What they wish to be called

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Seriously?

I won’t stand for any misgendering, says Holyrood presiding officer

The newly elected Kenny Gibson says when it comes to preferred pronouns, MSPs should respect what people wish to be called.

There’s no such thing as “preferred pronouns” meaning inaccurate third person singular pronouns to refer to people who think they can change sex. No, legislators of all people should not promote the lie that sex is a matter of assertion as opposed to physical reality.

As for “respect what people wish to be called” – what if they wish to be called King Charles, or Betty Boop, or Asterix, or Pope Barbara, or Doctor Strangelove?

Holyrood’s newly elected presiding officer will crack down on MSPs who misgender their new trans and non-binary colleagues.

In an interview with The Times, Kenny Gibson, who opposed Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reform legislation in 2022, said he would take incidents as they come.

But he made it clear that he would not tolerate politicians deliberately or maliciously refusing to use the chosen pronouns of the newly elected Green MSPs Iris Duane and Q Manivannan.

Blah blah blah – so now cranky teenagers get to make the rules for what legislators can say? We don’t get to “choose” the pronouns other people refer to us by which, and legislators should not promote the lie that people can swap sex, let alone be forced to do so.

“You have to respect what that person wants to be called,” Gibson said. “And if someone doesn’t do that, then you have to call that out in the chamber and you have to take the appropriate action.”

No you don’t have to respect what any person wants to be called if that want is ridiculous or childish or worse. It depends. In ordinary life sure, we call people what they want to be called, but when things become not ordinary, we may have damn good reason not to. Trump wants to be called a brilliant gorgeous rock star of a man and we do not have to call him that.

“If there’s a clear issue of it looks like it’s being deliberate, then you have to act on that because you can’t have someone, a member of the parliament, feeling undervalued or disrespected.”

Think about how female members of the parliament feel.

Comments

4 responses to “What they wish to be called”

  1. Papito Avatar
    Papito

    The first rule of Gender Club is you must talk about Gender Club. But the second rule is women don’t matter. Because gender is a matter of choice, womanhood is nothing but the choice of fetishized subservience. If women wanted to matter, they’d change their gender to men.

  2. Colin Day Avatar
    Colin Day

    Won’t you call yourself Queen Ophelia of Saudi Arabia? I want to see you crack down on Wahabism!

  3. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    Now there’s a project.

  4. Your Name's not Bruce? Avatar
    Your Name’s not Bruce?

    The demand for others to use inaccurate, dishonest pronouns is not a matter of “politeness” or “kindness,” which is how it’s being portrayed. It’s a political claim, an assertion of power, a demand for submission to, and enforcement of, the genderist view of reality. In the current incarnation of trans “rights,” it is an assertion of male entitlement.

    In Parliamentary procedure, it is against the rules to call a member a liar. Members can get around this stricture by careful wording of their statements:

    The rules state:

    The Rule: Accusing another member of lying, intentionally misleading the House, or making personal attacks is considered disorderly conduct.

    The Consequences: If you call someone a liar, the Speaker (or committee chair) will intervene. You will be ordered to withdraw the remark. If you refuse to apologize and withdraw the comment, you can be ejected from the chamber or suspended.

    The Alternative: While you cannot attack a member’s personal integrity, you are allowed to challenge the facts themselves. Members typically navigate this by stating that a statement or report is “false,” “inaccurate,” or “misleading,” which keeps the debate focused on the issue rather than an accusation of personal dishonesty.

    (From a Google AI Overview of Canadian Parlimentary Review)

    I suppose that one could, at a stretch, interpret “misgendering” as calling someone a liar. But asserting one is the sex one is not is a lie, just as someone insist they someone they are not. How is enforcing acceptance of this political claim any less “unparliamentary” than pointing out the dishonesty of the claim in the first place? That the Speaker has taken a side on this matter vitiates the position’s traditional stance of impartiality and neutrality. The Speaker is sheilding these dishonest, fraudulent “identities” from scrutiny and questioning, giving them a credibility and foothold in the halls of power which they do not deserve, and which goes against the findings of the UK Supreme Court ruling. I guess some lies are more equal than others.

    Think about how female members of the parliament feel.

    Again, it’s just women, so why should they matter? Clearly, they don’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts