GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

  1. I don't think stating someone's sex (aka "misgendering") is violence.

  2. I don't even think stating someone's sex is offensive, but a matter a fact and a neutral descriptor. Trans identified people are the ones taking offense where none is intended.

  3. I think it's quite arrogant for some people to expect everyone else's see them as they see themselves regardless of reality.

  4. Someone who is secure on their own identity doesn't need the "validation" of other people, especially, not the "validation" of complete strangers. Someone getting angry about being refered as their own sex is admitting that even they don't believe in this stuff.

  5. Why should I use language I don't believe in? That is I know Buck Angel is not a man, and by using he or him for her, I would be sending the opposite menssage.

  6. Why should I lie to talk about someone who is not in the room? Why should I lie to talk about someone I have not even met?

  7. You cannot change reality through language. Even if everyone in the world used her "prefered pronouns", Buck would still not be a man.

  8. Using "inclusive language" is not a neutral act and it only serves to ofuscate the facts. A newspaper saying "She was convicted for murder and sent to a women's prison" instead of "He was convicted for murder and sent to a women's prison" is shamelessly misleading the public.

  9. We've evolved to recognize other people's sex (and without the need of pulling anyone's pants down). Asking us to ignore our own eyes and to put constant attention to any potential "misgendering" is exhausting and it slows our thoughts. Be honest, genderbender, if not with us, at least with yourself. Even you have to carefully think all those "prefered pronouns" to get them right, aren't you?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think stating someone's sex (aka "misgendering") is violence.

I don't even think stating someone's sex is offensive, but a matter a fact and a neutral descriptor. Trans identified people are the ones taking offense where none is intended.

Pronouns are not based on biology.

Someone who is secure on their own identity doesn't need the "validation" of other people, especially, not the "validation" of complete strangers. Someone getting angry about being refered as their own sex is admitting that even they don't believe in this stuff.

I am a cis woman and I am secure in my own identity. Yet when people use "she" for me they are validating my identity. Why is different about trans people?

Why should I use language I don't believe in?

Even if you don't believe in this language you can still return the same respect that Buck gives to you. I don't know if Buck can be considered GC but he holds GC beliefs.

You cannot change reality through language. Even if everyone in the world used her "prefered pronouns", Buck would still not be a man.

Buck is a man. He has a beard, deep voice and male levels of testosterone.

Using "inclusive language" is not a neutral act and it only serves to ofuscate the facts. A newspaper saying "She was convicted for murder and sent to a women's prison" instead of "He was convicted for murder and sent to a women's prison" is shamelessly misleading the public.

Using preferred pronouns is absolutely a neutral and respectful act. Most major news and information sources use preferred pronouns, and if they didn't TRAs would boycott them. If TRAs were such a tiny minority of people, we wouldn't have this much influence.

Be honest, genderbender, if not with us, at least with yourself. Even you have to carefully think all those "prefered pronouns" to get them right, aren't you?

I know a few trans people from work and my community. Using their preferred pronouns has never been difficult.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most major news and information sources use preferred pronouns, and if they didn't TRAs would boycott them. If TRAs were such a tiny minority of people, we wouldn't have this much influence.

I'm going to continue my reply from yesterday. TRAs have been trying to cancel J.K. Rowling for more than two years by now. However, no matter how much they they demonize her, she is still quite popular and selling lots of books worldwide. For example, I went to a bookstore recently and the Harry Potter books were visibly displayed, including the 20th aniversary editions. The movies are still broadcasted at TV, too. Moreover, their attempst at cancelling her have backfired and many people have changed their views because of the discrepance between what she actually said and TRA's overreaction, which includes countless death and rape threats (just check the peaking threads on Ovarit, for instance). Even public figures who have "denounced" her are quite happy to keep profitering off her works.

This huge failure by TRAs may be explained by: (a) TRAs are not that numerous as they claim to be, (b) she is too big to be cancelled, (c) both. In any case, this put into question TRAs' capability to influence MSM through boycotts. It's more likely they have lobbied them. Actually, scratch the "likely": they have lobbied them. Transactivists (and here I'm refering to the people at the top, not any radom saying TWAW on an random forum/social media) are very aware they need to control the narrative and, for that, they have set their eyes on MSM from the begining.

For instance, Argentine TRA have admited (*) this and explained how they "educated" local media, so they in turn could (mis)inform the public about the inconming gender identity law. They even had a media guide in Spanish to do so. Surely there must be other guides of this kind elsewhere. Although I don't remember who wrote it, it's have been linked on Ovarit an English journalist redaction manual which deals specifically on how news articles must talk about trans identified people.

And I have little doubts somehow there is money behind Media support for transgenderism, too. Truth is secondary for newsmedia; they are not going to go against their own interest. That is why you need to read the news with a critical mind.

(*) Here is an old article where they admit this and here a quotation from that article (bolding is not mine):

But perhaps the most important effect of the Court injunctions campaign has been its educational effect on public opinion. Each recognition (especially at the beginning) received much media attention and was thus a great opportunity for activists to explain to our society the importance of recognizing self-perceived gender identity, why a medical diagnosis should not be required and other issues. I must say, it was surprising to hear journalists using terms like "self-perceived identity", "de-pathologization" or "gender expression" among others.

It was also very important that we develop a "Guide for Communicators on Gender Identity" (http://www.lgbt.org.ar/archivos/folleto_identidad2_web.pdf), especially trying to educate journalists for them to use appropriate vocabulary, understanding that this would also influence the rest of society. During the campaign for equal marriage we had already noticed that many times journalists supported our cause but had no tools or knowledge to defend it. At that time we developed a little material that gave them very useful arguments, and then we did the same on gender identity.

THEIR words, not mine.