Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

Personal preferences may be accepted but don't have to be respected

Or, a person in a meeting may want to use a pronoun to refer to someone else in the meeting while describing something that has happened.

In that situation, I'd use their name and other ways to avoid using a pronoun at all, if I knew that the pronoun would be an untruth.

That's my preference and it should be respected.

Mollygo

"Hi, I saw you when I came in but I thought 'Oh, he's talking to Jean. I'll speak to him later.'
Cue upset from bearded male friend in a dress.

This genuinely happened to someone I know.

Paint me the scenario where anyone would ask me to refer to them as he she, it or they or where I would address anyone as he, she, it, or they when I’m talking to them. Once he, or she had gone, how would they police that?

trisher???

Doodledog

They can ask, trisher, and I for one would be happy to comply.

What I object to is being expected to declare my own 'gender identity' to fall in line. Doing so is becoming complicit with the idea that gender identity exists, which I dispute.

No one is insisting you do so. Giving your chosen pronoun is always optional.
Thanks for agreeing to comply it seems to me a small thing to ask, but some seem to feel that their own beliefs outweigh simple good manners.

Doodledog no problem. I’ve no idea what trisher means-but that’s nothing new. If I’m ‘engaging’ with some posters on here, I’ll “answer to hi or to any loud cry”.

And that has happened, as in this case: in April 2018, prior to the new edition of the ETBB, a judged warned a female victim giving evidence that she should refer to her male attacker as “she”, because “(t)he defendant wished to be referred to as a woman”. The defendant, Tara Wolf (né Flik Wood) was found guilty of assaulting Maria Maclachlan and fined £150.
^ Judge Kenneth Grant refused to grant Ms Maclachlan any compensation, declaring, “It was^ notable that when I asked Ms Maclachlan to refer to Ms Wolf as ‘she’, she did so with bad grace having asked her to do so she continued to refer to Ms Wolf as ‘he’ and ‘him'”.

As for reporting someone using 'Pollymo' or its equivalents, we are back to the playground again, and in any case, the level of snidey 'some people' 'pseudo feminists' and other sly digs already goes way beyond that, and (I assume) nobody has reported it.

Galaxy

I mean in a face to face scenario, in a discussion on the issue I would say he should not be in a female prison rather than she should not be in a female prison because I think it's a way of undermining or obscuring safeguarding.

Agreed. And I totally disagree with rape victims having to refer to their rapists as 'she' in court - that is beyond the pale.

I'm a bit too Mollygo

Sorry
????

trisher

*Mollygo*if I kept referring to you as "Pollymo" or "Mollypo" on threads I'm sure you would be very irritated. If you corrected me and I continued to do it you would probably report me. Why can't people ask that the pronoun used about them is the one they request? It's simply good manners.

?

I mean in a face to face scenario, in a discussion on the issue I would say he should not be in a female prison rather than she should not be in a female prison because I think it's a way of undermining or obscuring safeguarding.

They can ask, trisher, and I for one would be happy to comply.

What I object to is being expected to declare my own 'gender identity' to fall in line. Doing so is becoming complicit with the idea that gender identity exists, which I dispute.

For me it's that you are asking me to lie trisher. I would always call someone the name they use. I would just avoid the use of pronoun rather than making a point.

Mollygoif I kept referring to you as "Pollymo" or "Mollypo" on threads I'm sure you would be very irritated. If you corrected me and I continued to do it you would probably report me. Why can't people ask that the pronoun used about them is the one they request? It's simply good manners.

So basically VS, your compromises are all about women (AHF) giving up rights that they are entitled to by virtue of being women(AHF). That what I said so thank you for confirming what I posted.
Separate unisex spaces, discriminatory
sport by hormone levels, discriminatory; it’s not just to do with hormones and I’m sure I’ve been lectured about the dreadful practices involved in testing. More categories-if you mean AHM, AHF, TW and TM, I'm with you on that. I suspect that’s not what you mean, but if you aren’t specific I must make a best guess. It would certainly mean that there’d be no chance of a TW taking a medal place belonging to an AHF and would give trans a better chance of a medal at least initially because there are fewer of them. It would avoid breast binding for TM and disguising the penis and scrotum for TW. They (non gender specific pronoun used correctly) wouldn’t even need a GRC.
The rest of your post is much the same -compromise only one way so I don’t need to engage with that.
-I’ll go with the badges, as long as they’re not yellow stars, or obligatory for those who don’t want to wear them and as long as there is no policing with retribution for people who use he or she in referring to them because that’s what they look like.
I’ve seen that in action and it classes as bullying by trans of non-trans.

But are they the 'right sort of women', Iam? That, it seems, is the question.

Imagine, you’re a woman with five children who after 10 previous attempts, has finally packed basic belongings and is looking for a refuge. You read that inclusion policy, feel anxious, confused and uncertain where you fit in that policy. You’re also keen to be in a safe space for women. You’d expected and want The other residents to be female, for the staff to be female, for the policy to be one of no male visitors.

That is what we knew was needed when in the 70’s groups of us were fund raising to set up refuges in our towns. Nothing has changed other than the level of violence meted out to women seems to be increasing. The number of women killed by men remains 2 a week. Women are at the highest risk at the point they separate from an abusive male partner.

How can anyone justify that?

No doubt they'll be along to explain shortly......

What?

I am aware of some idiotic practices in some refuges, but to exclude 'women who identify as women (so that'll be women then?) who feel unsafe around males' really takes the biscuit.

How can anyone justify that?

There are a few single sex refuges or rape crisis centres; more and more are insisting that trans women and trans men are accommodated. This is the Inclusion Policy of a rape crisis centre in England.

We accept and accommodate:

- Women who identify as women
- Men who identify as men
- Non-binary and intersex people
- Natal males who identify as women
- Natal females who identify as men
- Natal males who identify as women who feel unsafe around women
- Natal females who identify as men who feel unsafe around women
- Non-binary and intersex people who feel unsafe around women

We do not accept and accommodate:

- Women with no gender identity who feel unsafe around males
- Women who identify as women who feel unsafe around males
- Natal females who identify as men who feel unsafe around males

So it's exclusionary of natal women who, because they've been assaulted, are afraid of men. As much use as a chocolate teapot.

So do you mean single sex refuges say, and then refuges that are mixed, I am just not sure what you mean.

How is adding an "option" taken to mean that Galaxy?

I need a break.