Gym thinks only men can be Drs

Kim I don't think you doing a course once makes you a great authority on whether this particular problem is easy to fix.

Not that that point changes your inability to understand why it is dismissive to say the woman should just accept being Miss or Mrs in the meantime. From your post, it's clear you think having a gendered title is more important than a title that reflects achievement and you also don't get that feminists don't like gendered titles, especially not ones based on our relationship or otherwise with a man.

Many people have said why you don't get it. You're not listening, as usual.

My brain also sees a problem, a solution, and an easy fix.

And then it sees the blinking obvious, which is that - as usual - ingrained misogyny will frustrate said easy fix.

This is not about your brain functioning in a special and unique way.

We just read up thread heckler, two dads.

Kim if your brain was more logical you could deduce that (a) it takes more than a few days to change an IT system within a business and (b) it makes more sense for the gym to ignore this than it does for them to spend money changing it.

Nice, though that you can brush off women's views as being not logical.

Well, I appreciate that restraint, thought it'd have been nice to have some acknowledgment.

heck - yes, good point.

I'd love a title that didn't include my gender or my marital status because as I'm Ms I'm obviously divorced but unfortunately I haven't got 8 years to devote to becoming a doctor not that it would matter because they're men

Anyone remember the riddle?

A father and son have a car accident and are both badly hurt. They are both taken to separate hospitals. When the boy is taken in for an operation, the surgeon (doctor) says 'I can not do the surgery because this is my son'. How is this possible?

It is a really, really old riddle. I first heard it probably 20 years ago. And we still have the attitude it was pointing out.

So I wouldn't be holding my breath for the change in the IT system, or the attitudes that it is holding up to the cold light of day

Thank you, I do appreciate the apology, but I'm afraid I do have things to say all the same.

It is upsetting for me to be told, repeatedly, that I have been 'abusive' based on your misreading, you know. I have a fair amount of experience of abuse. I find it triggering to be accused of it.

And I am mentioning this because, you see, you do tend to post as if only your feelings could ever be important or valid. Your feelings are important and valid. But, so are mine. I don't bang on about them all the time because I think it's derailing and unpleasant, but I think because of this, you tend to imagine you're the only one who might find the conversation upsetting.

You find it 'upsetting' I said I didn't think you believed misogyny was real. But is that so different from you saying we are only 'probably' responding based on experience? You casting doubt on my lived experience isn't any less upsetting than me casting doubt on your beliefs, is it?

It's this double standard I find difficult to deal with. I can't have an honest argument with you, because you will dish it out, but you won't take it.

Once you've been living as a woman for a decade or two you'll see how naive that viewpoint is Kim.

You're still not getting it.

At least you still get a title that reflects your gender.

For fucks' sake, I don't even know where to begin with this. Is that supposed to make women feel better? Never mind, dear, that your hard work and achievement are not recognised because thousands of years of oppression of women are still so ingrained in our society that a computer programmer can't conceive of a woman being a doctor, at least your membership of that class of oppressed persons is recognised in your title (as well as your ownership status with a member of the oppressor class). It could be worse as you could be a member of the oppressor class whose feelings of belonging to the oppressed class might not be acknowledged.

I don't want a gendered title.

I've got a fair few female mates who wear ties. And a couple of male mates who have been known to wear skirts.

I'm not quite sure why it's an issue either, but the ladies loo thing is, I agree, just absurd.

buffy - I don't care if my title is gender neutral, but I do care if my title indicates that I am a man. And that is what we are being told this gym did.

Kim

The point that has been made is that this sort of thing happens all the time, repeatedly. And it never is changed. It comes up again and again and again.

So it is not just a matter of waiting a short while for a tech matter to be resolved. It is dealing with this same thing constantly.

And it is the misogyny behind the assumption that women will not have academic qualifications, the default male Dr.

Frankly, if the woman in question had not gone to the press, I very much doubt they would have bothered to change anything. She would have been fobbed off with "soon - tomorrow - definitely by next time" over and over again.

When I signed my latest contract the stated correct uniform was the shirt provided and black trousers or skirt.

Genuine questions, what's the issue with that? A generic contract that mentions ladies clothing? I've signed contracts that mentioned ties etc. It did not occur to me have an issue with it. The governess thing/ladies loo is a different story.

I'm curious about the "board of governors though" I'm not British so forgive me if I am wrong is that not assuming anyone in charge will be male and anyone working in the nursery will be female? And the default female not actually being as important in the company?

Because i don't really see the issue with a little wait until it's sorted. You get your title but not your doctrate.

You don't see the issue with saying someone cannot have their normal title - which is what Dr is - because of their gender?

My doctorate is a qualification. Dr is my title.

Yes, tiggy I'd have liked to think so too, but sadly, it is just you and me, and a few million women whose views aren't held to matter.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fact banks and so on regularly misgender us and assign us the wrong titles? It'd be sorted by now if it were that easy.

If I ran a gym I would:

(a) see no need for hi-tech locks

(b) train my staff to deal courteously with customers

I'd have thought that something going wrong in a certain way for somebody would mean everybody else would check to see if it could happen to them. Whether it's about car accidents, food safety, bank charges, hear about something bad happening and you think could this happen to me? Is that just me?