Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace


Recommended Posts

A few months back I posted a few comments on recent legal developments in various jurisdictions pertaining to compulsory "pronoun" usage.  I commented at length as to matters of compelled speech, orwellian re-definitions, and so on.  See, e.g., here, herehere, here.

Our Analytics responded.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

One of the big differences in our respective positions is that I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as "preferred pronouns").  Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish "pronoun" usage (though elsewhere he seemed to approve of such laws - I'll let him address that if he likes).

I provided a number of examples of these laws here and here.  I cited instances of this happening in California, New York, Virginia, Canada, the UK, and Norway.

Here's another one from Norway that just recently came out:

Quote

A Norwegian filmmaker is facing up to three years in jail for posting on Facebook that male-to-female transgenders can’t be lesbians — an apparent violation of the country’s hate speech laws.

Tonje Gjevjon, a lesbian filmmaker and artist, used Facebook to speak out against transgender activist Christine Jentoft,  a male-to-female transgender who identifies as a “lesbian mother.”

“It is just as impossible for men to become lesbians as it is for men to become pregnant,” said Gjevjon in the Facebook post, according to a Reduxx story she shared on Twitter.

“Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”

https://t.co/KdHXVhoBZk

Norway amended its hate speech laws in 2020 to include gender identity and gender expression as protected categories.

Gjevjon told Reduxx that her Facebook post was a deliberate attempt to draw attention to Norway’s amended hate speech law. She also said she has been trying to engage politicians over the issue and has become a pariah in the artistic community, with attempts by trans activists to shut down exhibitions of her work.

The link beneath the tweet above is to this story: “Men Are Men”: Norwegian Artist Facing Criminal Charges, Potential Prison Sentence Over Gender Comments

Quote

A woman in Norway is facing criminal charges and a possible prison sentence of up to three years for stating that men can not be lesbians. Tonje Gjevjon, a lesbian artist, was notified on November 17 that she was under police investigation for hate speech over a statement she posted to Facebook.

In her post, Gjevjon railed against trans-identified males who call themselves “lesbians,” and condemned trans activists who seek to criminalize women who oppose gender ideology.

“It’s just as impossible for men to become lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant,” Gjevjon wrote, “Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”

A few thoughts/observations here:

First, I think most of the aggression in the Pronoun Wars is coming from the "T" in LGBT.

Second, there seems to be some substantial fracturing going on in LGBT coalition, with the "Ts" and the "Ls" becoming increasingly at loggerheads.

Third, I find it noteworthy that the "T" agitators are willing to punish "Ls" who do not acquiesce in the Pronoun Wars, and to use the organs of the State to do so.  This really seems to be accelerating.

Quote

Gjevjon particularly singled-out the actions of prominent Norwegian trans activist, Christine Jentoft – a man who claims to be a lesbian mother, and who currently serves as a representative for the nation’s leading trans activist group, Foreningen FRI.

"A man who claims to be a lesbian mother."

No, that's not a pitch for an SNL skit or a sitcom episode.

Quote

Jentoft has been at the center of a clash between women’s rights activists and Norway’s hate speech legislation, which was revised in 2020. The amendments, which went into effect last year, included the category of “gender identity or gender expression” – a move women’s rights campaigners in the nation warned would result in a chill over free speech, especially where it related to the reality of biological sex.

To paraphrase the saying (which itself is an adaptation of a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest), "resisting compelled speech makes strange bedfellows."

I, as an adult male American and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am wholly supportive of lesbian Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon on this point.  

Quote

Earlier this year, Jentoft filed criminal charges against Christina Ellingsen, a representative of Women’s Declaration International (WDI) Norway, for stating that men can neither be lesbians nor mothers. As reported by Reduxx in May, a police investigation was launched into Ellingsen’s alleged “transphobia,” and, like Gjevjon, she is facing up to three years in prison if found guilty.

"Up to three years in prison."

For saying words.  For giving voice to ideas the government dislikes.

Quote

Gjevjon says her Facebook statement had been a deliberate effort to call attention to the hate speech law. She did this by quoting the first statement prosecuted as hate speech by the law, where a man was convicted over the use of the sentence “men who perma-live as though they are little girls” in reference to trans-identified males.

I think this sort of thing is going to increase in frequency and severity unless actively opposed.  Credit to Gjevjon for her efforts.

Quote

In addition to calling out Jentoft, Gjevjon also turned her attention towards Norwegian politicians who have supported the legislative adoption of “gender identity” at the expense of women’s rights. One such politician, Anette Trettebergstuen of the Labour Party, is the current Minister of Culture and Equality and the only openly lesbian politician Norway’s Parliament.

During an open discussion hosted by the Labour Party last year, Gjevjon confronted Trettebergstuen, questioning how she intended to protect the rights of women and girls, and whether she believed that men could be lesbians.

gjevjon-1-600x318.jpeg

Official notification of hate speech investigation against Tonje Gjevjon.
 

A translation of the above police notice to Gjevjon:

Quote

Tonje Benedikte Marion Roth Gjevjon

The police need your explanation in a police case during an investigation. You are requested to meet from here on:

Yeesh.  

Quote

Gjevjon first began expressing criticism of gender identity ideology, which she calls the “queer patriarchy,” in 2017 after English feminist author Julie Bindel had her invitation to speak at a university revoked over claims of “transphobia.”

Since becoming more vocal with her “gender critical” views, Gjevjon has been blacklisted by Norway’s artistic community – a scene she had previously been flourishing in.

Writing for Klassekampen in February, Gjevjon detailed her experiences with being disavowed by the art world, her exhibitions cancelled, and labelled as “dangerous” by trans activists.

Alas, "being disavowed" is sometimes the price to be paid for standing by one's convictions.

I think the issue becomes substantively more problematic, though, when the government wades in and starts throwing its weight around.

Quote

“I have stated that women are female, that lesbians do not have penises, that children should not be responsible for decisions they do not have the capacity to understand the scope of, and that no-platforming is harmful to democracy. For these opinions I have been canceled several times,” Gjevjon wrote in Klassekampen.

She went on to note that, after more than 15 years of participating in Norway’s art and music scene, she had never received such censorship until she began criticizing the belief that a man can identify as a woman.

“I was not prepared for the extent of how queer organizations, politicians and activists would demonize a lesbian artist who was not in step. Trans activists contact people I work with, portraying me as hateful and warning against being associated with me,” Gjevjon said.

"Queer organizations" can, I suppose, do as they like.  But when "politicians" start to take sides in such matters, and when they start to pass laws to compel speech or punish what ought to be Free Speech, that becomes problematic.

Anyway, back to the first article:

Quote

She claimed that she has never experienced such levels of censorship until she began criticizing transgender dogma.

“I was not prepared for the extent of how queer organizations, politicians and activists would demonize a lesbian artist who was not in step,” she wrote. “Trans activists contact people I work with, portraying me as hateful and warning against being associated with me.”

As Breitbart News has reported, transgender activists around the world are hijacking hate speech laws as a way to silence their critics. By classifying any criticism of trans ideology as “hate speech,” they are in effect turning the law into a weapon of censorship to stifle free speech.

I have expressed concern about this phenomenon quite a few times.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world.  It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State.  I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones.  I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech.  This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few months back I posted a few comments on recent legal developments in various jurisdictions pertaining to compulsory "pronoun" usage.  I commented at length as to matters of compelled speech, orwellian re-definitions, and so on.  See, e.g., here, herehere, here.

Our Analytics responded.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

One of the big differences in our respective positions is that I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, to the government using the force of law to punish people who say things the government does not want them to say, or to punish people who do not want to say things the government seeks to compel/coerce them to say (such as "preferred pronouns").  Meanwhile, Analytics seemed to broadly deny that governments are starting to pass laws, or enforce existing ones, which seek to punish "pronoun" usage (though elsewhere he seemed to approve of such laws - I'll let him address that if he likes).

I provided a number of examples of these laws here and here.  I cited instances of this happening in California, New York, Virginia, Canada, the UK, and Norway.

Here's another one from Norway that just recently came out:

The link beneath the tweet above is to this story: “Men Are Men”: Norwegian Artist Facing Criminal Charges, Potential Prison Sentence Over Gender Comments

A few thoughts/observations here:

First, I think most of the aggression in the Pronoun Wars is coming from the "T" in LGBT.

Second, there seems to be some substantial fracturing going on in LGBT coalition, with the "Ts" and the "Ls" becoming increasingly at loggerheads.

Third, I find it noteworthy that the "T" agitators are willing to punish "Ls" who do not acquiesce in the Pronoun Wars, and to use the organs of the State to do so.  This really seems to be accelerating.

"A man who claims to be a lesbian mother."

No, that's not a pitch for an SNL skit or a sitcom episode.

To paraphrase the saying (which itself is an adaptation of a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest), "resisting compelled speech makes strange bedfellows."

I, as an adult male American and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am wholly supportive of lesbian Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon on this point.  

"Up to three years in prison."

For saying words.  For giving voice to ideas the government dislikes.

I think this sort of thing is going to increase in frequency and severity unless actively opposed.  Credit to Gjevjon for her efforts.

A translation of the above police notice to Gjevjon:

Yeesh.  

Alas, "being disavowed" is sometimes the price to be paid for standing by one's convictions.

I think the issue becomes substantively more problematic, though, when the government wades in and starts throwing its weight around.

"Queer organizations" can, I suppose, do as they like.  But when "politicians" start to take sides in such matters, and when they start to pass laws to compel speech or punish what ought to be Free Speech, that becomes problematic.

Anyway, back to the first article:

I have expressed concern about this phenomenon quite a few times.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world.  It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State.  I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones.  I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech.  This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is the case in question one of “compelled speech” or forbidden speech? 

Link to comment

I find that the people who complain the most about transgender pronouns almost never encounter people who would require them to deal with this massive inconvenience.

What I don’t understand is why there is so much outrage at a hypothetical inconvenience that most of those who complain about it never have to deal with.

As to fracturing in the LGBT community the four letters have never gotten along. It is amazing that it took this long to try to weaponize the divisions against the broader coalition. Some propagandists tried to drive a wedge to alienate the bisexual community by blaming them for HIV getting into the heterosexual population. Our enemies have done little to turn us against each other since then until recently..

Pretending that this is entirely an organic internal struggle is false. The TERF (trans exclusive radical feminist) movement was originally made up of people who were broadly leftist but opposed gender transition. Then they were largely bought out by dark money and the old guard were turned out. Now the TERF movement is openly allied and working with far-right anti-LGBT groups. They are a useful stooge to exaggerate dissension in the lgbt community. Basically another version of the Log Cabin Republicans everyone despises (including the party they support). The TERF movement trots out token lesbians and bisexual women to try to rip the coalition apart. In the UK the struggle is particularly tense. The saving grace for the lgbt community is that the younger community are much more united than the older generations and that even the older generations have learned that despite the annoyance all the other groups often are it is ‘stand together or hang apart’. This isn’t an internal fight. There are lots of real internal fights. This rift is largely manufactured to give people who don’t want to be seen as anti-LGB the ability to pretend that transphobia is compatible with that stance.

I find it particularly disgusting that this targets the most vulnerable and most exposed part of the lgbt movement to violence, persecution, and hatred. Spare me any “both sideism about how TERFs have been silenced. Social ridicule for saying things has always been a thing. The targets are those who often have to conform or hide to avoid facing attack.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nah, I don't think I will.  ;)

Women have been targeted and silenced and forced to conform from practically the beginning of time (save for a small tiny minority of places down through the millenia).  This isn't about "social ridicule for saying things". 

It's social ridicule for not accepting that men claiming to be women are women in the same way that biological females are and for pushing back against the erasure of the word 'woman' in connection to things like birth or menstruation or even just plain old biology (to the point that the word woman can't even be defined by some people anymore).

And that kind of social ridicule has not always been a thing.

And they shout down transgender men who were born female. And yeah, transgender women are definitely part of the patriarchy stealing from women everywhere and are probablynot the group most likely to be assaulted out of any demographic. They even defeated bisexual women and transgender men for the title! Hooray!

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And yeah, transgender women are definitely part of the patriarchy stealing from women everywhere and are probablynot the group most likely to be assaulted out of any demographic.

Are you referring to the fact that biological men, when compared to biological women, tend to have advantages in size, bone density, muscle mass, and upper body strength?

 

 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like bsj said, you can mock the concerns of women if you want (I expected no less), but you can't tell people that they need to spare you from being disagreed with and think we're just going to do as we are told.  :pardon: 

I suppose it was inevitable that feminism would get comfortable enough that its adherents would start punching down instead of up. Still sad to see it.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Are you referring to the fact that biological men, when compared to biological women, tend to have advantages in size, bone density, muscle mass, and upper body strength?

 

 

No, I am referring to the fact that transgender people are assaulted more. Straight transgender women often date men and the abuse rates are very high.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Pretending that this is entirely an organic internal struggle is false. The TERF (trans exclusive radical feminist) movement was originally made up of people who were broadly leftist but opposed gender transition. Then they were largely bought out by dark money and the old guard were turned out. Now the TERF movement is openly allied and working with far-right anti-LGBT groups. They are a useful stooge to exaggerate dissension in the lgbt community. Basically another version of the Log Cabin Republicans everyone despises (including the party they support). The TERF movement trots out token lesbians and bisexual women to try to rip the coalition apart. In the UK the struggle is particularly tense. The saving grace for the lgbt community is that the younger community are much more united than the older generations and that even the older generations have learned that despite the annoyance all the other groups often are it is ‘stand together or hang apart’. This isn’t an internal fight. There are lots of real internal fights. This rift is largely manufactured to give people who don’t want to be seen as anti-LGB the ability to pretend that transphobia is compatible with that stance.

That’s a whole lotta mansplaining why women’s concerns aren’t organic or legitimate…

 

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was mansplaining to *checks notes* smac?

Do you know something about smac that I don’t?

I didn’t know mansplaining only occurred when directly responding to a woman.  I thought included in the definition might’ve been a general dismissing of legitimate concerns of most women with conspiracy theories and other such nonsense:

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pretending that this is entirely an organic internal struggle is false. The TERF (trans exclusive radical feminist) movement was originally made up of people who were broadly leftist but opposed gender transition. Then they were largely bought out by dark money and the old guard were turned out. Now the TERF movement is openly allied and working with far-right anti-LGBT groups. They are a useful stooge to exaggerate dissension in the lgbt community. Basically another version of the Log Cabin Republicans everyone despises (including the party they support). The TERF movement trots out token lesbians and bisexual women to try to rip the coalition apart. In the UK the struggle is particularly tense.

 

Edited by SteveO
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, I am referring to the fact that transgender people are assaulted more. Straight transgender women often date men and the abuse rates are very high.

Some of it might be that what is called a transgender woman is not really a woman to a regular heterosexual guy.  Heterosexual guys just don't want anything to do with a "transgender woman".  Any transgender who portrays themselves as a woman on a say a dating app to a hetero guy and then meet in person may end up having a very bad day. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I didn’t know mansplaining only occurred when directly responding to a woman.  I thought included in the definition might’ve been a general dismissing of legitimate concerns of most women with conspiracy theories and other such nonsense:

 

...and there is also trans mansplaining.

Link to comment

Norway has laws that have made some kinds of "hate speech" illegal to the point that a person can be imprisoned for it.  As such, this report of a woman who is facing three years in prison for saying that a transgender woman cannot be a lesbian seems relevant to the conversation.

https://saharareporters.com/2022/12/15/filmmaker-faces-three-years-prison-saying-men-cannot-be-lesbians-charged-hate-speech

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You've illustrate a perfect point.  A woman believing there is a difference between herself and a transgender woman is defined as "punching down" because according to some, biological women owe something to transgender women that they aren't even allowed to claim for themselves:  the right to define what a woman is.

A transgender woman has the right to define womanhood however she wants, but a biological woman doesn't.  Biological women are just supposed to shut up about it or we are the bullies.

It's infuriating. I don't like to be called a cis woman. I reject that label. I am a woman. The default. Some don't care but I do. Women who speak for the safety of women in traditionally women's only spaces are called all manner of names. Women's only spaces exist for a reason. A change of clothing doesn't change the fundamental differences and the reasons those spaces exist. Trans women may not, themselves, pose a safety issue but the policies surrounding this debate do make female only spaces less safe. There have been issues in women's prisons, bathrooms and locker rooms.

In sports, policies are beginning to catch up to biological reality. Olympic chiefs introduce 'monumental' transgender guidelines to keep elite women's sport 'fair' | Daily Mail Online

"The UCI halved the upper limit for testosterone production from five nanomoles per litre to 2.5 nmole/l and doubled the minimum transition period from 12 to 24 months. The IOC were criticized for dropping a recommended testosterone limit, of 5 nmole/l. But the new statement 'acknowledges that testosterone may be an important factor shaping performance in elite athletes in certain sports'. However, it adds that testosterone alone is too crude a determinant of an athlete's eligibility. Instead, it says any criteria should be based on robust data drawn from the athlete group being regulated – i.e. trans women in their case – and should take into account the specific demands of an individual sport...As an example, it cites Australian Rules Football. Its elite transgender eligibility policy includes an assessment of trans athletes' height, weight, bench press and squad capabilities, among other metrics. The position statement also highlights the lack of appropriate research on performance levels of elite transgender athletes and calls for more funding from stakeholders to support further study. It further recommends that gender-based eligibility criteria, in principle, should only be applied in elite sport and not at grass roots. Instead, in youth and community sport, the inclusion of transgender and DSD athletes should be prioritized. On the issue of safety, the statement says that eligibility criteria should focus on physical metrics that determine the risk posed both to other athletes and the athlete in question – it cites the examples of size and power – rather than relying on athlete's gender identity or sex variations 'as a proxy for injury risk'."

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I didn’t know mansplaining only occurred when directly responding to a woman.  I thought included in the definition might’ve been a general dismissing of legitimate concerns of most women with conspiracy theories and other such nonsense:

I was arguing that the women in Smac’s article were not a representative sample of the lgbt community. Source: Lesbians, bisexual women, and transgendered women I know along with access to statistical data. They are outliers. This is not a major rift in the lgbt community.

Do I know whether the things the TERFs are saying represent their lived experience? No idea. Was I refuting their experience as women? No. I do have a lot more data coming from other women who are much closer to the “problem” and the knowledge of what the majority have shared.

I don’t think you understand what mansplaining is. One of the first rules when picking up a new weapon is to learn how it works. I suspect you don’t treat mansplaining seriously in any case so this is just meaningless rhetorical warfare for you.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think you understand what mansplaining is. One of the first rules when picking up a new weapon is to learn how it works. I suspect you don’t treat mansplaining seriously in any case so this is just meaningless rhetorical warfare for you.

Maybe.  But it was definitely coming from a place of not treating you as a serious person…

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...