Guest post: Kindness is not mandatory
Originally a comment by Holms on We know that something is being waved in our faces.
The claim that using someone’s pronouns of demand is a mere ‘kindness’ is belied by the fact that they are also claimed to be non-optional. Kindness is not mandatory, and mandates are by their nature not kind as there is the implication of enforcement, punishment, for failure to comply. It is further undermined by the revisionism we see at play with trans identities. When someone declares they have a gender identity, name, and/or pronouns at odds with their sex, it is immediately forbidden to mention even obliquely that the person ever had anything other than those even in the past. This is especially visible with famous people, as their pages on wikipedia, imdb, and others are immediately edited to match the new demand even for past events under their previous name.
Perhaps the best demonstration of this inflexibility can be seen in the very public tragedy of Elliot Page, formerly Ellen. The wiki page for Hard Candy states the protagonist’s actor as Elliot Page, despite being Ellen at the time, and despite her character being a 14 year old girl. The plot of that movie begins with that character tempting another man into meeting her via online flirting, as she suspects he is a paedophile who killed an earlier victim of his predation. In particular, she suspects he is a heterosexual paedophile – the entire interaction thus depends on her being female. Yet that of course does not stop all references to Elliot referring to her as grammatically masculine.
A footnote on that page gives us another absurdity: “Elliot Page, in his memoir Pageboy, revealed that a member of the production gave him a ride home after the wrap party, and then sexually assaulted him.” Him him him, despite the glaring incongruity: Ellen page was sexually assaulted 16 years prior to ‘coming out’ as a man. The assault was due to lust for her as a woman. Elliot’s own page contains a stream of further absurd lies.
The ‘kindness’ claim is a flimsy defence, part of a coercive effort to promote mass lying.
There is a situation where kindness is mandatory: multiple children supervised by an adult(s). Whether it’s the family dinner table or kindergarten class, children are learning social skills so admonitions to be kind, nice, polite, and generous are often backed up by threats of punishment or ostracism.
“Ava asked you a question. Tell her you like her new dress or stand in the corner. Share your treat or you get none. Say ‘please’ or it’s a lecture and a note sent home to your parents and go to your room. Kids who are rude will be disciplined: that’s NOT the way we behave here, is it boys and girls — and those of you who identify otherwise?”
So much of what’s going on today with this issue and others seems to be referencing childhood. If you’re not kind, the toddlers don’t feel safe. That’s threatening and we won’t put up with it.
Thanks for the spotlight!
Thanks for the material for the spotlight!