No human is scum, whether they are on my ignore list or not. It's just interesting that the same people who think pronouns are a life and death matter are quite happy to be relentless in their personally-directed bullying.

A few pages back sneezy said she was messing us around for kicks, so I don't think she was in it for good will at any point. Block and move on. I periodically unblock people I have on ignore, but this is the thread I realise some people here are either trolling or disturbed, and need to live on that list permanently.

I've also never come across people who lie about others so freely. No, I don't, and have never thought, being gender non-conforming is deviant.

And this one. I've actually never come across such vicious, verbally nasty people in my entire life (who weren't my abusers).

You are a really nasty piece of work. I never use the term deviant, because I don't believe being gender non-conforming is deviant. I'm ignoring the rest of this rant.

I have zero respect for the type of person who issues condescending lectures to a DV survivor on what violence is, so I'll limit myself to saying you are wrong.

Thank you. In the last two years, I have taken a NB person who was homeless into my home. I have welcomed a transwoman into my family. I am nothing but kind to the actual trans people I have in my life. All I ask in return is that I am allowed to speak in a way that doesn't violate my conscience or my understanding of reality. I think that's fair. I've dealt with enough violations in my life; I don't need more.

As if there's allowance for back stories. Coercion regardless.

Do you understand it's not about kindness? If it cost me nothing, I'd be doing it.

If it was an inconvenience or an irritation, I wouldn't be speaking about it. Plenty of those to suck up and deal with in the workplace It also doesn't 'hurt my feelings'. More, those who feel they have a right to coerce my speech, regardless of my actions (which would be collegial at best, professional at worst) are a bright red flag to me. If it wasn't a psychological violation, why would I have a problem with it? For fun? I don't think so.

I did NOT say I would not use a new name. I regularly do. I reserve the right NOT to participate in giving MY pronouns in the workplace. In the workplace, I would follow my instructions. They might include calling a man 'she'. It is coerced, sure. I don't believe what I'm saying. But I have bills. People who coerce my speech lose any respect I may have had for them. So there's that.

[deleted by moderator for language]

Yes, thanks, I know this. Having experienced it, I also know that 'he' is not the same as verbal or emotional abuse. It's truly gross to me that people equate a courtesy with abuse. At worst, 'he' is impolite..

Bull. Violence is getting whacked around the head so you have to wear your hair down to cover the bruise. It's not calling a male 'he'.

'Just gaslight yourself, ok? And be part of a practice you think it harmful to the child. What's the big deal?'

Is there pressure to conform to gender stereotypes? Yes. Should there be space for the (wide range) of people who reject gender stereotypes? Also yes. Does any of that require us to medicate children, ignore the reality of mammalian sex, or believe in 'wrong bodies' or 'true selves'? No. And none of the above is violence.* *Source: have been a victim of violence. This ain't it .

Until a few hot minutes ago, it was WIDELY understood that adolescence was a turbulent time re identity, and that this turbulence (in the absence of pathology) resolved during early adulthood. I find it so psychologically misinformed that anyone would advocate for closing that window of identity formation through intervention during this period.

It's not a settled thing amongst minority writers, though. I know quite a few who do not want to be pigeon holed as own voices, do not want to trade on own voices, and want their books to speak for themselves. They get a lot of encouragement to trade on their minority status in publicity - I respect when they find that really icky.

Third gender societies used the concept as a way of dealing with feminine or gay men. Because, hey, real men aren't gay or feminine! (Or so the thinking goes - of course they are just as real and just as man). I cannot even express how bugged I am at having regression represented as progress.

People suffered a wide range of mental health stressors in the past as now - it's drawing a VERY long bow to put that down to gender issues as we understand them today.

I would be very cranky about that. Hope you get a shower soon.

Nobody needs to refrain from commenting. The point of message boards - you contribute as and if you want. Anecdotes are fine. Nobody wishes for anybody's child anything but a long and happy life. It's just that 'our children' isn't a valid end-point to a discussion. Not mine, not hers. These are social issues, with implications that extend beyond any one person's family life, and as such, they are very much up for discussion (not the individual, of course, but the issue).

I wonder if it could be fungal? Glad the PET is scheduled. Hope you get answers soon.

I bet that's staff shortages again. It's not ok 🙁

It also occurs to me to wonder how far the concept of not being allowed to tell another's story for profit extends. Does it extend into film, for example? Should a director also be from the same lane as the subject Cinematographer? Actor? If not, why not? Also - should an author have to out themselves as authentic in order to avoid critique of a published novel? Does the author with experience of madness need to reveal it to have a portrayal of madness accepted, for example?