Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

521 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
FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:14

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:09

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.

Oh they do. Absolutely. But only for the worthy, which we are not.

How does one know who is worthy? It's the people who do not ask probing or sceptical questions of course.

So, there absolutely is a clear rational explaination, but it's only available to people who will never ask for it.

In the same way that single sex supports and provisions are absolutely ok when really needed, just not simply to appease transphobic bigots. And since anyone asking for single sex support is by definition a transphobic bigot, single sex supports are only ever reasonable to provide for people Genderists can be confident will never ask for them.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:15

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:12

Look it up troll.

Touchy. If you don’t know, you can just say. It was your theory. I thought you’d have more substance.

(Reader, no one really thought there was more substance)

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:15

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:52

Gender refers to the socially constructed norms, behaviours , roles, and identities that a society considers appropriate for men, women, and non-binary people so yes expectations are sex stereotypes & yes most people both cis & trans enjoy living by them.

I'm not advocating for anything I'm simply explaining what is.

expectations are sex stereotypes & yes most people both cis & trans enjoy living by them.

Most people enjoy conforming to sex stereotypes?

Have you ever met any actual people?

nutmeg7 · Yesterday 22:15

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:11

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

Very well thank you. Not sure why you think I can’t? You just seem to be mirroring phrases back without engagement.

I am able to communicate easily and clearly with my fellow humans because I don’t go around pretending we can’t tell what someone’s sex is.

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:16

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:15

expectations are sex stereotypes & yes most people both cis & trans enjoy living by them.

Most people enjoy conforming to sex stereotypes?

Have you ever met any actual people?

Consumerism doesn't lie.

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:16

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:16

Consumerism doesn't lie.

Oh, it's you.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:17

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:15

expectations are sex stereotypes & yes most people both cis & trans enjoy living by them.

Most people enjoy conforming to sex stereotypes?

Have you ever met any actual people?

That last question’s rhetorical isn’t it?

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:17

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:09

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.

Where is disadvantage mentioned in the section of the EA you have quoted

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:17

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:14

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.

Got to say, I'm loving how "asking someone to back up their own argument" is now apparently trolling 😂

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:19

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:16

Consumerism doesn't lie.

What has consumerism got to do with it?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:19

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:17

Where is disadvantage mentioned in the section of the EA you have quoted

"legitimate aim"

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:20

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:19

"legitimate aim"

Legitimate aim is not the same as disadvantage

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:20

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:19

What has consumerism got to do with it?

How exactly do you think many sex stereotypes are maintained? They aren't all free.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:21

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:16

Oh, it's you.

Nothing says confidence in your position quite as much as repeatedly changing your user name because you keep making such crap arguments, does it?

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:22

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:20

How exactly do you think many sex stereotypes are maintained? They aren't all free.

How are sex stereotypes maintained by buying stuff?

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:24

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:09

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.

Religious beliefs.

I thought you might say that but the clue is in the name. It is a religious belief not an identity. It also has to meet some specific criteria to be counted as a protected religious belief. Declaring a subjective identity does not meet that criteria.

Thanks for the giant cut and paste but can you clarify what point you are trying to make with that? I’ve got a feeling it’s not the point you think you are making.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:29

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 21:52

Gender refers to the socially constructed norms, behaviours , roles, and identities that a society considers appropriate for men, women, and non-binary people so yes expectations are sex stereotypes & yes most people both cis & trans enjoy living by them.

I'm not advocating for anything I'm simply explaining what is.

You are advocating to redefine "woman" and "man" as people of either sex who "enjoy" living by these stereotypes rather than simply the two human sexes with no expectations of social "gender" assumed though?

If so, I have questions.

First, the obvious - why is it somehow better to label people by their stereotypical consumerist choices than simply by sex, especially in contexts where histtorically sex has been the significant, even the defining factor?

But also - what about the negative stereotypes that also have power over us? Making a consumerist choice for girly stuff over blokey stuff, fine, but what about the shit that comes with that like being assumed to be superficial, or impractical, or over-emotional? Is there a gender checklist where someone decided which stereotypes are foundational to the identities of "women" and "men" and which are outmoded sexist shite?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:38

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:20

Legitimate aim is not the same as disadvantage

The legitimate aim provides the legal justification that can be used by an employer or service provider to defend an action that causes a disadvantage.

If there were no disadvantage to start with we wouldn't be having this conversation.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:39

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:29

You are advocating to redefine "woman" and "man" as people of either sex who "enjoy" living by these stereotypes rather than simply the two human sexes with no expectations of social "gender" assumed though?

If so, I have questions.

First, the obvious - why is it somehow better to label people by their stereotypical consumerist choices than simply by sex, especially in contexts where histtorically sex has been the significant, even the defining factor?

But also - what about the negative stereotypes that also have power over us? Making a consumerist choice for girly stuff over blokey stuff, fine, but what about the shit that comes with that like being assumed to be superficial, or impractical, or over-emotional? Is there a gender checklist where someone decided which stereotypes are foundational to the identities of "women" and "men" and which are outmoded sexist shite?

And of course - what about the very very many people who do not enjoy these stereotypes or feel they align with our "identity"? Do we have to declare ourselves non-binary or agender now?

And if we do have to declare ourselves non-binary or agender to signal that we don't want to be confined to the sterotypes for our sex, what do those of us who are female do about the sex-based rights, protections and indeed language we still need not because of our identity but because of our physical sex?

In your brave new "women are a mixed sex identity group based on stereotypes" world, do we have to give our sex based rights and protections up because we don't choose to define ourselves by the stereotypes you see as defining "women", while male people who will never face the same challenges we do take them instead simply because they have a personal preference for the sex stereotypes we reject?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:39

OldCrone · Yesterday 22:22

How are sex stereotypes maintained by buying stuff?

Listen, at this point of having to explain the bleedin' obvious I'm out. You are derailing at this point.

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:42

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:17

Got to say, I'm loving how "asking someone to back up their own argument" is now apparently trolling 😂

Let's assess:

At the point of an inability to use google to define sex stereotypes or find out the name of a co worker points to either retardation or trolling.

You’ve really outdone yourselves this time & that's really saying something.

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:43

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:38

The legitimate aim provides the legal justification that can be used by an employer or service provider to defend an action that causes a disadvantage.

If there were no disadvantage to start with we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No the legitimate aim is used to defend the decision to provide single sex services not defend an action which causes disadvantage.

ie providing privacy and dignity for people in a state of undress is a legitimate aim, providing single sex changing rooms is a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. Where do I need to show disadvantage in providing single sex changing rooms

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:44

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:24

Religious beliefs.

I thought you might say that but the clue is in the name. It is a religious belief not an identity. It also has to meet some specific criteria to be counted as a protected religious belief. Declaring a subjective identity does not meet that criteria.

Thanks for the giant cut and paste but can you clarify what point you are trying to make with that? I’ve got a feeling it’s not the point you think you are making.

There's this thing called 'google'.

How Religious Belief and Identity Connect

  • Group Membership: According to the Wikipedia page on Religious Identity, religious identity refers specifically to a person's sense of belonging to a religious group and how important that group is to their self-concept. 1]
  • Worldview and Values: Faith provides a sacred framework, shaping daily decisions, moral values, and personal purpose. For example, the National Church Life Survey found that 95% of surveyed Australian churchgoers view their faith in God as an important part of who they are. 1, 2, 3]
  • Community and Culture: Religion involves shared rituals, histories, and social networks. This creates a collective bond similar to ethnic or cultural identity. 1, 2, 3]

Religious identity - Wikipedia

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

GaIadriel · Yesterday 22:45

Seems an appropriate time to tell my new favourite joke again....

Q. Why did the non-binary prospector move out west?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A. Because there's gold in them/their hills. 🤣🤣🤣

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:48

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:39

Listen, at this point of having to explain the bleedin' obvious I'm out. You are derailing at this point.

I think it's not so much bleedin' obvious as achingly naive.

Yes stereotypes excert social pressures on us that affect our consumer choices, and those choices then serve to reinforce the stereotypes.

But the assumption this means that all stereotypes are willingly accepted and enjoyed is a wild one. You only need to think for a few minutes about some of the negative stereotypes society places on women, and the mechanisms through which many of those are replicated, to see that.

And that is before we get into women having to make rational choices between rejecting expectations placed upon them in dress and behaviour and facing social judgement, devaluing and rejection, which can very much include rejection and devaluing within the workplace thereby having a direct impact on her economic safety and freedom, and knuckling down and dressing and behaving to some degree in the way others expect of us to get by.

I think describing that latter as a "choice" is at best naive and in practical terms simply a misogynistic lack of care for women's real world position.