The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Salmonofdoubt]

George Smiley said:

Aww I'm mentioned

I agree with Caleb, I mean calling a she, he or a he, she. Or any other heinous misuse of pronouns instantly puts you in the same category as Hitler, Blair, Pol Pot and Mugabe, among others.

These snowflake types need to grow a pair (back) or at least grow up.

[andy_s]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

andy_s said:

It must be a bit cringey to normal trans/gender non-cons that just don't want anyone picking on them and to get on with their lives as they wish - which I'm all for BTW, as most would be I'd imagine.

If anyone ever wanted an insight into what "people like me" have to put up with, you only need to look here on this thread.

Everyone has an opinion / criticism to make. And of course, any negative thing that happens is then used to tar us all with the same brush.

Kind of like this:

credit: xkcd

My own personal opinion on the matter is summed up thus:

"I am only resolved to act in that manner which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person so wholly unconnected with me"
~~ Elizabeth Bennet, Pride & Prejudice (Jane Austen)

There's no argument from me on this CC, I'm all for the sovereignty of the individual. I spend a fair bit of time trying to parse, nuance and add context and texture to our current state of play with attitudes to the Muslim community, there's always more to the picture than meets the eye in such complex situations but in the final analysis most people just want to get on no matter where they are categorised externally.

[Noodle1982]

What is the history of 'misgendering' ?

Has it always been an issue within the trans community or is it a relatively new thing in regards to the offence it causes?

I may be completely wrong here but I can't help but feel that a lot of the outrage regarding misgendering these days is social media mob mentality. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it really effects some people but the level of outrage in comparison to the offence in many cases comes across as a bit extreme and faux outrage.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Noodle1982 said:

What is the history of 'misgendering' ?

Has it always been an issue within the trans community or is it a relatively new thing in regards to the offence it causes?

I may be completely wrong here but I can't help but feel that a lot of the outrage regarding misgendering these days is social media mob mentality. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it really effects some people but the level of outrage in comparison to the offence in many cases comes across as a bit extreme and faux outrage.

We've rather been over this, many times. It's the difference between someone accidentally referring to a trans woman as "him", and doing it repeatedly and deliberately to be hateful / make a point / be obnoxious. Nobody is going to get hauled off in chains for the former.

The later is classified under "Hate Speech" type legislation. There is no specific law on misgendering someone, but there is on being hateful.

[Noodle1982]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Noodle1982 said:

What is the history of 'misgendering' ?

Has it always been an issue within the trans community or is it a relatively new thing in regards to the offence it causes?

I may be completely wrong here but I can't help but feel that a lot of the outrage regarding misgendering these days is social media mob mentality. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it really effects some people but the level of outrage in comparison to the offence in many cases comes across as a bit extreme and faux outrage.

We've rather been over this, many times. It's the difference between someone accidentally referring to a trans woman as "him", and doing it repeatedly and deliberately to be hateful / make a point / be obnoxious. Nobody is going to get hauled off in chains for the former.

The later is classified under "Hate Speech" type legislation. There is no specific law on misgendering someone, but there is on being hateful.

That wasn't what I was asking.

I understand the legalities etc.

I was wondering if there was a history behind it. Insults such as , poofter and other derogatory terms have a history behind them. They are, in themselves, offensive words.

I can't think of any other situations where calling someone the opposite of what they want to be identified as, causing as much aggro as misgendering.

Calling a gay person straight, calling a black person white, calling a young person old, calling a brown haired person ginger, calling a conservative a nazi.....the list goes on.

The only other time I see similar reactions is when ones beliefs are challenged. Not their identity but their beliefs.

[The Surveyor]

Noodle1982 said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Noodle1982 said:

What is the history of 'misgendering' ?

Has it always been an issue within the trans community or is it a relatively new thing in regards to the offence it causes?

I may be completely wrong here but I can't help but feel that a lot of the outrage regarding misgendering these days is social media mob mentality. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it really effects some people but the level of outrage in comparison to the offence in many cases comes across as a bit extreme and faux outrage.

We've rather been over this, many times. It's the difference between someone accidentally referring to a trans woman as "him", and doing it repeatedly and deliberately to be hateful / make a point / be obnoxious. Nobody is going to get hauled off in chains for the former.

The later is classified under "Hate Speech" type legislation. There is no specific law on misgendering someone, but there is on being hateful.

That wasn't what I was asking.

I understand the legalities etc.

I was wondering if there was a history behind it. Insults such as , poofter and other derogatory terms have a history behind them. They are, in themselves, offensive words.

I can't think of any other situations where calling someone the opposite of what they want to be identified as, causing as much aggro as misgendering.

Calling a gay person straight, calling a black person white, calling a young person old, calling a brown haired person ginger, calling a conservative a nazi.....the list goes on.

The only other time I see similar reactions is when ones beliefs are challenged. Not their identity but their beliefs.

People always have a resistance over being 'told' what to do, especially when those doing the telling don't follow their own rules.

Clockwork Cupcake said:

"I am only resolved to act in that manner which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person so wholly unconnected with me"
~~ Elizabeth Bennet, Pride & Prejudice (Jane Austen)

if we are told to accept an individuals perspective on how they present their gender, why are people told they are wrong when they hold a different perspective?

[gregs656]

Noodle1982 said:

I may be completely wrong here but I can't help but feel that a lot of the outrage regarding misgendering these days is social media mob mentality. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it really effects some people but the level of outrage in comparison to the offence in many cases comes across as a bit extreme and faux outrage.

Agree with that.

[andy_s]

The Surveyor said:

if we are told to accept an individuals perspective on how they present their gender, why are people told they are wrong when they hold a different perspective?

This is the intellectual Ouroboros of the day...

[The Surveyor]

andy_s said:

The Surveyor said:

if we are told to accept an individuals perspective on how they present their gender, why are people told they are wrong when they hold a different perspective?

This is the intellectual Ouroboros of the day...

I don't accept your perspective.....




nice use of Ouroboros BTW

[Gooseberry]

Noodle1982 said:

However, it did seem a bit confusing as to why the police were approaching the whole thing the way they were.

I should have known somewhere in there, there was influence from an activist.

As well as the activists making the complaints, there's also the influence of activists within Stonewall who train the police. This article is interesting: https://medium.com/@JonnnyBest/believe-in-innate-g...

[Clockwork Cupcake]

The Surveyor said:

People always have a resistance over being 'told' what to do, especially when those doing the telling don't follow their own rules.

I just think it's a shame that people have to be 'told' to be polite.

If someone tells you their name, it's polite to use it rather than making up a different name for them. And if you persist in using the wrong name for them, and do so in a nasty way, I don't think most people would consider that acceptable behaviour.

[8.4L 154]

Well so far today. Caroline Farrow has rolled back her position, and now says she has only been told the police want to talk to her about misgendering. Perhaps she should have spoken to the police before running to twitter and the press. Maybe even before deleting the evidence.

Mermaids has made a press release containing the deleted tweets which also shows this is not about misgendering and all about a vile thread of targeted hate and harassment.

[Davos123]

Nah that can't be right, Noodle seems to know it all.

[The Surveyor]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

I just think it's a shame that people have to be 'told' to be polite.

….

I totally agree, It's equally sad that people have to be told what to think and what language to use. For centuries it hasn't mattered, for centuries we haven't needed to be 'guided' to use certain pronouns, and we haven't needed legal protection against 'hate' crimes.

My concern is that the same freedom you use to present as you wish should be the same freedom that those who don't understand / agree use to express their opposite views. My reference to the Jayne Eyre quote is to highlight that imbalance. You say you are free to be who you want to be and stick two fingers up to the conventional social perception of gender, yet you use a conventional social perception of being polite to cap-off any debate. Why are those who disagree with the use of new gender proneness not equally free to stick two fingers up to any proposed new language convention? Why does it not work both ways?

[8.4L 154]

Davos123 said:

Nah that can't be right, Noodle seems to know it all.

It was in the daily mail wont it. Must've been truths.

Signed noodle

[mattmurdock]

The Surveyor said:

I totally agree, It's equally sad that people have to be told what to think and what language to use. For centuries it hasn't mattered, for centuries we haven't needed to be 'guided' to use certain pronouns, and we haven't needed legal protection against 'hate' crimes.

My concern is that the same freedom you use to present as you wish should be the same freedom that those who don't understand / agree use to express their opposite views. My reference to the Jayne Eyre quote is to highlight that imbalance. You say you are free to be who you want to be and stick two fingers up to the conventional social perception of gender, yet you use a conventional social perception of being polite to cap-off any debate. Why are those who disagree with the use of new gender proneness not equally free to stick two fingers up to any proposed new language convention? Why does it not work both ways?

So there was no need to legislate to stop businesses putting up 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs? Everyone was perfectly happy that people with different skin colour did not need any form of protection against others who wished to deny them human rights?

Society and social perception move on, and my hope is that it always moves towards acceptance and common decency, rather than towards rejection and hate. I struggle with the idea that calling someone by their preferred name or pronoun is harmful to anyone, and whilst I may privately think that the multitude of pronouns outside of he, she or they is a bit daft, to persistently refuse to call someone what they have asked me to call someone is just plain rude.

[Noodle1982]

8.4L 154 said:

Davos123 said:

Nah that can't be right, Noodle seems to know it all.

It was in the daily mail wont it. Must've been truths.

Signed noodle

What did I say that was incorrect?

[gregs656]

The Surveyor said:

I totally agree, It's equally sad that people have to be told what to think and what language to use. For centuries it hasn't mattered, for centuries we haven't needed to be 'guided' to use certain pronouns, and we haven't needed legal protection against 'hate' crimes.

That isn't really true though, is it. The last couple of centuries are littered with examples of social change of exactly the sort which was legislated for, and not just in Britain.

Prior to European Enlightenment it was Churches or various creeds who dictated what could and could not be said, and waged wars over it.

[gregs656]

Noodle1982 said:

What did I say that was incorrect?

You said

Noodle1982 said:

A lady is being interviewed under caution for misgendering another person's child on twitter.

The complainant has now challenged this, saying her complaint was about how she was talked about, not her daughter.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

mattmurdock said:

So there was no need to legislate to stop businesses putting up 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' signs? Everyone was perfectly happy that people with different skin colour did not need any form of protection against others who wished to deny them human rights?

Society and social perception move on, and my hope is that it always moves towards acceptance and common decency, rather than towards rejection and hate. I struggle with the idea that calling someone by their preferred name or pronoun is harmful to anyone, and whilst I may privately think that the multitude of pronouns outside of he, she or they is a bit daft, to persistently refuse to call someone what they have asked me to call someone is just plain rude.

Precisely so.

Nobody is asking anyone to change the way they think. Nobody is telling you to believe down to the very core of your being that a trans woman is a genetic woman (as some here seem to think).

All that is being asked is for people to will a suspension of disbelief (if that's what it takes) or "play along with the charade" (as some have put it here in this thread) for the sake of politeness and decency.

The Surveyor said:

You say you are free to be who you want to be and stick two fingers up to the conventional social perception of gender, yet you use a conventional social perception of being polite to cap-off any debate. Why are those who disagree with the use of new gender proneness not equally free to stick two fingers up to any proposed new language convention? Why does it not work both ways?

No, it's not sticking two fingers up at people, it is saying that my life is not driven by the consent and permission of other people. I do not live to please others, and I doubt you do too. And nor should you.

That's not to say that we don't live within the rules and restrictions of polite society, of course. And, of course, as polite people we are mindful of others. But neither should we allow that total strangers have a say in what we do (within the aforementioned constraints) when it's really none of their business and they have no justifiable right to a say.