Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

504 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 22:50

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. 🤣🤣🤣

How does a non-binary Samurai kill people?

They slash them

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:50

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:43

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

A legitimate aim is a justification used by an employer or service provider to defend a rule or practice that causes a disadvantage. 1, 2]

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:51

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:50

A legitimate aim is a justification used by an employer or service provider to defend a rule or practice that causes a disadvantage. 1, 2]

According to who

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 22:53

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 17:33

LOL. Not enough time to justify the hate you throw at people who do not share your sexist beliefs with any sort of well reasoned arguments, but always enough time to scold a tiny bit more. Transparent indeed.

I see. To you, sexism is a woman declining to 'debate' a whole squadron of questions you demanded she answer (when she's in a hurry because overdue a warm sandwich). And the suggestion to just be decent to minorities? Sexism. Of course. Sexism.

Requests for tolerance for what you don't understand? Sexism. Pronouns? Sexism. This forum's answer Swiss Army knife of replies to people it doesn't agree with, even when they're female and talking about something as harmless as basic respect. Sexism.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:54

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 22:53

I see. To you, sexism is a woman declining to 'debate' a whole squadron of questions you demanded she answer (when she's in a hurry because overdue a warm sandwich). And the suggestion to just be decent to minorities? Sexism. Of course. Sexism.

Requests for tolerance for what you don't understand? Sexism. Pronouns? Sexism. This forum's answer Swiss Army knife of replies to people it doesn't agree with, even when they're female and talking about something as harmless as basic respect. Sexism.

You’re a woman today are you?

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:55

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:48

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.

Oh back to women have no individual agency eh? The patriarchy would be proud.

Whatever makes you rationalise your own preferences I suppose.

Heggettypeg · Yesterday 23:09

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:55

Oh back to women have no individual agency eh? The patriarchy would be proud.

Whatever makes you rationalise your own preferences I suppose.

Edited

You have failed to understand the difference between being a passive object without volition, and gritting your teeth and doing things you don't like or enjoy under the duress of having to keep a roof over your head and the children fed and clothed. People of both sexes make those hard choices all the time. That you dismiss it as "having no agency'" reeks of privilege.

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:10

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:39

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

It's not obvious to me how buying stuff has anything to do with sex stereotypes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I buy something like a computer or a pair of socks, I don't understand how this has anything to do with sex stereotypes.

What is this supposed relationship between buying stuff and sex stereotypes?

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:15

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 22:53

I see. To you, sexism is a woman declining to 'debate' a whole squadron of questions you demanded she answer (when she's in a hurry because overdue a warm sandwich). And the suggestion to just be decent to minorities? Sexism. Of course. Sexism.

Requests for tolerance for what you don't understand? Sexism. Pronouns? Sexism. This forum's answer Swiss Army knife of replies to people it doesn't agree with, even when they're female and talking about something as harmless as basic respect. Sexism.

You aren't talking about "something as harmless as basic respect", or "just be decent to minorities" though are you?

You are advocating that we wholesale replace the language of sex, the language in which sexism is fucking understood and challenged in the first place, and replace it with some inchoate "based on sexist stereotypes but we can't admit that so we just wave our hands around or oops run off to make a sandwich" idea of "gender identity" and demanding that everyone respect that.

If you can give me one coherent, non-sexist reason that the same word "woman" should mean both me because of body and a transwoman because of his mind to the degree that any laws, conventions and writing using the word "woman" means both of us I will happily engage with that.

However, while you avoid answering by throwing shade or accusations of hate, bigotry or lack of intelligence, I will consider your choice not to give a straight answer is evidence that you are simply unable to, because no such answers exist.

Heggettypeg · Yesterday 23:15

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:10

It's not obvious to me how buying stuff has anything to do with sex stereotypes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I buy something like a computer or a pair of socks, I don't understand how this has anything to do with sex stereotypes.

What is this supposed relationship between buying stuff and sex stereotypes?

I think the idea is that because quite a lot of women buy handbags and high- heeled shoes, anyone who likes buying handbags and high- heeled shoes is a woman. Or something like that .

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:17

Heggettypeg · Yesterday 23:09

You have failed to understand the difference between being a passive object without volition, and gritting your teeth and doing things you don't like or enjoy under the duress of having to keep a roof over your head and the children fed and clothed. People of both sexes make those hard choices all the time. That you dismiss it as "having no agency'" reeks of privilege.

Doesn't it just!

I can never work out if this poster is being painfully naive when they post comments like this, or if they actually understand it perfectly well but are just utterly cynically uncaring about the reality of being a woman.

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:17

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 22:48

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.

Is that what @sweetnsourr is getting at? He's saying that because a woman has to buy certain clothing items because it's expected that someone in her profession will look a certain way, she must be making a completely free choice to do this because she just loves the gendered expectations which have been forced on her.

Where to start with such stupidity...

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:19

Heggettypeg · Yesterday 23:15

I think the idea is that because quite a lot of women buy handbags and high- heeled shoes, anyone who likes buying handbags and high- heeled shoes is a woman. Or something like that .

What about a woman who doesn't like handbags and high heels?

Am I still a woman or have I just been erased?

Anthophile · Yesterday 23:22

FKAT · Yesterday 08:33

Chloe is apparently 33. Not old but by no means young or representative of what young people think. She is old enough to be the mother of a secondary age student.

I was talking to my teenager the other day about how the self-appointed voices of young people tend to be in their 30s and how they sneer at TERFS - often mothers of teens or, like me, working with young people - for being out of touch with the youth when we spend far more time with ACTUAL young people than they do.

I would say that pronouners are the ones stuck in the past. It's not 2018 anymore Chloe. Get with the times grandma.

Chloe is apparently 33. Not old but by no means young

Re: Chloe Petts' age, Petts is apparently turning 32 or 33 this year; that's still young in the grand scheme of things. Many countries now sociopolitically or legally define young people as individuals aged 14-15 (or 18-19) to 34, especially when designing and implementing youth policies. Calling Petts neither young nor old would be perhaps more apt if Petts is, say, 42 or 43.

Heggettypeg · Yesterday 23:26

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:19

What about a woman who doesn't like handbags and high heels?

Am I still a woman or have I just been erased?

I don't know. All I know is that if you've been erased, so have I!

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:30

sweetnsourr · Yesterday 22:55

Oh back to women have no individual agency eh? The patriarchy would be proud.

Whatever makes you rationalise your own preferences I suppose.

Edited

Try reading some actual Feminist analyst instead of buying your Feminism as a consumerist choice.

The intersection and challenges for women of knowing the world as we wish it to be while having to live within the world as it currently is are hardly an unrecognised subject, as is the undertsanding that parts of our sense of self are formed by our environment way before we are in a position to question it. "Consciousness raising" was literally about learning to recognise that and understand how the things we may have believed about ourselves and our place in the world were formed within sexism.

A question for you though. You believe that women's choices are entirely our own, formed in a vaccum with no influence on us from society's wider constructs and expectations.

The people who perpetuate FGM are mostly women. The women who wield the knife and the women who bring their daughters to it.

Yes, behind them is a whole edifice of deeply patriachal beliefs, and undoubtably women who are not cut and mothers who do not bring their daughters to it would be judged, ostricised and worse. But it's the women who make the "choice" to actually do it.

Do you believe these women have agency? Are they in your eyes simply evil women who chose this for no reason than they want to?

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:33

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:17

Is that what @sweetnsourr is getting at? He's saying that because a woman has to buy certain clothing items because it's expected that someone in her profession will look a certain way, she must be making a completely free choice to do this because she just loves the gendered expectations which have been forced on her.

Where to start with such stupidity...

Oh yes. I think under this username he's dropped his italics that we all knew so well so it took a while to come through this time, but his obsession with women having full agency but somehow just happening to be choosing do exactly as the Patriachy would like them to is always a tell.

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 23:34

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:15

You aren't talking about "something as harmless as basic respect", or "just be decent to minorities" though are you?

You are advocating that we wholesale replace the language of sex, the language in which sexism is fucking understood and challenged in the first place, and replace it with some inchoate "based on sexist stereotypes but we can't admit that so we just wave our hands around or oops run off to make a sandwich" idea of "gender identity" and demanding that everyone respect that.

If you can give me one coherent, non-sexist reason that the same word "woman" should mean both me because of body and a transwoman because of his mind to the degree that any laws, conventions and writing using the word "woman" means both of us I will happily engage with that.

However, while you avoid answering by throwing shade or accusations of hate, bigotry or lack of intelligence, I will consider your choice not to give a straight answer is evidence that you are simply unable to, because no such answers exist.

Well, I've never called a woman 'sexist' as a way of evading a direct answer.

This thread is about respecting people's pronouns. I'm in favour of that, because it's basic human decency.

You're intent on...whatever all that was, Jesus. I shall remove myself, my degree-level of education (and sandwich) from being anywhere near you, now and forever. Please gain some perspective. It'll help. Cheers.

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 23:42

I'm sometimes astounded by the level of utter fury directed at trans people on here. It's massively depressing for a mum who already fears losing her young adult child to anti-trans violence. Just ten minutes on here can convince me he's not going to make it, because he's described that hate up close, as he was groped and punched.

I know there are many decent people here, but the rest...why is it so impossible to discuss gender issues without getting angry that trans people exist, wear clothes, appear on TV, slap lippy on sometimes? You talk about them like they're an evil crime syndicate.

I know trans women who've been attacked in their homes simply for being trans. The thread on Dr Upton tells me why. Just, horrible.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:45

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 23:34

Well, I've never called a woman 'sexist' as a way of evading a direct answer.

This thread is about respecting people's pronouns. I'm in favour of that, because it's basic human decency.

You're intent on...whatever all that was, Jesus. I shall remove myself, my degree-level of education (and sandwich) from being anywhere near you, now and forever. Please gain some perspective. It'll help. Cheers.

  1. You didn't ask me a question to answer.
  2. If you think women can't be sexist, you understand neither women, nr sexism, nor feminism.
  3. If you can give me one coherent, non-sexist reason that the same word "woman", or the pronoun "she", should mean both me because of body and a transwoman because of his mind to the degree that any laws, conventions and writing using the word "woman" means both of us I will happily engage with that.However, while you avoid answering by throwing shade or accusations of hate, bigotry or lack of intelligence, I will consider your choice not to give a straight answer is evidence that you are simply unable to, because no such answers exist.
FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:48

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Yesterday 23:42

I'm sometimes astounded by the level of utter fury directed at trans people on here. It's massively depressing for a mum who already fears losing her young adult child to anti-trans violence. Just ten minutes on here can convince me he's not going to make it, because he's described that hate up close, as he was groped and punched.

I know there are many decent people here, but the rest...why is it so impossible to discuss gender issues without getting angry that trans people exist, wear clothes, appear on TV, slap lippy on sometimes? You talk about them like they're an evil crime syndicate.

I know trans women who've been attacked in their homes simply for being trans. The thread on Dr Upton tells me why. Just, horrible.

The fury is at the Sexism inherent in the concept.

Until you understand that, you understand nothing and will continue to be "astounded" at women who have the utter audacity to think we matter in our own right and not just to provide the "cis" backdrop to Genderist projections.

sweetnsourr · Today 00:47

OldCrone · Yesterday 23:17

Is that what @sweetnsourr is getting at? He's saying that because a woman has to buy certain clothing items because it's expected that someone in her profession will look a certain way, she must be making a completely free choice to do this because she just loves the gendered expectations which have been forced on her.

Where to start with such stupidity...

Oh yeah lingerie, micro minis, G string bikinis, gym scrunchie shorts, breast augmentation & exaggerated gym pumped arses are just sooo imposed 'work wear'.

The gender critical movement has a raging problem with women embracing their sexuality which reeks of internalised misogyny. its patriarchal shaming 101 to denigrate women's sexuality.

sweetnsourr · Today 00:55

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 23:30

Try reading some actual Feminist analyst instead of buying your Feminism as a consumerist choice.

The intersection and challenges for women of knowing the world as we wish it to be while having to live within the world as it currently is are hardly an unrecognised subject, as is the undertsanding that parts of our sense of self are formed by our environment way before we are in a position to question it. "Consciousness raising" was literally about learning to recognise that and understand how the things we may have believed about ourselves and our place in the world were formed within sexism.

A question for you though. You believe that women's choices are entirely our own, formed in a vaccum with no influence on us from society's wider constructs and expectations.

The people who perpetuate FGM are mostly women. The women who wield the knife and the women who bring their daughters to it.

Yes, behind them is a whole edifice of deeply patriachal beliefs, and undoubtably women who are not cut and mothers who do not bring their daughters to it would be judged, ostricised and worse. But it's the women who make the "choice" to actually do it.

Do you believe these women have agency? Are they in your eyes simply evil women who chose this for no reason than they want to?

This is dumb. That patriarchal expectations exist that influence men & women's choices doesn't negate that they also have free will. If they didn't the push back from feminism wouldn't exist.

sweetnsourr · Today 01:00

spannasaurus · Yesterday 22:51

According to who

Objective justification
"Objective justification gives a defence for applying a policy, rule or practice that would otherwise be unlawful indirect discrimination.
It also gives a defence for using a rule or practice based on someone's age, that would otherwise be direct discrimination."

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/home/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/terms-used-equality-act

TransParentlyAnnoyed · Today 01:12

How about this, which will be my last word on the subject to you, and indeed on any subject.

Demanding people reply to questions isn't debate.

No one owes you an explanation of why they exist. They just do.

And basic respect for difference costs nothing.

Bye.