Mailwatch(ed) Forum

One reason for the anger/fear that tends to supercharge opinions on this issue is over-reach - often well meant, but ultimately flawed ideas frequently put in place by people outside of the community in question because they think it is the right thing to do.

Case in point: my work encourages, but not enforces, people to put their pronouns in their signatures. I do not do this, however, and were there any push to make it compulsory I would be very strongly against it. Yet (I hope) I’m not some bigoted pile of mouldering ham, so what gives?

Well, a number of things:
1. It’s very personal information that reveals a lot more than a title such as Mr or Mrs/Ms, but also it invites people to infer even more again
2. Most people where I work have regular dealings with external people. And once send is pressed, I have little control where that email ends up. My colleagues at work may be enlightened enough not to care if someone is they/them, but John or Joanna Q. Bigot who gets it forwarded on to them from a mate who says “look at this woke idiot working for XXX govt. agency” might. And they in turn might have some very unpleasant friends.
3. I have no problem with it being voluntary, and people choosing to show their pronouns either for personal expression or in support of others. But the moment it becomes compulsory it is no long a choice but a label - someone then has to choose what group they are in, and worse may be forced to reveal something they still weren’t comfortable doing OR put themselves in a group they feel doesn’t describe them but they aren’t quite ready yet to come out: and this exact scenario happened to a non-binary friend of mine when their academic employer imposed such a policy, leading to a decision that ultimately they’re comfortable with but still via a lot of somewhat awkward messages along the lines of “oh, I didn’t realise you were a lesbian/bisexual/not a girl” and so on. None of them meant with malice, but still a mental load to process on top of having to effectively bring forward a decision to come out because of an arbitrary deadline imposed by an HR team trying to help people in their position, but in practice doing the opposite.

Change is difficult, but changing at the right pace is even harder.

We went to a drag review show last night. "Drag. Glam. Berlin" at the Kabaret Academy.

I don't consider this to be notable, and certainly not worthy of a post. It's a reasonably normal night on the tiles, albeit a jolly good one, and here's a review to run through Chrome.

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/die- ... 60261.html

And a picture of Jade Pearl Baker and her backing singers. Hotter than the hobs of hell, right?



So anyway, the show was great even if it started 40 minutes late, while the drag queens in the audience took their seats. That is a lot mwah-mwah and "darlink, you are favvelass!" to get through before the lights go down.

Dark rooms, Schöneberg, Kotti, Ku'damm in the 80's. No stone left unturned.

The part that we didn't expect was the all repartee between the numbers. Some of it was as filthy as fuck, some just very camp and queenie. No surprise there, but some was fiercely political.

Whether you are gay, transgender, transvestite, gender-fluid, or basically anyone other than stoically hetero, you are under greater, more vicious assault than you will have known in your lifetime. Russia, Hungary, Poland, Florida, the AfD - they are all gunning for you.

I make no apology for straying (relatively politely) in to Kobel's lane here, but my earlier standpoint of not "getting drawn in to the debate" died a death last night. When we are already at the "first they came for the story-tellers" stage of 21st century Niemöller, and they will soon be hunting down those of us who greet their non-hetero mates with a kiss on the lips.

I feel that it really is time to speak out against the fash and to do so without compromise. Sure, I might come across as aggressive sometimes, but they fucking started it.

Apologies also, if it has taken me a while to catch up.

I had a thought on this the other day - I wonder if some of the resistance to/bloody mindedness about things like pronouns and recognising that someone might not identify in what is a convenient pigeonhole for the observer is simply that if you want to be polite you now have to care, and in doing so is that much harder to dehumanise people. You can’t just assume everyone is Mr or Mrs (the latter of course being its own issue of people getting in a huff about ‘Ms’), but if you are willing to find out you automatically become invested, and automatically then start to notice that, then other things and it snowballs.

I suspect some people are genuinely annoyed that they used to be able to put in zero effort and still be seen as fine, and now it takes a push which exposes their politeness was really just a veneer. In a sense not a million miles from the people who would swear blind they weren’t racist but also happily voted UKIP. It makes you look and think, and some people are happy to do neither but loathe being presented with - or be made to accept their responsibility for - the consequences.

Catching up; Phase II. I joined the SPD this morning.

Totally normal attitude

I’m afraid I find myself broadly in agreement with Joanne Rowling again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o

JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law

The new Scottish law, while laudable in intent, it is poorly worded. It talks about a deliberate intention to “stir up” hatred on a range of issues that includes trans-gender identity, and for that reason Jo Rowling will not be arrested under the new law as per her challenge issued today - she clearly has no intent to “stir up” hatred of any kind.

But she is surely correct to say that “ freedom of speech and belief is at an end if accurate description of biological sex is outlawed.”. ?

O’Brien was talking about this earlier today on LBC, and one of the things he said rang true (at least to me) : How can it be wrong to describe (or “misgender”) a self-declared trans woman who has committed rape, with a penis, as a man ?

How the fuck have we reached this point? Bad actors on all sides?

O'Brien is correct, as under UK law only men can commit rape (see link), any convicted rapist is, by definition, a man.

https://www.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alp ... l-assault/

Abernathy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:33 pm I’m afraid I find myself broadly in agreement with Joanne Rowling again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o

JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law

The new Scottish law, while laudable in intent, it is poorly worded. It talks about a deliberate intention to “stir up” hatred on a range of issues that includes trans-gender identity, and for that reason Jo Rowling will not be arrested under the new law as per her challenge issued today - she clearly has no intent to “stir up” hatred of any kind.

But she is surely correct to say that “ freedom of speech and belief is at an end if accurate description of biological sex is outlawed.”. ?

O’Brien was talking about this earlier today on LBC, and one of the things he said rang true (at least to me) : How can it be wrong to describe (or “misgender”) a self-declared trans woman who has committed rape, with a penis, as a man ?

Police pretty much instantly made clear that wasn't a criminal offence. Would be surprised if she hasn't been told this before.

I have precisely no idea what any of that means.

Please give us some context.

JK Rowling unpleasant language to one of the most marginalised groups in society is out of order. She may have a point but I’m not listening. Nor to those shouting back.

That's difficult to disagree with. She is trying to prove a point which struggles to bear up to any scrutiny, let alone clarification.

I know about this thanks to the hate monster.

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:58 pm JK Rowling unpleasant language to one of the most marginalised groups in society is out of order. She may have a point but I’m not listening. Nor to those shouting back.

Where does she go from here? More “testing the law”?

This isn’t even an original move. One Jordan Peterson made his bones as a culture warrior by insisting that a bill then under consideration by the Canadian parliament would lead to him being arrested for misgendering trans people and that he, brave soul, would nonetheless refuse to bow down to this pronoun tyranny. It didn’t matter how many legal scholars patiently explained that misgendering people would not lead to his arrest; it didn’t make any difference to Peterson and I doubt it’ll make any difference, in this instance, to Rowling.

There's a lot of men really disappointed that the police didn't take that nasty wizard lady away.

One “S”, 2”Ps”, son.

Fine.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:39 am This isn’t even an original move. One Jordan Peterson made his bones as a culture warrior by insisting that a bill then under consideration by the Canadian parliament would lead to him being arrested for misgendering trans people and that he, brave soul, would nonetheless refuse to bow down to this pronoun tyranny. It didn’t matter how many legal scholars patiently explained that misgendering people would not lead to his arrest; it didn’t make any difference to Peterson and I doubt it’ll make any difference, in this instance, to Rowling.

Give it a couple of years.

There'll be a book about a school for Lobster wizards.
The bad ones don't make their beds and threaten the judaeo christian establishment.

The good ones eat nothing but beef and valium.