Line Manager just "come out" as Non-binary

@Findumdum1 Do you call every opinion that doesn't match yours an agenda?

Please tell me my agenda, since you seem to know what you, and everybody else, can see?

I don't see it. My point is that everybody has a right to ask to be called whatever they want, as long as no threats are made. It's up to others whether they choose to respect it. Where's your problem with that?

Which toilet is LM going to use at work do you think? As a non binary person who doesn't identify as male of female does LM now identify as disabled to use the toilet facilities of a group of people who have a protected characteristic, or is LM going to use the one designated for the sex LM actually is. I'd be watching if I was you OP.

And 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 to Barracker as ever.

I sometimes use passive voice in posts here to avoid the 'mis gender' or mis-sex choice. As a scientist, I was taught to write that way (although nowadays it's fallen out of favour, most journals style guidelines recommend active voice). But even for me it adds mental load, and can often come across as stilted.

I actually don't have any strong feelings on using different pronouns if someone wants me to, or even calling them "your highness" if it really matters to them. But the whole thing IS kind of illogical and circular.

The more people who request specific pronouns that don't match their sex, the more difficult it will be to remember how to refer to everyone. Then the whole thing becomes a mess and nobody remembers any of it, so the obvious solution becomes to just use the exact same pronouns for everyone. An entirely neutral set of pronouns with no meaning attached. That would require a major language change though.

We're all square and 74NewStreet, severally:

If you look back and RTFT you'll see that my earlier post on this thread deals squarely with the point I've 'missed'.

And yes, I do think it possible that not everyone sees the usefulness of the passive construction in this context, hence the post. If you know all this already, you're perfectly at liberty to ignore, scroll on by and leave it to those who might find it useful. Several PPs had commented that pronouns were impossible to avoid: they're not; it's quite easy but it is a grammatical trick that was clearly not known to all.

It is now.

statsgeek, I do appreciate you engaging here.

👏🏼

YOU don't get to observe the biological sex of other people and use that as your premise for your choice of space,

Nailed.

that I can't be allowed in a space that fits my needs

That sentence.
What, especially, about female spaces fits your needs? The sanitary bins? Or the presence of people of the opposite sex?

Imagine two unlabeled rooms, with a set of toilets in each.
One designated for each sex.
Washbasins. Mirrors. Soap.
Let's even assume both rooms have sanitary bins.

Which one "fits your needs", statsgeek1?
They're identical rooms, no?

The elephant in the room is that it isn't particular material facilities you're after. Your 'needs' aren't physical. They're validatory. And it isn't enough that there is a law which validates what isn't true, that a male person is now 'female'. You expect women to do it too.

It isn't a room that 'fits your needs'.

It's people. The other people in it. Female people.

You want the room, any room, whichever room, that has in it. Regardless of the label on the door, regardless of the sanitary bins for our menstruation needs.
It's the presence of actual flesh and blood female people that you are seeking.
You've said as much, by explaining how you resent using facilities that aren't communal to a single sex.

If, in a hypothetical experiment, all the women happened to use the toilet labelled 'men', and all the men used the toilet labelled 'women', which toilet would you choose? Which is the 'women's toilet'? Is it the one declaring itself such on the label, or is it the one you observe the 'menstruators' (as the TRAs like to call us) are using?
What is the definitive revelation of the meaning of 'woman' in this scenario?
Is it the label, or the biological females that reveal the true meaning?

Would you be content to share with your own biological sex group, because the label on the door said 'woman'? Would that room now 'fit your needs'? Is your need simply to wear a label?

Or would you choose the room full of biological females, erroneously labelled 'male'? Is your 'need' actually a perceived entitlement to the presence of people of the opposite sex, regardless of their needs?

None of us are entitled to the enforced presence of others. You don't get to use other people for our validation.

YOU don't get to observe the biological sex of other people and use that as your premise for your choice of space, whilst denying that anyone else should be allowed to do the same.

You recognise our sex and we recognise yours.

Because if there’s one place that’s wholly appropriate to get your validation for your special Ze/Zie/Zo/Zum status; it’s a classroom full of children you’re being paid to teach
I really think I’d haul my kids out of a school where they had to tread on eggshells to remember that Sir isn’t actually a He, they are far too special for that mundane shite - that’s for the Hoi Polloi, this Sir is special.

Apologies, school children will of course also be impacted by their teachers' announcements of gender identity /preferred pronouns, not just their peers.

Neatly missing the whole bloody point there, NearlyGranny
But thanks for the English lesson.

Parents, teachers & governors should be aware of newly released CPS guidance for schools which if adopted could impact school children whose peers announce their non-binary identity /preferred pronouns etc
thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3804613-New-Year-New-Judicial-Review-CPS-Hate-Crime-Guidance-for-schools

@NearlyGranny

Do you really think the OP (or any of us here) is incapable of using the passive voice?

The passive voice is our friend here, I think, and the relative pronoun 'who' which is both gender less and numberless.

“Please reply to Angela, who is taking over this project. Submissions need to be received by end of business on Friday 13th Feb, after which they will be considered and the favoured proposal selected. We will be informed of the choice by email by Angela as team lead, and actions will be assigned at the next team meeting. "

Easy when you know how. The minefield of preferred pronouns successfully navigated without landing on a single one. Angela cannot find any slips or anything to grumble about or report here! It's done by changing the subject of the sentence with the object:

I sent the email, becomes: The email was sent.

Your best guide is a top primary child as they learn it it is taught in Y6.
(See what I did there?)

recent relevent thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3815177-Are-non-binary-people-protected-under-the-Equality-Act-Legal-briefing-admits-not

I'll do one more(can't resist, I have an addictive personality)

You are right in this case I agree that the sentencing was leanient given the gravity of the crime.

The point of sharing the details of two young girls aged 12 & 10 assaulted in supermarket toilets was nothing to do with sentencing. It was asking that the impact on girls & women of males in female single sex spaces be considered alongside the feeling described as a 'nightmare of being outed'.

This is a parent describing the impact on her 12 year old daughter:

"Her mother said the girl was hysterical after the attack and continued to suffer flashbacks.

She said: “This is something that will remain with her for the rest of her life."

The same is true for age-based Safeguarding policies.

Adult females have a significantly & substantially lower risk profile than adult males however when there are age-based Safeguarding policies which protect children all adults are (rightly). subject to these.

Being excluded from being unaccompanied in schools/nurseries as my DBS is not current & Im not employed/vetted doesn't imply that I am a sex-offender. It is & should be reassuring that the children in the school are being Safeguarded appropriately.

To me it sort of gives rise to an idea that I am fundamentally so potentially dangerous that I can't be allowed in a space that fits my needs.

However lovely you may be personally, this access isn't granted on grounds of having been thoroughly and objectively assessed as lovely first. I can't expect to be excluded from a dbs check on the grounds that I seem lovely and I'm upset about being considered so potentially dangerous: the fact is that I belong to a class of people in which harmful people exist and use their access to do harm.

And with respect, the space is there to meet female people's needs. Female people are not only entitled to privacy if they can prove beyond all doubt that the male born person in their space will definitely be a threat to them, they're human too. Their need for female only spaces doesn't change or go away because a male born person feels that space meets their need too. There are other solutions to meeting your needs, such as third spaces, without removing female only spaces for females.

Findumdum1

I think you are right there that in this case there is unlikely to be much material change and I would question whether an announcement was necessary. I find my self thinking back to coming out (if that's the right word) and it was such a flipping relief at the time that, I was no longer searching for an answer to the my distress that I can imagine that feeling can allow some to get carried away with their expectations.

You are right about my knowledge on intersex stuff though my biology prowess in general leaves a lot to be desired. Funny seeing as I've spent much of my life fighting against Mother Nature, you'd think I'd have worked it out by now.

Anyone demanding or saying those things you mention on line probably isn't acting in compliance with the misuse of communications act and in person the public order act or worse. I hope it's a minority of us but unpleasant individuals all the same. I hope they get told where to go, in fact reading some commentators I'm pretty confident they do.

I promise this time I'm off, my boyfriend who claims he is incapable of cooking has this look on his face that is inducing guilt. DM is open, take care.

There will Im sure be many groups of males with a shared characteristic who statistically may have lower measured statistical offending rates (if available or accurate) to males as whole.
Sex-based Safeguarding doesnt work by making exceptions for some males who may individually have a lower risk profile.

The same is true for age-based Safeguarding policies.