DEBATE NOT HATE: WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT GENDER

Would compulsory checking for pronouns at the start of every exchange be the logical conclusion, in official/professional contexts at least, of gender identity being a protected characteristic? How would that actually work in practice for, let's say, a supply teacher in a classroom of thirty 15-year-olds, some of whom were genderfluid?

I'm honestly not calling up an extreme case in order to be ridiculous, btw. Any length of time spent browsing through Tumblr would show you that.

Should've proofread, sorry.

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. I totally object to enforced pronouns and the point I was trying to make is that there many ways in which people are hurt, often unwittingly, by people getting their name, sex, assuming they are heterosexual, married etc and, because we're all dealing with our own shit, it can often be hurtful. But the person didn't mean to be hurtful and that's life and you can, of course, correct the person that made the mistake or ask them to change their language. I don't see why pronouns can be enforcable and why gender is so very much worthy of protection that other characteristics, such as the fact that I am no longer Mrs and to be accidentally referred to as such hurts like hell. Does that make sense? I think the situation in Canada is terrifying.

I have a colleague who is gender non-binary but is biologically female and presents according to female gender stereotypes. I have been told to check for pronouns at the start of every new conversation. It feels like bullying. A really big power trip.

The 'triggering' discussion is part of this phenomenon, the whole 'safe space' idea.

What is the proper definition of 'triggered' in this context, does anyone know? I'm aware of it as vocabulary from PTSD and severe trauma reactions rather than meaning 'offended', but what a person happens to have their trauma triggered by is completely subjective. It can be a smell, a sound, a flickering light, a tone of voice.

Is it appropriate for individuals to expect society and others to hold the responsibility for not triggering them rather than develop the resilience and emotional skills to withstand experiences that are linked to challenging emotions and thoughts? Is that a fair burden to put on others? Is that an abnegation of personal responsibility?

Accidentally misgendering someone or using the wrong language is so easy to do, and it's radically different in intent from calling someone intentionally ugly, violent, hurtful and derogatory names, or making someone feel threatened and intimidated. Should that REALLY be the subject of law and enforcement?

They're clearly not all genuine sufferers of gender dysphoria. But most transactivists adopt the "misgendering is death" stance.

Ohthegrandolddukeofyorkjellies

I totally understand that gender dysphoria can be triggered by being misgendered.

What I can't agree with is being forced to do it. Because people, men, will exploit it.

I want to retain the right, in the face of an obnoxious 6 foot four bloke telling me that I'm committing a crime whilst he misogynises all over me, that he can fuck off bloke-ing me into submission.

I think I'm relating all of the above to pronouns, sorry.

This is a really interesting thread and I'm really grateful to the incredible women who organised and spoke at the Brighton conference and for everyone who helps me to understand this issue through their discussion on here.

I had a thought today when I came home to an envelope addressed to 'Mrs' Jellies, even though I've now been Miss for several years. It always smarts a little because of the symbolism and all the layers of hurt. Marital status is also a protected characteristic. Is missgendering all that different to being called Mrs when I am no longer a Mrs or accidentally being called sir when someone sees me from the back in jeans and a sweater. It's hurtful/painful/irritating/embarrassing but this happens to women pretty often, especially if you're not married or divorced. My daughter was also often mistaken for a boy when she was very small and used to get upset at nursery but it wasn't the end of the world and we all get over that stuff. Is it really that big a deal or literal violence?

Yes. But no need for compelled pronouns.

social presentation.

I like it. It covers a multitude.

I think it's certainly more thought through than giving the transactivists exactly what they want! Which seems to be all that's on the table currently.

differenteverytime

That sounds good to me.

Just thinking 'aloud': after the tragic killing of Sophie Lancaster, I think one or more police forces added 'subculture abuse' to their definition of a hate crime. I know very little about how this works, but might something along the lines of 'social presentation' be a better protected characteristic than 'gender identity'? It would be easier to define. It would be classed as a hate crime to abuse or victimise someone on the grounds of their presented appearance. That could cover clothes, tattoos, hairstyle, hair colour, piercings... and many other characteristics, including any behaviours that go against expected gender norms. That would give legal protection to trans people without forcing everyone to say that they are in fact the opposite sex.

I haven't really thought that through properly, though.

Indeed.

Ereshkigal

What I'd really, really like is a definition of the word gender. A legal definition.

Documented, backed up, and supported by science.

If they are going to take gender as a not meaning hierarchical stereotypes, then let's have it.

Bring it on. Define it.

WHat does that mean though? Women who wear trousers and check shirts? Men who wear nail varnish?

I agree but it's no more ambiguous than what gender identity means.

I'm not sure we're going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle. We need to safeguard the legal status of females in the EA.

I'd also get behind having gender identity as a protected characteristic under the EA 2010 as long as single sex service provision, where done for reasons of safety or dignity, is robustly protected and not dependant on a flimsy case by case 'proportionality' test.

I agree. It needs to be much more precisely worded. And manage expectations about making "reasonable adjustments", like disability.

Yes, I'm not sure about that, either. I put it down to the glass of wine.

make Gender non conformity the protected bit
WHat does that mean though? Women who wear trousers and check shirts? Men who wear nail varnish?
Women who work in construction and male midwives?
What does being gender non conforming actually mean? Other than not conforming to social stereotypes? And why should that be a protected characteristic? And who would define what is gender conforming and what is not?!

They really opened Pandora's box and have absolutely zero way of shutting it. They're too scared, to self interested, and too prepared to sacrifice women.

YY.

You've seen all that tumblr/Everyday Feminism bollocks about how people can be several different unknowable sparklegenders at once.

Could it mean they can chop and change on a whim, and we all have to comply?

So someone is a she on Friday night, but a he on the Monday morning.

Yes I think that's exactly what it will mean. And will obviously be abused as it involves no hardship or change whatsoever.

Then you'll be protected because you will obviously be GNC.

What if you don't pass?