the English language any more? Man, woman, girl, boy are all sex based words in normal use. They are useful because they refer to concrete things. Very helpful for communication.

We are mammals. We have evolved over millennia to recognise the sex of our own species. It is a fundamental part of who we are.

You want us to call everyone a “person”? That reduces the depth and usefulness of communication. It won’t catch on.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · Yesterday 21:58

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 00:05

Chloe's entirely correct. Learning which pronouns people use is very easy, and just basic respect. Same as learning to pronounce an unfamiliar name properly rather than just call someone what you want (something which used to be incredibly common, e.g. Martin Offiah's name was mispronounced for decades by TV pundits.)

Getting angry because someone's different to you, only announces your own limitations. The world's a beautiful, complex place and none of us know everything. So listen, learn, educate yourself.

I use all the available pronouns, TPA. For example, I, me, my, myself for me alone; we, us, our, ourselves for me in combination with one or more other people; you, your, yourself for you or anyone else I'm addressing directly, and so on.

When talking about a man or boy, I usually use he, him, his, himself. About a woman or girl, she, her, hers, herself. When talking about more than one person, or about someone whose sex I don't know, I may use they, them, their, themselves.

So now that you know some of my pronouns, which ones are you going to use if you want to talk to me or about me? And when you are talking, aren't the pronouns you use yours to use as you see fit?

One despairs at the lack of logic in the discourse of the young people of today ...

BackToLurk · Yesterday 21:58

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:49

No offense but you sound like a gametal obsessive needing to know everyone's sex. Just use 'there's a person over there' & describe them if you are unsure.

describe them

”That person over there. The man with black hair”. Like that?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:58

BackToLurk · Yesterday 21:54

A reminder of the question

“Who’s that? I’ve never seen him before”

How could I use the name of someone I don’t know? You suggested pronouns would be based on ‘sexed behaviours’. So, I don’t know his name, what behaviours should I be looking out to determine whether this male is he, she or (particularly pertinent to this thread) they?

Find out the name.

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 21:59

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:43

Um, not indulging trolling isn't an admission of ignorance dear.

How is me asking you to give an example of the point you made ‘trolling’?

Please just answer the question, it’s so much easier for the conversation.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:00

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:58

Find out the name.

This is pitiful, even for you.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:01

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:49

No offense but you sound like a gametal obsessive needing to know everyone's sex. Just use 'there's a person over there' & describe them if you are unsure.

Hahahahha oh my the "solutions" you guys pile on top of each other to avoid facing the very simple fact that sex based language is useful and outside the weird Genderist obsession with trying to label persoanalities, not in any way an issue😂

There must be a great parady version of The Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly just waiting to be written.

"I know a young lady who wasn't a "she"
How can that be that she wasn't a she.
I guess we'll see.

I know a young lady who needed a smear
Isn't that queer, she needed a smear
She needed a smear to check her HVP
But she didn't get asked cos she wasn't a "she"
How can that be that she wasn't a she?
I guess we'll see.

I know a young lady who was known by her cervix
What was the purpose, to be known by her cervix?
She was known by her cervix to be called for a smear
She needed a smear to check for HVP
But she didn't get asked cos she wasn't a "she"
I guess we'll see.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:02

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 21:59

How is me asking you to give an example of the point you made ‘trolling’?

Please just answer the question, it’s so much easier for the conversation.

It’s so weird isn’t it.

“I have this theory”
”Could you give an example of what that would look like in the real world?”
”Nope”

Not exactly convincing, is it?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:03

BackToLurk · Yesterday 21:58

describe them

”That person over there. The man with black hair”. Like that?

Like 'the pregnant woman over there' who is just fat? Or the 'old woman over there' who looks 'older than her years'?

If its just a random person you are pointing to & happen to accidentally mis identify because of social associations, its hardly going to meet the legal threshold of harassment .

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:04

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:57

And yet identity is relevant to needs & rights otherwise we wouldn't have anti discrimination laws. Sex isn't an automatic right to a space but requires proofs of disadvantage that meet a threshold subject to context.

Can you give an example of an identity which is relevant to the Equality Act?

Sex isn't an automatic right to a space I think you’ll find that the Supreme Court says it is.

but requires proofs of disadvantage that meet a threshold subject to context.

What ‘proofs of disadvantage’ do you mean? Can you give an example of which contexts these would or would not be applicable?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:04

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:00

This is pitiful, even for you.

Oh the irony….

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:05

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:57

And yet identity is relevant to needs & rights otherwise we wouldn't have anti discrimination laws. Sex isn't an automatic right to a space but requires proofs of disadvantage that meet a threshold subject to context.

Incoherent.

"Identity" isn't the measure of disadvantage, disadvantage is. Women have been assaulted while fucking unconscious. Because of their bodies. You think "identity" had anything to do with that?

Sexism, yes. Sexualisation, yes. But Identity? No.

nutmeg7 · Yesterday 22:06

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:54

Either use or find out their name if you don't know. It's really not that hard.

”It’s that man running away over there officer, he stole my phone”.

“Sorry madam, I can’t do anything until you find out his name and preferred pronouns “.

You seem to really need to believe that we can’t tell a person’s sex, and that it’s not a very fundamental part of daily language to use man and woman as sex based words out in the real world.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:06

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:02

It’s so weird isn’t it.

“I have this theory”
”Could you give an example of what that would look like in the real world?”
”Nope”

Not exactly convincing, is it?

But 100% on brand for Genderism. The whole teetering edifice is basically "because I say so, and if you challenge that you are a fucking bigot who just proved why I don't owe you explaining anything to you anything at all"

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:07

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:03

Like 'the pregnant woman over there' who is just fat? Or the 'old woman over there' who looks 'older than her years'?

If its just a random person you are pointing to & happen to accidentally mis identify because of social associations, its hardly going to meet the legal threshold of harassment .

What social associations do you imagine would lead to a man, or woman, being ‘misidentified’? What do you imagine I would be looking at if I said ‘that man with black hair”?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:09

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:04

Can you give an example of an identity which is relevant to the Equality Act?

Sex isn't an automatic right to a space I think you’ll find that the Supreme Court says it is.

but requires proofs of disadvantage that meet a threshold subject to context.

What ‘proofs of disadvantage’ do you mean? Can you give an example of which contexts these would or would not be applicable?

Can you give an example of an identity which is relevant to the Equality Act?

Religious beliefs.

Sex isn't an automatic right to a space I think you’ll find that the Supreme Court says it is.

Only if the contextual criteria is met so its not just about sex but disadvantage.

What ‘proofs of disadvantage’ do you mean? Can you give an example of which contexts these would or would not be applicable?

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:09

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:06

But 100% on brand for Genderism. The whole teetering edifice is basically "because I say so, and if you challenge that you are a fucking bigot who just proved why I don't owe you explaining anything to you anything at all"

Edited

I’d have thought, if you had a brilliant theory you’d be absolutely gagging to demonstrate how it works in practice. It seems not. Sad times.

nutmeg7 · Yesterday 22:10

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:58

Find out the name.

How? The person is a long way away. But I need to refer to them.

You seem utterly divorced from reality to be honest. Or buried up to your neck in queer theory.

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:10

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:07

What social associations do you imagine would lead to a man, or woman, being ‘misidentified’? What do you imagine I would be looking at if I said ‘that man with black hair”?

Sex stereotypes.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:11

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:10

Sex stereotypes.

Such as?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:11

nutmeg7 · Yesterday 22:10

How? The person is a long way away. But I need to refer to them.

You seem utterly divorced from reality to be honest. Or buried up to your neck in queer theory.

😂 Omg, how do you cope in the real world?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:12

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:11

Such as?

Look it up troll.

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:14

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:02

It’s so weird isn’t it.

“I have this theory”
”Could you give an example of what that would look like in the real world?”
”Nope”

Not exactly convincing, is it?

Yes , I must say that I’m wondering if this poster is starting to suffer from the effects of having no real world facts or examples with which to back their arguments.

I feel their pain, it must be really difficult to keep ploughing on with such gaping chasms where facts and logic should be to underpin their points. Like knitting with scotch mist.

Agreed, I’m not finding it at all convincing.