Thank you, Katherine. Well thought out, explained, and written.
It sounds as if Turner and O'Malley are proposing, in effect, through their pronoun choices, that a man is indeed a woman as long as he's considerate of women's rights and he recognizes he's a man.
That's even more subjective and preposterous than saying all men who say they're women are women. At least the latter is consistent, even if irrational.
If we all adopted Turner and O'Malley's practices, or even if they do, who's to say which men who say they're women are men? Or women?
How am I to maintain a civil conversation with Stella O'Malley about Debbie Hayton if I think he's a misogynist and she thinks he's a "nice guy' and we're using different pronouns for him/her/them? How does this not derail and devolve into a debate about whether he indeed is a "nice guy"?
If Debbie Hayton is, in fact, a "nice guy," who respects women, our rights, and *our* feelings, wouldn't he insist on being called he/him?
My Mother, who was born in 1920 and a stickler for etiquette, taught me that back when she was growing up, the purpose of etiquette was to have a system for being honest and ethical in interactions. She said it wasn't until the 1950s that etiquette got twisted into protecting other's feelings--at all cost.
It would be more helpful if we all agreed that being honest and accurate were also courteous.
And from there, if we shared a definition of "woman" and "man" rooted in biological reality:
Everyone who is engaging on this subject should be aware of a famous essay by Vaclav Havel, written during his dissident years in Czechoslovakia. Its about a simple shopkeeper and his mental turmoil at having to (?) put up a communist party poster in his shop. Its called The Power Of The Powerless and accessible here:
The gist of the essay is that this behaviour has an intrinsically humiliating effect on him. He is displaying obedience and fear (of not complying) even if there isn't an explicit order to do so. He is "running ahead of" authoritarianism. His humiliation at having to yield is as powerful a tool as a direct threat of the gulag. This is precisely what the gender ideologues are trying to do with their demands to make apparently anodyne little concessions like calling a man "she". You are right to object to this soft middle-groundism.
Being genteel, nice and polite is what got women into this mess, and it is no coincidence that those pursuing this appeasing line are bourgeois academics & media personae. Perhaps working class women will lead the movement to victory since they are less bound by social mores and predominantly concern themselves with survival,. The work of KJKM impresses me a lot.
Thank you, Katherine. Well thought out, explained, and written.
It sounds as if Turner and O'Malley are proposing, in effect, through their pronoun choices, that a man is indeed a woman as long as he's considerate of women's rights and he recognizes he's a man.
That's even more subjective and preposterous than saying all men who say they're women are women. At least the latter is consistent, even if irrational.
If we all adopted Turner and O'Malley's practices, or even if they do, who's to say which men who say they're women are men? Or women?
How am I to maintain a civil conversation with Stella O'Malley about Debbie Hayton if I think he's a misogynist and she thinks he's a "nice guy' and we're using different pronouns for him/her/them? How does this not derail and devolve into a debate about whether he indeed is a "nice guy"?
If Debbie Hayton is, in fact, a "nice guy," who respects women, our rights, and *our* feelings, wouldn't he insist on being called he/him?
My Mother, who was born in 1920 and a stickler for etiquette, taught me that back when she was growing up, the purpose of etiquette was to have a system for being honest and ethical in interactions. She said it wasn't until the 1950s that etiquette got twisted into protecting other's feelings--at all cost.
It would be more helpful if we all agreed that being honest and accurate were also courteous.
And from there, if we shared a definition of "woman" and "man" rooted in biological reality:
Woman - adult human female
Female - of the sex that produces ova
Man - adult human male
Male - of the sex that produces sperm
Everyone who is engaging on this subject should be aware of a famous essay by Vaclav Havel, written during his dissident years in Czechoslovakia. Its about a simple shopkeeper and his mental turmoil at having to (?) put up a communist party poster in his shop. Its called The Power Of The Powerless and accessible here:
https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23
The gist of the essay is that this behaviour has an intrinsically humiliating effect on him. He is displaying obedience and fear (of not complying) even if there isn't an explicit order to do so. He is "running ahead of" authoritarianism. His humiliation at having to yield is as powerful a tool as a direct threat of the gulag. This is precisely what the gender ideologues are trying to do with their demands to make apparently anodyne little concessions like calling a man "she". You are right to object to this soft middle-groundism.
Being genteel, nice and polite is what got women into this mess, and it is no coincidence that those pursuing this appeasing line are bourgeois academics & media personae. Perhaps working class women will lead the movement to victory since they are less bound by social mores and predominantly concern themselves with survival,. The work of KJKM impresses me a lot.