Just
Stupid AND bossy.
Just shut up. You’re not the boss of JKR, you’re not the boss of us.
That’s the bad manners part. Now the bad epistemology part.
Is that right? Is it basic decency to call people what they want to be called? What if they want to be called Hitler? How about Hannibal Lecter? Timothy McVeigh? Stalin?
Booby McBoobtits? Pussy Galore? Slutty Slutface? Katy Cunty?
Marc Lépine? OJ Simpson? Killer O. Women?
Just shut up. It’s basic decency.
Notice though how one sided that decency is? What happens when gender critical folk ask for cis or terf not to be used?
At root, because the facts, logic, social norms, and even casual observation don’t support the trans cause they have to rely on reframing. That’s done using language. Firstly forced use of certain phrasing and contorted meaning. Secondly forced banning of plain and direct language using conventional meanings. Thought follows language.
No, Jonathan, that’s getting the Euthyphro backwards. It’s not that we call people what they are because we call people what they want. We call people what they want because we call people what they are. Psychologically healthy people want to be called what they are. They don’t want to act out a fantasy.
The same error is used in arguments for trans participation, of course TRAs will argue that they are denied a right other people have: to participate with the sex/gender they believe themselves to be. But they’ve got it backwards. The right is to participate with the sex/gender that you actually are, which psychologically healthy people believe themselves to be.
Pronouns are Rohypnol.
That essay is worth reposting, so Pronouns are Rohypnol.
Well if I want to take my rohypnol it’s my own affair… if Chait wants to do it, more power to him, but people have got to choose to take their rohypnol.
“Be kind!” is a command from a superior, cross-dressing as a humble request from the downtrodden.
I remember hearing Maya Forstater explain how rights for people with protected characteristics are supposed to work – ‘people with x characteristic legally have the same rights/protections/opportunities as people without x characteristic’. So people who are women, or people who are Muslim, or people who are disabled, have the same rights as people who aren’t these things. And people who have had ‘gender reassignment’ have the same rights as people who have not had ‘gender reassignment’ – so a man (or woman) who has had ‘gender reassignment’ has the same rights as a man (or woman) who has not had ‘gender reassignment’. It doesn’t provide any rights to people that they wouldn’t have had if they didn’t have the protected characteristic. It makes perfect sense if you use the logic of the law.