Sending this around again because the concerted media campaign to make women accept the compromise of male pronouns for trans sex offenders only is disturbing. There should be NO sacred caste of men singled out for preferential treatment. Did Savile not teach them anything? Rotheram? Paedophilia in the church? How many more victims are they willing to sacrifice for their political compromises?
I don't understand it. The argument appears to be: "We don't want to push away people who think it is unkind to refer to a man as a man if he says he is a woman. We need those people to be willing to listen to us."
But -- people who think it is wrong to acknowledge that men, all men, are men are already captured. How can you "reach" them in any event? Do these pronoun-conceding GCs think they can hide in a Trojan horse made up of wrong-sex pronouns, sneak past these people's defenses, and somehow THEN convince them that these already-pronoun-acknowledged "women" should not occupy women's sports or spaces? How? They have already conceded the very ground they need to stand on.
Janice Turner's original article said, that she would exercise her right to use wrong-sex pronouns for transwomen who "respect women." My issue with this is precisely that I don't believe any transwoman who occupies women's same-sex spaces, or expects his family to prop up his fantasy with no concern for their feelings, is showing any "respect" for women.
The "courteous GCs" are as determined to defend wrong sex pronouns as the "kind TRAs" are, and just as mean about it.
They wrongly defended their lies in terms of a "Freedom of Speech" issue while insisting we should not have the freedom of speech to object to their lies.
They wouldn't even allow our objections, let alone consider them.
And yet I've never had a single complaint from any of them whenever I've taken issue with TRAs using wrong sex pronouns in the past 10 years or so.
'Misgendering' is a made up crime against transanity to make us look inhumane. And they played right into it.
Thank you for this excellent post!!! I also appreciate your reminder about the English language bias going along with the trans cult push of pronouns. I've been fighting this mess in print since 1973 and I so love that we are all over the earth.
I posted this today at Eva Kurilova's substack about pronouns:
The power of pronouns can be more clear to see when they are being used to bully, threaten, ostracize, etc. This is the most important way women are policing women into doing what these men demand. Where I live, obedience to pronouns is mandatory or else. It's a way to measure our worth as well as a way to control us all. It shows membership in the cult, or if you're one of the few who it's open season on for daring to say no.
If you call the man who has threatened women "he," you're in trouble, and women you don't even know will start hating you, glare at you, and, at this point, it's hard to not suspect that that's why I was shoved by two different Lesbians at a recent rare "women's dance."
I will not do it because this has actually been a large part of how this mess went from a few stalky narcissistic misogynist men to a huge movement where girls and women and Lesbians are under constant siege and threat, and where even when these men murder women, they are still called "she" and "her" and put into women's prisons.
Another important part of this is how do we find out how many of these men are murdering us? I've figured out three of the "women" murderers in the area I live in are of course men, but that actually took a lot of time. (One of these men had such a grinning male face photo that I explored the news in more detail and found that though he was called a "women" throughout the media, witnesses saw him tear off his clothes, expose his prick and testicles, and then try to get into people's cars. The police who reported in the news, looked down, ashamed, and referred to him as "that person.")
With so many murders here, there is no way to keep track of them. Meanwhile, these men are listed as the women in the statistics on violence.
The professions who assess using biology and sexed pronouns have effed up. I'm looking at you, medical doctors, speech pathologists, psychologists and psychiatrists. You are morally corrupt liars and cowards. Not a spine between you.
Speaking French, I see people with English and French pronouns in their bio. “Elle she” or “il they”…!
But just like in Italian, if his and her is the same word, in French, one must gender people when addressing them through adjectives and conjugated verbs. “Dear Debbie”, in French, is different if Debbie is a she or a he. “You are invited” is different is Debbie is a she or a he. So one must really be careful when speaking to a “Gender woo woo” person, because “misgendering” is not just about pronoun use.
That said, the argument from JCJ and al, that we will not reach people with our arguments if we call “trans women” he, is both true and false. When I call men “he”, I see people shudder. Because I openly blaspheme. Some can’t believe I dare to, some get offended. BUT: that is how I get my point across. I see it in their eyes: their cognitive dissonance is making them emotional. For some it’s the beginning of peaking. For some, it reinforces their adherence to the belief. These people are lost causes anyway, at this stage. So: speak the truth!
Nobody minds that people indulge in "pronouns" to maintain ties with loved ones. But people using "courteous" pronouns in public or in the media has nothing to do with the love of free speech or a proud refusal to have their speech compelled. It is about the fear of being expected to speak a truth they know to be the truth, but which will make them seen as "unkind", making them look bad. The discomfort is about the loss of one's self-image of benevolence in the eyes of others and it is indeed a huge price to pay, especially for people who do strive to be kind, courteous and reasonable. But just how much of our desire to be seen as "kind" stems from our female socialisation to cater to the needs of others? "Using the pronouns" means aligning with the gender belief system, and means giving in to compelled speech. And if you're just going to confirm a harmful belief system in your writing, it would be better not to write at all. Isn't it time to recall the words of Audre Lorde: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house"?
To expand, assess and treat disorders of the body, mind and language, using biology,comprehensive assessment of comorbidities and trauma, sexed language
I don’t consider myself a feminist and I agree that no one should call a man a woman just to be nice, under any circumstance. It’s not kind to put the expectation on anyone to tell a lie.
Thank you for this piece. Speaking plainly about what is true is a necessity.
"Pronouns signal acceptance of the ideology." I quoted you somewhere, I thought here, or X and maybe it was in my last moments of the day when I have to tell myself, "drop it, Feather, you cannot read or post another thing, you are so tired you can't see straight..." but, I did wake up patting myself on the back for finding and recognizing the POWER of this sentence. Thank you.
"There are so many arguments against validating someone’s fake pronouns that it feels like a pick ‘n’ mix."
Indeed. Though "fake" is somewhat moot, and depends rather precisely on exactly what you think they're supposed to refer to. Are they "designed" to refer to someone who is "actually" male and female -- biologically speaking which is another can of worms which few are willing to deal with -- or to those who only LOOK like they're actual "adult human males and females (biologically speaking)"? Entirely different kettles of fish, if not species from entirely different phyla -- petunias and aardvarks.
But apropos of which and since transwoman Debbie Hayton has been front and center recently on the issue, you might have some interest in a very old tweet of "his":
DH: "Actually, no I don't [want to be treated as the sex I am]. I want to be treated in the same way as the opposite sex. That's why I am trans."
May be some cases where "treating him as the opposite sex" might be justified, particularly if he looks more or less like a typical woman -- which is a bit of a stretch in his case. But in many other cases -- like access to women's toilets, change rooms, and sports leagues -- to do so, one might reasonably argue, is rank insanity. Bit of a sticky wicket to deal with.
Crux of the matter is still whether there is justification for different social rights and treatment depending on sex category membership or the possession of particular traits that correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with those categories. All adult human females have ovaries, but not all of those with ovaries are adult human females ...
Seems that it's something in the way of an outright fraud, that many of the sufferers are madder than hatters, and that pronouns are sort of the thin edge of the wedge. But still think it's something akin to straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole to be "overly dogmatic" on pronouns.
Probably, though that sort of emphasizes the point: what do people LOOK like from a distance?
Seem to recollect several cases in the news of "butch lesbians" getting hassled for going into the lady's loos because they looked like men. You want to pass laws that all women must wear skirts and that all men must wear pants?
Sex pattern recognition from facial features is a cognitive process achieved in childhood. Anyone who says they can’t tell is lying.
"The human face presents a clear sexual dimorphism 7., 10., 11., 18., 19.. Face gender recognition is an extremely efficient and fast cognitive process [6]. EVEN WHEN IMAGES ARE CROPPED TO REMOVE ALL CULTURAL CUES TO GENDER SUCH AS HAIRSTYLE AND MAKE-UP, GENDER CLASSIFICATION IS CORRECT *** in almost 100% of the cases in adult subjects*** [6], whereas ***7-years-old children already reach 80% accuracy*** in the same task [21]. These data clearly indicate that biological cues in facial anatomy are sufficient for a very efficient gender recognition and this ability is acquired early during childhood."
The people who deny this are usually male, but females are better at recognizing female faces. It’s our superpower.
"A clear sex difference in the efficiency of face gender categorisation was detected as well. FEMALE SUBJECT WERE MORE EFFICIENT IN RECOGNIZING FEMALE FACES. These results indicate that recognition of male and female faces are different cognitive processes and that in general females are more efficient in this cognitive task."
People often start posting filtered pics at this point. But in real life we can’t filter what we project to others. We see how they walk, how they look in comparison to actual women, the angles of the bones in their legs, etc.
Maybe, probably. But can you say EXACTLY which traits justify that conclusion?
That is more or less the reasons for defining exactly what we mean by "male" and "female". Which is a very thorny issue because far too many -- on virtually all sides of the transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French ...) -- reject or attempt to bastardize and corrupt the standard biological definitions which seem the only way off the horns of that dilemma.
More particularly, how would you describe those with CAIS?
They LOOK like adult human females, but they generally have XY chromosomes and internal but non-functional testicles. Intersex advocate and Genspect honcho Claire Graham apparently insists on calling them males and men -- may even use "he" to refer to them ...🙄
But by those standard biological definitions they are neither male nor female, they are sexLESS. Something which biologist Jerry Coyne has recently endorsed.
The issue is still how we categorize people and other species and the properties that qualify them as members of those categories. And any social rights and policies that follow therefrom.
You might have some interest in an old post of mine, from my Medium days -- now ported to Substack, particularly where I tangled with Claire on the issue:
Commenting from a German perspective I must tell you that we do it better than everyone else, as you will of course already be aware. We don't just put the English pronouns in our German bios, we've also gotten rid of the German word woman altogether (we do sometimes retain it for trans women who love the word). In a formal letter we don't say "Dear Mrs Mouse" or "Dear Mr Duck" anymore but "Dear Micky Mouse" or "Dear Donald Duck", and speaking of former women we use a new acronym: FLINTA (F is short for for Frau, as in Woman, L for Lesbian, I for Intersex person, T for Trans, A for Agender and Ally).
Stitch that, Italians! You're just not trying hard enough!
What do you mean "at least", you meant to say "and look at how you're doing absolutely everything better than the rest of us, also 1984. Yes, we're great at revitalising right wing extremism, I mean, come on, we invented it! Since we're not really interested in combatting it either, we should also be the greatest astroturfers in manufacturing a phoney counter movement rather than looking at the reasons why people support protest parties. Oh, did you know, We have the best self id as well, no restrictions, you can change your sex once a year, no kidding!
I'm not sure if I like that article you sent though, the Afd is extremist. And they're no friends of feminism or women. For them self ID is a wedge issue, that's all.
Actually, Intersex people are extremely rare and it seems that each one is primarily female or male. This is a very simple issue: No one can change sex. If women with ovaries aren't "adult human female," what are they?
No, the men posing as women know they are men and do not want to be women. They just want access to Lesbians, to perv on all females, including girls, and to take over everything we have created.
Yes, I quite agree that no one -- no human at least -- can change sex.
But the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. Includes the prepubescent, transwomen who cut their nuts off, and the infertile -- some 7% of men and menopausees.
I don't understand it. The argument appears to be: "We don't want to push away people who think it is unkind to refer to a man as a man if he says he is a woman. We need those people to be willing to listen to us."
But -- people who think it is wrong to acknowledge that men, all men, are men are already captured. How can you "reach" them in any event? Do these pronoun-conceding GCs think they can hide in a Trojan horse made up of wrong-sex pronouns, sneak past these people's defenses, and somehow THEN convince them that these already-pronoun-acknowledged "women" should not occupy women's sports or spaces? How? They have already conceded the very ground they need to stand on.
Janice Turner's original article said, that she would exercise her right to use wrong-sex pronouns for transwomen who "respect women." My issue with this is precisely that I don't believe any transwoman who occupies women's same-sex spaces, or expects his family to prop up his fantasy with no concern for their feelings, is showing any "respect" for women.
The "courteous GCs" are as determined to defend wrong sex pronouns as the "kind TRAs" are, and just as mean about it.
They wrongly defended their lies in terms of a "Freedom of Speech" issue while insisting we should not have the freedom of speech to object to their lies.
They wouldn't even allow our objections, let alone consider them.
And yet I've never had a single complaint from any of them whenever I've taken issue with TRAs using wrong sex pronouns in the past 10 years or so.
'Misgendering' is a made up crime against transanity to make us look inhumane. And they played right into it.
Scaredy cats.
The lot of them.
Thank you for this excellent post!!! I also appreciate your reminder about the English language bias going along with the trans cult push of pronouns. I've been fighting this mess in print since 1973 and I so love that we are all over the earth.
I posted this today at Eva Kurilova's substack about pronouns:
The power of pronouns can be more clear to see when they are being used to bully, threaten, ostracize, etc. This is the most important way women are policing women into doing what these men demand. Where I live, obedience to pronouns is mandatory or else. It's a way to measure our worth as well as a way to control us all. It shows membership in the cult, or if you're one of the few who it's open season on for daring to say no.
If you call the man who has threatened women "he," you're in trouble, and women you don't even know will start hating you, glare at you, and, at this point, it's hard to not suspect that that's why I was shoved by two different Lesbians at a recent rare "women's dance."
I will not do it because this has actually been a large part of how this mess went from a few stalky narcissistic misogynist men to a huge movement where girls and women and Lesbians are under constant siege and threat, and where even when these men murder women, they are still called "she" and "her" and put into women's prisons.
Another important part of this is how do we find out how many of these men are murdering us? I've figured out three of the "women" murderers in the area I live in are of course men, but that actually took a lot of time. (One of these men had such a grinning male face photo that I explored the news in more detail and found that though he was called a "women" throughout the media, witnesses saw him tear off his clothes, expose his prick and testicles, and then try to get into people's cars. The police who reported in the news, looked down, ashamed, and referred to him as "that person.")
With so many murders here, there is no way to keep track of them. Meanwhile, these men are listed as the women in the statistics on violence.
The professions who assess using biology and sexed pronouns have effed up. I'm looking at you, medical doctors, speech pathologists, psychologists and psychiatrists. You are morally corrupt liars and cowards. Not a spine between you.
Thank you.
Speaking French, I see people with English and French pronouns in their bio. “Elle she” or “il they”…!
But just like in Italian, if his and her is the same word, in French, one must gender people when addressing them through adjectives and conjugated verbs. “Dear Debbie”, in French, is different if Debbie is a she or a he. “You are invited” is different is Debbie is a she or a he. So one must really be careful when speaking to a “Gender woo woo” person, because “misgendering” is not just about pronoun use.
That said, the argument from JCJ and al, that we will not reach people with our arguments if we call “trans women” he, is both true and false. When I call men “he”, I see people shudder. Because I openly blaspheme. Some can’t believe I dare to, some get offended. BUT: that is how I get my point across. I see it in their eyes: their cognitive dissonance is making them emotional. For some it’s the beginning of peaking. For some, it reinforces their adherence to the belief. These people are lost causes anyway, at this stage. So: speak the truth!
Nobody minds that people indulge in "pronouns" to maintain ties with loved ones. But people using "courteous" pronouns in public or in the media has nothing to do with the love of free speech or a proud refusal to have their speech compelled. It is about the fear of being expected to speak a truth they know to be the truth, but which will make them seen as "unkind", making them look bad. The discomfort is about the loss of one's self-image of benevolence in the eyes of others and it is indeed a huge price to pay, especially for people who do strive to be kind, courteous and reasonable. But just how much of our desire to be seen as "kind" stems from our female socialisation to cater to the needs of others? "Using the pronouns" means aligning with the gender belief system, and means giving in to compelled speech. And if you're just going to confirm a harmful belief system in your writing, it would be better not to write at all. Isn't it time to recall the words of Audre Lorde: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house"?
“just how much of our desire to be seen as ‘kind’ stems from our female socialisation to cater to the needs of others?”
Exactly. They’re weaponizing female socialization and using it to harm women and girls.
To expand, assess and treat disorders of the body, mind and language, using biology,comprehensive assessment of comorbidities and trauma, sexed language
I will NEVER validate a transvestite with a stiffy and a fetish. Fuck your pronouns!
I don’t consider myself a feminist and I agree that no one should call a man a woman just to be nice, under any circumstance. It’s not kind to put the expectation on anyone to tell a lie.
Thank you for this piece. Speaking plainly about what is true is a necessity.
"Pronouns signal acceptance of the ideology." I quoted you somewhere, I thought here, or X and maybe it was in my last moments of the day when I have to tell myself, "drop it, Feather, you cannot read or post another thing, you are so tired you can't see straight..." but, I did wake up patting myself on the back for finding and recognizing the POWER of this sentence. Thank you.
"There are so many arguments against validating someone’s fake pronouns that it feels like a pick ‘n’ mix."
Indeed. Though "fake" is somewhat moot, and depends rather precisely on exactly what you think they're supposed to refer to. Are they "designed" to refer to someone who is "actually" male and female -- biologically speaking which is another can of worms which few are willing to deal with -- or to those who only LOOK like they're actual "adult human males and females (biologically speaking)"? Entirely different kettles of fish, if not species from entirely different phyla -- petunias and aardvarks.
But apropos of which and since transwoman Debbie Hayton has been front and center recently on the issue, you might have some interest in a very old tweet of "his":
DH: "Actually, no I don't [want to be treated as the sex I am]. I want to be treated in the same way as the opposite sex. That's why I am trans."
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:640/format:webp/1*Mo1xQ-t93gFnzVfS0-0GcA.png
May be some cases where "treating him as the opposite sex" might be justified, particularly if he looks more or less like a typical woman -- which is a bit of a stretch in his case. But in many other cases -- like access to women's toilets, change rooms, and sports leagues -- to do so, one might reasonably argue, is rank insanity. Bit of a sticky wicket to deal with.
Crux of the matter is still whether there is justification for different social rights and treatment depending on sex category membership or the possession of particular traits that correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with those categories. All adult human females have ovaries, but not all of those with ovaries are adult human females ...
They almost never pass, I would actually say never. So no, not difficult at all.
Blaire White? Buck Angel? You going to refer to them as he and she?
I think it's a serious social pathology with some socially far reaching consequences -- see my "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Seems that it's something in the way of an outright fraud, that many of the sufferers are madder than hatters, and that pronouns are sort of the thin edge of the wedge. But still think it's something akin to straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole to be "overly dogmatic" on pronouns.
Blaire White looks like a man already in photo I am sure in real life there is no doubt.
Probably, though that sort of emphasizes the point: what do people LOOK like from a distance?
Seem to recollect several cases in the news of "butch lesbians" getting hassled for going into the lady's loos because they looked like men. You want to pass laws that all women must wear skirts and that all men must wear pants?
I can tell who is a man because of their body, not their clothes. I am so tired of people pretending sex is not immediately perceptible.
Sex pattern recognition from facial features is a cognitive process achieved in childhood. Anyone who says they can’t tell is lying.
"The human face presents a clear sexual dimorphism 7., 10., 11., 18., 19.. Face gender recognition is an extremely efficient and fast cognitive process [6]. EVEN WHEN IMAGES ARE CROPPED TO REMOVE ALL CULTURAL CUES TO GENDER SUCH AS HAIRSTYLE AND MAKE-UP, GENDER CLASSIFICATION IS CORRECT *** in almost 100% of the cases in adult subjects*** [6], whereas ***7-years-old children already reach 80% accuracy*** in the same task [21]. These data clearly indicate that biological cues in facial anatomy are sufficient for a very efficient gender recognition and this ability is acquired early during childhood."
The people who deny this are usually male, but females are better at recognizing female faces. It’s our superpower.
"A clear sex difference in the efficiency of face gender categorisation was detected as well. FEMALE SUBJECT WERE MORE EFFICIENT IN RECOGNIZING FEMALE FACES. These results indicate that recognition of male and female faces are different cognitive processes and that in general females are more efficient in this cognitive task."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923004001017?via%3Dihubhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923004001017?via%3Dihub
People often start posting filtered pics at this point. But in real life we can’t filter what we project to others. We see how they walk, how they look in comparison to actual women, the angles of the bones in their legs, etc.
Maybe, probably. But can you say EXACTLY which traits justify that conclusion?
That is more or less the reasons for defining exactly what we mean by "male" and "female". Which is a very thorny issue because far too many -- on virtually all sides of the transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French ...) -- reject or attempt to bastardize and corrupt the standard biological definitions which seem the only way off the horns of that dilemma.
More particularly, how would you describe those with CAIS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
They LOOK like adult human females, but they generally have XY chromosomes and internal but non-functional testicles. Intersex advocate and Genspect honcho Claire Graham apparently insists on calling them males and men -- may even use "he" to refer to them ...🙄
But by those standard biological definitions they are neither male nor female, they are sexLESS. Something which biologist Jerry Coyne has recently endorsed.
The issue is still how we categorize people and other species and the properties that qualify them as members of those categories. And any social rights and policies that follow therefrom.
You might have some interest in an old post of mine, from my Medium days -- now ported to Substack, particularly where I tangled with Claire on the issue:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-imperative-of-categories
Commenting from a German perspective I must tell you that we do it better than everyone else, as you will of course already be aware. We don't just put the English pronouns in our German bios, we've also gotten rid of the German word woman altogether (we do sometimes retain it for trans women who love the word). In a formal letter we don't say "Dear Mrs Mouse" or "Dear Mr Duck" anymore but "Dear Micky Mouse" or "Dear Donald Duck", and speaking of former women we use a new acronym: FLINTA (F is short for for Frau, as in Woman, L for Lesbian, I for Intersex person, T for Trans, A for Agender and Ally).
Stitch that, Italians! You're just not trying hard enough!
Speaking of Germany, wonder if you've seen this story from there:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/germany-announces-wide-ranging-plans?utm_campaign=post_embed
Clearly, Germany is at least doing 1984 better than anyone else ... 😉🙂
What do you mean "at least", you meant to say "and look at how you're doing absolutely everything better than the rest of us, also 1984. Yes, we're great at revitalising right wing extremism, I mean, come on, we invented it! Since we're not really interested in combatting it either, we should also be the greatest astroturfers in manufacturing a phoney counter movement rather than looking at the reasons why people support protest parties. Oh, did you know, We have the best self id as well, no restrictions, you can change your sex once a year, no kidding!
I'm not sure if I like that article you sent though, the Afd is extremist. And they're no friends of feminism or women. For them self ID is a wedge issue, that's all.
Actually, Intersex people are extremely rare and it seems that each one is primarily female or male. This is a very simple issue: No one can change sex. If women with ovaries aren't "adult human female," what are they?
No, the men posing as women know they are men and do not want to be women. They just want access to Lesbians, to perv on all females, including girls, and to take over everything we have created.
https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/transgender-simplified-by-bev-jo/
Yes, I quite agree that no one -- no human at least -- can change sex.
But the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. Includes the prepubescent, transwomen who cut their nuts off, and the infertile -- some 7% of men and menopausees.