Rishi Sunak said…

I can't bring myself to actually vote Tory, but it might make me not turn out to hold my nose and vote Lib Dem to help keep them out, which I usually do in my LD/Tory marginal. No point voting Labour where I live anyway, but even if there were I just couldn't do it at the moment. It's been a complete basket case since 2010. And I say that as a former party member - the bonkers gender stuff was the final straw.

The pronouns thing is all about control. You don't use third person pronouns to the person you're speaking about so it's a stretch to say it'll hurt their feelings.

It's all about not only enforcing the '2+2=5' lie because '2+2=4' hurts their feelings to their face it's about enforcing it the rest of the time too and getting other people to enforce it. It's destabilising.

In schools, I think wrong sex pronouns are a safeguarding risk. If children are taught not to believe the evidence of their eyes and that it's ok, fine, righteous for adults to force them to lie, it's a huge undermining of their ability to speak up in all situations.

He was right though.

Yes, I'm firmly against voting Tory, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that they are the party to vote for if you are interested in women's rights (see e.g. their support for Cressida Dick after the Sarah Everard vigil policing scandal) and their general appalling treatment of people in female dominated professions (see e.g. social care, nursing or teaching).

If you're interested in their record on trans stuff - all the things that people are saying that they are concerned about have happened under a Conservative government. Have they changed their spots? Well Rishi has issued a sound bite but they still haven't issued any trans guidance for schools despite the Cass report. What does that tell you about their ability to come down firmly on one side of this issue? Like I have also said on this thread, they have been mostly happy to leave the details to sporting bodies and private companies (unless it involves a fight that they think they can win with the SNP).

Labour, if the leaked policy handbook is to believed, have moved from 'reforming the Gender Recognition Act' to 'seeking consensus on reforming the Gender Recognition Act while maintaining provision for single sex spaces'. This is, basically, as close to kicking into the long grass as you can get, because we all know there is no consensus to be had. Does it matter if it isn't in the manifesto? Yes, because that means it won't be waved through the Lords. Lords wave through anything in the manifesto as a matter of courtesy to the voting public.
So if this is what is 'forcing' you to vote Tory despite everything else, maybe wait for the manifestos.

As for all the 'top down ideology', and people who think that either TWAW or should just be treated as women, even Rishi, who says women don't have penises, says they should be treated with kindness and respect. So respecting their wishes to be referred to as 'she' or 'he' or 'they'? Or not?

For all the bravado on the internet, how many people when actually faced with a Katy, introduced by friends or family members, would talk about them as he while everyone else calls them she, or call them Colin to their face? That's not top-down ideology, that's not wanting to be a dick. Lots of people know a Katy. Telling them that they're actually wrong to call Katy she isn't going to make them call Katy he. Because they still don't want to be a dick.

And as for what is objectionable about Rishi saying 'women don't have penises'. Well, I know it was a response to Starmer's statement, but it's pretty facile. So can a trans woman without a penis be a woman? A trans man with a penis isn't a woman? Well that's not a penis it's a facsimile blah blah etc.

The whole thing is a mess. "I don't want men in women's spaces'. Right, so you want someone who looks like Buck Angel to be required to use the Ladies, while someone who looks like Blaire White to use the Gents? But you don't think that any actual policing is required? You do know at some point, hand waving isn't enough and policies have to be written?

This is why the trans guidance for schools hasn't been released yet. Because shouting is easy, soundbites are easy, but actually writing policy where real people are involved is hard. And the Tories avoid it where possible.

Given that we know a disproportionate number of referrals to gender clinics involve autistic people, do you think it is kind to force autistic people and the people around them to use the 'wrong pronouns' for themselves? Do you think their needs should be considered or do you think that you know themselves better than they do?

Autistic people can be used both ways, can't they?

Yes, it happened under a Conservative government, because they happened to be in power. It's been the same in many of the western democracies, and it's about timing, mainly.

I don't see why we would expect the Tories in the UK to have caught on any quicker than the governments of Sweden, or Canada, or any of the other countries where this took hold. Many posters here were taken in as well, some for a long time.

The Tories have actually done better than many of those other governments and I think the reasons they have done better are important - responding to the public and allowing the disagreements within the party to play out pretty freely, being two important reasons. And also I would say conservatives, not only in the UK, have been in recent years, by which I mean maybe the last 30, more careful about legislation than leftist parties - I mean in the sense of being being aware that it is important to craft legislation carefully. Someone mentioned up-thread about the Tory members being the ones who warned about possible consequences of the GRA in debate. I also remember debates years ago about bringing in hate crime legislation, and again, it was typically Tories who seemed to be looking ahead to the potential consequences. Leftist parties seem to assume that these kind of unexpected consequences will never happen, that things will go just as they intend, that people will not be bad or stupid, and increasingly seem to think that the main point of legislating on these things is to virtue signal. And their arguments tend to revert to, if you will not vote for this, you are some kind of a bigot. No matter how poorly drafted it all is.

I don't think legislating about usage of pronouns is really desirable or possible, the most appropriate thing would be to make it clear that there is no legal obligation to use them.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Interesting that one of the accusations regularly made against Maya Forstater is that she deliberately misgendered a colleague.

The defence is that the did not, in fact, misgender a colleague.

The defence is not that misgendering a colleague would be fine.

People don't seem to want to try to defend that. Why not?

"I don't think legislating about usage of pronouns is really desirable or possible, the most appropriate thing would be to make it clear that there is no legal obligation to use them."

This assurance was given during the debate on the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004, with the familiar caveat about Clause 21 of the Act, so neither the Conservative nor the Labour Party should have a problem with that:

"The noble Baroness also asked whether people who refuse to call a gender-changed man by the changed gender would be open to action. No, they would not, unless they had information about the person's gender history in an official capacity and they disclosed it otherwise than is allowed for by Clause 21."

Lord Filkin (for the Government) in reply to Baroness O'Cathain (Conservative)
29 Jan 2004

(In the debate on the Gender Recognition Bill, "gender-changed man" and "transsexual man" refer to males.)

Read this and weep for all the amendments withdrawn because there would have been no point going to a vote:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2004-01-29/debates/f813c7d4-41a1-4cfd-8115-6be9753889e5/GenderRecognitionBillHl

Serious problems have occurred due to misapplication of Clause 21, eg. in the case of NHS staff perverting the course of justice by covering up a rape, telling the police it could not have happened because there were no men on the ward.

I don't know if the rapist had a GRC or had applied for a GRC but the "Prohibition on Disclosure" only relates to those situations - not if a person just calls themselves "transgender" or "self-declares" that they are the opposite sex.

Disclosure is permitted under the GRA2004 anyway in certain circumstances and presumably "pronoun usage" could constitute "disclosure"?

Explanatory Notes

Section 22: Prohibition on disclosure of information

Subsections (1) and (2) establish that it is an offence for a person to disclose information he has acquired in an official capacity about a person’s application for a gender recognition certificate or about the gender history of a successful applicant. This information is termed ‘protected information’ under this Act.

Subsection (3) explains what is meant by ‘an official capacity’.

Subsection (4) sets out exceptions to the general prohibition on disclosure. For example, disclosure will not constitute an offence where the person to be identified had consented to the disclosure or where the disclosure is for the purposes of proceedings before a court or tribunal.

Subsections (5) and (7) make provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe further circumstances in which disclosure does not constitute an offence.

Subsection (6) provides that this power is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers, rather than the Secretary of State, where the provision to be made is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Under subsection (8), a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/22

What it says in the Act:

Supplementary

22 Prohibition on disclosure of information
(1) It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

(2) “Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1) and which—
(a) concerns that application or any application by the person [F171under any other section of this Act], or
(b) if the application under section 1(1) is granted, otherwise concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender.

(3) A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—
(a) in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,
(b) as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or
c) in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

(4) But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—
(a) the information does not enable that person to be identified,
(b) that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,
(c) the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,
(d) the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,
(e) the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,
(f) the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,
(g) the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,
(h) the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,
(i) the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or
(j) the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which the disclosure of protected information is not to constitute an offence under this section.

(6) The power conferred by subsection (5) is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers (rather than the Secretary of State) where the provision to be made is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

[F175(6A) The power conferred by subsection (5) is exercisable by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (rather than the Secretary of State) where the provision to be made could be made by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly without the consent of the Secretary of State (see sections 6 to 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).]

(7) An order under subsection (5) may make provision permitting—
(a) disclosure to specified persons or persons of a specified description,
(b) disclosure for specified purposes,
(c) disclosure of specified descriptions of information, or
(d) disclosure by specified persons or persons of a specified description.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

So how did we get from this to people being punished for "misgendering" by failing to use someone's "preferred pronouns"?

Baroness O'Cathain warned about where this would lead, and why:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2004-01-29/debates/f813c7d4-41a1-4cfd-8115-6be9753889e5/GenderRecognitionBillHl#contribution-5c83f894-2b89-4d44-8c40-4369c5c01ffc

*The defence is that the did not, in fact, misgender a colleague.

The defence is not that misgendering a colleague would be fine.

People don't seem to want to try to defend that. Why not?*

Because those were the facts in her case. Why would you argue about something that didn’t happen and wasn’t relevant?

Yes, people tend to be polite to others as a first instinct in most situations - but my point was that transgenderism in the form we now see, stems from an ideological construct which has been imposed from the top down. Hence the huge rise in girls, in particular, seeking to transition - and the large numbers of older often married men seeking to do the same.

Stonewall, for one, turned their attention to the "T' back in 2014 once equal gay marriage had been achieved. It has subsequently been pushed and promoted. It has also been pushed, promoted and funded via certain U,S based older, late transitioning billionaires -such as Jennifer Pritzker and Martine Rothblatt for whom it is a project. And it has been pushed through our own parliament too, under the radar, and without public consciousness or agreement.

Most people are polite, yes, unless treated otherwise themselves, in the first instance, but that doesn't mean people believe that people have really changed sex or that they like having pronouns or 'correct speech' imposed upon them.

As you suggest, though, many families have become caught up in it all because they have children or nieces or other family members who have taken on a trans identity.

Thank you for your reply Giraffe. Of course trans people should be treated with courtesy and respect, I’d def call Katy ‘Katy’ but I generally try not to use pronouns at all. I would far prefer a situation where nobody was compelled to lie, I recognise that’s partly societal, but people not being reprimanded or retrained or fired over it and it not being normal in schools would, imo, really help. I’d be v happy if the equalities act could be clarified so that everyone knows that Katy doesn’t use the women’s toilets (compete in women’s sport etc).

Clearly, autistic (or indeed any) children should not be being socially transitioned (re Cass). Hence I very much disagree with your point about recognising new genders of autistic children. I note you used ‘people’ not ‘children’, but you were responding directly to dimorphism’s point about school children.

It is reasonable to expect people to recognise that some places are single-sex and use them appropriately. Third spaces are a good idea, where that’s not possible then yes, Buck Angel/Blaire White will probably need to be ready to respond to queries. Women should have the right to query whether someone should be in their space.

I still get the impression that your position is rather less GC than mine. Obviously that’s your right, and equally obviously that will affect how much statements/actions in this area affect your vote.

I don't think being kind need necessarily have to mean you are compelled to use pronouns, no! You can be polite and courteous to someone without having to go along with someone else's personal belief, against your own judgement. Personal relationships and terms of reference tend to be negotiated between individuals and not enforced thouygh of course people may be happy to go along with pronouns - depending on the person and on the context of the relationship.

The Sarah Everard vigil was disrupted by Sisters Uncut - who managed to turn it into an anti police provocation. That was their goal, and they got the publicity they wanted. It was never about Sarah Everard for them.

“Misgendering” has become this huge issue, as though the worst thing you can do to someone is correctly sex them.

Why is the “respect” expected to be all one way? There is nothing respectful about expecting me to lie, even coercing me to lie under the implicit threat I could be disciplined or lose my job if I said “he” instead of “she”. Why has it been decided that indulging other people’s delusions must be enforced to the point of ostracism if you do not? Why are we being pressured into perpetuating the lie that humans can change sex? What next - that we must refer to anyone with anorexia as “Fatty” to validate their image of themselves as someone who needs to lose weight?

There is nothing kind about lying. There is nothing respectful about compelled speech. And ultimately, there is no hideous consequence to being correctly sexed. Your feelings may be hurt, your belief that you “pass” may be shaken, you may feel unhappy and disappointed. But unless you’re seriously mentally ill - and we are told, repeatedly, that being trans is not a mental illness - then so what? Really and truly, so what? You’ll get over it. You may decide you don’t like that person, you may decide that person is rude - and that’s okay, you’re entitled to that opinion just as they’re entitled (or should be) to the view that you’re not a woman.

You cannot decide to reject reality and then expect everyone else you encounter to start believing in your reality, not theirs. Who is the unreasonable one in that scenario: the people telling the truth, or the person trying to compel them all to lie, often at personal cost to themselves if they don’t?

noblegiraffe

Do you believe that raising a generation of children under instructions that they mustn't identify men as men, is a good thing?

I'm not 'using' autistic children, I'm concerned for their wellbeing.

I think the transitioning of autistic children by schools is one of the biggest safeguarding scandals this country has ever seen.

I don't think adults lying to children about reality or about whether they can expect other people to validate their identity is kind. I think explaining to children that they cannot compel others to lie is actually a very important life lesson. Third person pronouns are for the speaker to decide and most people use them instinctively based on what they see. Obsessing about what someone calls you when out of earshot is probably not very mentally healthy, and maybe a focus on education and getting some qualifications rather than trying to compel the speech of others would be better advice?

And I do think that forcibly compelling the speech of say 500 children for the validation of 1 or 2 children is emotional abuse of those 500 children, as defined in KCSIE. Compelled speech quite clearly falls under this definition.

Have you ever tried using wrong sex pronouns all the time for many people? It's bloody impossible. Adults can't do it, you often see TRAs on TV getting it wrong. What's the punishment for school children who misgender? Is it healthy for children to go to school in a climate of fear? And they are - see this thread. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4783047-detrainsitioned-daughter-still-trans-at-school?page=5&reply=125383598

And you will not find a single person anywhere on here say that anyone shouldn't use someone's preferred name. Evidence please if you're claiming otherwise. The only case I can think of where this might be true is the paedophiles, murderers or rapists like White, Bryson and Dolatowski, and even then many people use their preferred first name.

Names ARE individual it doesn't place a huge mental load on others to change your name. It does place a huge an often impossible mental load on people (and in schools we're talking children - some of whom may struggle with language already) to compel people to use the wrong sex pronouns.

And no, I don't think that children always know what's best for them. If they did, they could all live independently, get jobs, drink and drive and have themselves sterilised because they're sure they don't want children. They can't do any of these things, and there's a reason for that. It's called safeguarding.

It's a safeguarding failure to think that children are mini-adults and displays a fundamental lack of understanding of safeguarding for children. Plus there are a huge number of detransitioners speaking out now who were transitioned as children showing that for them transition was absolutely the wrong thing. They have to live with scars and impacts on their bodies for the rest of their lives.

In real life, I find avoiding third person pronoun usage is incredibly easy. You just use names. It certainly causes a lot less mental load and cognitive dissonance.

I'm not going to be compelled to lie, and it's really quite easy to find an alternative which is perfectly polite, though I tend to think that the point of 'preferred pronouns' is validation and propogation of an ideology. It's proper 1984 stuff. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

But I'm an adult. Here we're talking about "The School told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears" which is what compelled wrong-sex pronouns in school is.

He was an idiot and it cost him politically. Floisme is right.

If they do the same here and treat women as bigots it’ll cost them again.

I do t vote conservative but I will be until
Ma our can state that women don't have a penis. I will not vote for the death of women which is what a labour or LD or Green vote is.

Indeed, I’m not voting for anyone as it stands - the Tories because they think poverty or disability is a moral failing, and I have first hand experience of supporting someone through the PIP process (and yes, I know Labour originally introduced it but it is immeasurably more dehumanising since the Tories let IDS loose on the DWP); and the left-wing parties because they have collectively lost their minds over biological sex and thus would be unable to set policy that takes into account women’s specific needs relating to healthcare, childcare, employment, criminal justice, benefits etc etc.

And I do think that forcibly compelling the speech of say 500 children for the validation of 1 or 2 children is emotional abuse of those 500 children

From my experience, that's not how it works. Kids just use the preferred pronouns of their friends, often well before teachers are given any information.

Again it's this contrast between people insisting that it's a 'top-down ideology' and real life people just referring to people they know as they have requested.

I think the transitioning of autistic children by schools is one of the biggest safeguarding scandals this country has ever seen.

And I understand that you don't want schools to allow the social transitioning of children. What would this look like? Teachers actively intervening and correcting pronoun use by friends to biological sex? Teachers using biological sex pronouns in a parents evening conversation with a parent who is using preferred pronouns, when discussing their child? (Using different pronouns to the other person when discussing a third person is quite difficult, from experience).
What do you want the school experience of these autistic children who don't identify with their biological sex, and from experience are generally quite vulnerable, to be?

Kids just use the preferred pronouns of their friends

Not in my experience. Kids are all different. Pronouns aren’t used when someone is present.
Autistic children are incredibly vulnerable and that’s why social contagion can affect them more in this area. There’s a failing here of successive governments to address the huge lack of resources in this area, especially with mental health services and obviously the problem with trying to access a diagnosis. In the interim children waiting can be vulnerable and desperate to understand themselves. Teachers and schools are being left to deal with something that is the responsibility of CAMHS.

Not every trans kid is every kid's friend.

I expect 'Katy' to be equally 'kind' and 'respectful' to everyone else, friends or not. And to cope with the fact that not everyone shares their personal faith, and that other people have inclusion needs too.

Compelling other people's speech is not ok. Requiring people to state things as truth that they do not believe in is not kind, inclusive or acceptable. Reality unfortunately does not go away, and not everyone can always put Katy first.

Imo we’re doing Dc a disservice

You can’t change sex it’s confusing to pretend it’s possible.

It can be upsetting to have the delusion forced on you if then an adult says no it’s not possible to change sex.

Adults need to work out their problems another way. Not demand society bends to a huge lie.