Just been told to remove my pronouns from my Teams profile

and FU ?

Simple solution is to use initials

TOD will send the file to AS by ....
We had a meeting and TOD agreed to do ...

I think you might be optimistic. But I support you in your optimism.

I discount anyone with pronouns on their applications when hiring for jobs. I know for sure that they will be more trouble then they are worth.

In a work environment, I doubt many people would care. You just gently correct and move on, surely?

If pronouns in the signature were used simply to clarify actual sex, in cases where that might be unclear, that would be one thing.

But that's not what they are primarily for in these cases. In fact, you'd be none the wiser about actual sex as a result of stating pronouns.

But do you care / are you bothered by being called he? I never was

What kind of organisation do you work for? I've just left a multinational, which operates in dozens of countries, I have a name which is 'obviously' female to most Northern Europeans, but have been referred to as 'he' on several occasions over the years by colleagues in Asia, because they're not familiar with our naming conventions.
Similarly, if I need to use a pronoun in a mail, but don't know the person I try to check first. "Andrea", is used for men and women, and there are lots of other examples.

I think the poster in question came to a realisation though, that she seeing this man as a woman isn't something that can be used as criteria for access to women's spaces. I might be wrong. 🤷‍♀️

I agree with you. However, I don’t see it as being all that fruitful for those who have already decided that their friends are ‘women’. They seem all to keen to dismiss people pointing out the inconsistencies in their posts.

I hope for anyone reading that they can see the incoherence.

My lovely dh wouldn’t harm anybody, and shares a tiny tent with our dd when they go hillwalking and camp in the back of beyond. Does that influence my view on whether men should be allowed to take vulnerable young women camping? Absolutely not! This perspective of “they’re OK if I think they’re OK” feeds into the idiocy of fetishist men becoming Guide Leaders with access to girls who are being taught that they have no rights to privacy and safety.

Yes. I asked earlier whether the poster who's argument was that her colleague was indistinguishable from a woman, felt it fair that person should use women's spaces while less fortunate TIM with less money and a different appearance should use the mens.
She didn't respond. Because it's very difficult to argue for a policy that treats some men less favourably on the basis of their appearance and means and willingness to subject thensekves to extreme and painful surgeries.
In reality, subjective 'passing' is irrelevant to the debate, as there is no way this would hold as a legal means to discriminate amongst TIM. So it has to be all in (including the huge muscular TW who doesn't 'dress fem' and didn't shave that day) or none.
(And yes, before I'm corrected, I know its applied for TM but for the protection of the women the space is intended for, not as a positive discrimination in favour of passing TM, so different.)

I think the argument upthread was quite fruitful actually.

A starting point for many is 'this lovely transwoman I know', and it's completely understandable that this shapes people's views. But it's also important to realise we can't make laws on the basis of one lovely individual and our own personal experience with them.

There have to be clear, objective criteria in place and the rights of women to single sex spaces can't be waved away.

Yep

The incongruence of ‘but this man looks so much like a woman that I cannot tell, therefore I support all those men and boys using female language and female single sex spaces even if others don’t look like a woman’, is coming across on this thread too.

It shows the ideological trap that people who accept someone accessing a space because a man passes as a woman are caught in. They then realise that they cannot logically articulate their decision parameters.

It then gets dismissed as nuance. No. It is not ‘nuanced’. A male person is a male person. Accurate language requires clear definitions based on sex when sex matters. Single sex provisions require clear definitions of accurate language. Declaring a situation is ‘nuanced’ is a weak argument when it comes to safeguarding and boundaries needed for female people.

I find I am also continuely unsurprised how those who keep using words such as respect etc (as several posters have) also cannot engage with the facts about what respect means in this decision they make. There is an unthinking quality in these fall back catch phrases that are repeated as justification of supporting one group’s philosophical belief over an understanding and support of material reality.

It happens time and time again this same messaging. The messaging of be kind, respect this group, prioritise this group because they are so much more deserving than any one else.

There is also the question of if you let some in, what criteria do you use and how is it applied/policed?

Interesting how Male Rights Activists insist that it’s not always possible to differentiate a man who presents as a woman from an actual woman, and that they should therefore have access to women’s spaces, yet have nothing to say about how it is not always possible to differentiate a man with malign intent from a man who would not choose to harm anybody.

MRA perspective: you can’t always tell, so you should let them all in, just in case.

Rational, equal rights perspective: you can’t always tell, so you should keep them all out, just in case.

In Blaire's case, the jawline is obviously male. And that's before we get into the walk, the voice, etc.

Blaire's look clearly takes a huge amount of upkeep also. The vast majority of transwomen won't have that kind of resource.

Why do you disbelieve that there are people who can ‘ALWAYS tell which people are male people? It is not beyond the realms of belief that there are people who have this ability.

There are studies that show that humans are highly reliable in identifying the sex class of a human simply by looking at 3 D modelled images of facial structures with no hair at all or skin or eye colour. And that doesn’t include seeing the effect of a person’s skeletal arrangement for the rest of their body and how that skeletal arrangement moves.

Sorry but that's just nonsense. You don't need to stand and study a Thai Lady Boy to know they're men. You only have to watch them walking in the distance to know. Even tiny children, can accurately tell the difference between men and women.

True. Women have evolved to be incredibly good at detecting any men in their vicinity. They've had to. Because 99 times out of a 100 the most dangerous predator in any woman's vicinity would always have been a man.

Even Thai Lady Boys, the moment they move, reveal themselves as men.

I can't tell if you are being disingenuous.

No, I'm not being disingenuous. The truth is, I just don't see what you see, and I don't accept what you accept. I don't see that granny is making an error and that DC is not.

But talking about these things online doesn't always get us further. I guess this is as far as I go.

DC has size 6.5 feet, funnily enough. Smaller than my natal daughter.

Please don’t assume that just because you personally don’t seem to be able to correctly identify a male person’s sex that female people cannot. It is very highly likely that female colleagues have indeed understood (even without being told) that you male colleagues with transgender identities are male people. And quite likely that your male colleagues will have correctly identified their sex too.

I would be highly concerned if your male colleagues ‘turned away’ a male gender non conforming colleague. And why on earth would you think that in public toilets that male people who are gender non- conforming would be ‘turned away’? Has this happened? Or is this an assumption because you personally could not correctly identify your colleagues’ sex classes?

Just because you cannot correctly identify male people’s sex class, please do not assume this is the universal experience. You seem to have used this lack of ability to support a ‘it is nuanced’ argument. It really is not ‘nuanced’. At all.

Your colleagues are male people. If they choose to not use the male single sex provisions, that is their choice. However, the rights conventions are that publicly accessible single sex provisions are based on sex. Not ever on gender presentation.

There are several reasons for this. One is that male people are subject to blanket exclusion from female single sex provisions based on sex class and not on how they appear. This is the only possible safeguarding policy that provides robust safeguarding. There is no evidence at all that a male person at any gender identity will be considered the same risk level of harming a female person by accessing a female single sex space. I absolutely trust my lovely male friends not to harm any female person, however safeguarding policies keep them out of female single sex spaces.

Also, it is now very well evidenced that even with lowered testosterone, any male person going though any part of male puberty will have physical advantages that female people do not develop. Including an average grip strength that remains 150% of the average female grip strength. Plus the lowest quartile of male people’s strength have strength advantage higher than 90% of female people.

Plus, there are many female people who will feel distressed at having a male person in that space. And again, your own lack of ability to correctly identify a male person’s sex class should not be considered in any way universal. Numerous posters have pointed out the body cue differences. Others include even a noticable difference between the top of the lip and the base of the nose as a proportion to facial measurements. And the depth of the bow and shape of the top lip. The shape of the skull is another difference which has been studied well. It is so different that it is noted that the composition of the brains in male and female people are different to accommodate the difference in shape and volume.

You keep mentioning ‘nuance’ . However, robust safeguarding policies are not ‘nuanced’. They are very clear and, to use your terms, ‘simplistic’ and ‘black and white’. No special treatment for any sub group of male people. And no forcing female people to have to make an instant evaluation about whether a male person ‘passes’ or not, nor assess whether they might be someone who will harm them or not on a case by case evaluation

Safeguarding simply does not work that way. Despite the fact that you either think it does or wish that it does.

If a male person understands that his presence may cause a female person distress, why would he be entering that female single sex provision at all? And no female person can give consent on behalf of any other female person, or the entire female population. It simply doesn’t work that way. Rather, the bar for consent needs to be set at the level of the needs of the female people that say ‘I need this space to be female only, no exceptions apart from a child up to about 8 years old.’ That is the minimum standard for consent.