Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Can someone please help me out with pronouns

281 replies

Lollygaggles · 23/04/2020 21:27

So how do I stand in terms of the current legislation, if I refer to a person by the pronouns of their birth, rather than their preferred pronouns?

Would it be compelled speech to be forced to collude with a belief that I do not accept? Also, how does my freedom not to be discriminated against because of my beliefs ( ie that people can't change sex) play out against the protections of Gender Reassignment and the trans person's rights as a legal member of the opposite sex ( though not a biological one.)

Would I be acting in a discriminatory way under the EA by referring to a person as their birth sex, when they have transitioned?

I want to be able to articulate my position very clearly, with reference to the law, but I don't actually know where we are as the law stands on competing rights.

Can anyone help me unpick it please?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Thinkingabout1t · 26/04/2020 07:41

Bewilderness: Pronouns cannot function as correction fluid for those who are dissatisfied with reality.

Star
TyroSaysMeow · 25/04/2020 22:38

You'd have to have a spectrum, Bewilderness.

Conventionally used exclusively for men at one end, conventionally used exclusively for women at the other, and traversing the wilds of unisex use in the middle. Obviously names are not fixed, and are capable of shifting across this middle zone in both directions.

I wonder, if you'd been given a currently-in-the-unisex-zone name at birth, and tried to change it to a different unisex name at transition, would they disqualify you?

Spero · 25/04/2020 22:36

*I've been told by spero (a barrister) that a trans widow would be at risk of prosecution under hate crime legislation for using correct sex pronouns for her ex husband.

I don't think thats sound advice though. You shouldn't assume, and certainly not based on, of all things, clothing - you might accidentally out someone. Its all very complicated imo.*

I am not a criminal lawyer but before the decision in Miller v College of Policing I think it was certainly right to say there was a risk that the police would be involved if someone 'misgendered' another.

However, following the judgment on 14th February www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-judgment.pdf
I think the risks must have significantly reduced as the police were certainly given a clear message there about their over reaction.

however, we need to see what the UK Supreme Court is going to do with Harry Miller's continued challenge to the Hate Crime Operational Guidance as that is the key policy document which I think does still leave people at risk of prosecution for misgendering.

Or - if not prosecution, getting yourself recorded for a 'hate incident non crime' which may be disclosed to potential future employers.

TehBewilderness · 25/04/2020 22:23

I realize this is a few pages back, but I am curious how the government intends to differentiate which are women's names and which are men's names when determining if a man is a woman or a woman is a man by virtue of the name they use.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/04/2020 21:45

You know, Field? And yet you still assert that we are expected to go along with it?

I mean, let's be honest, what else is there if threats are off the table (would be deleted here if reported) other than "because I say so"?

R0wantrees · 25/04/2020 21:33

Also, being expected to lie constantly is bad for people's mental health, which is not a trivial consideration, especially when they're being told they must do so to protect the mental health of others.

Barra Kerr
Pronouns are Rohypnol
4th June 2019

(extract)
"There’s a lot of chat around about pronouns right now. Specifically, ‘preferred’ pronouns. By which is usually meant, the pronouns a person would prefer other people to use when they are the subject being discussed by those people.

‘This is how I want you to talk about me’.

Almost without exception, the people who request, or demand, others talk about them using specific pronouns, are asking for pronouns associated with the opposite sex to their own.

A simple politeness. A courtesy.

I’ve heard many people tell me they don’t mind doing this, as a courtesy, although it takes some effort to keep up the mental gymnastics of perceiving one sex, but consistently using pronouns for the other. That’s a personal choice, and I respect the reasons why some people make it.

I’ve also heard many people declaring that anyone who won’t comply (usually directed at a woman) is obnoxious, mean, hostile, and unpleasant. ‘Misgendering’ is hate speech. They say.

But I refuse to use female pronouns for anyone male. Because pronouns are like Rohypnol.

One of the biggest obstacles to halting the stampede over women’s rights is pronoun and preferred name ‘courtesy’. People severely underestimate the psychological impact to themselves, and to others, of compliance.

Pronouns are like Rohypnol to your brain’s defences.
You doubt this absurd claim I just made, obviously. You have the fortitude of mind to be uninfluenced by such trivia, and I have got this wrong. I understand. Bear with.

And try this quick experiment.

  1. The cost of USING preferred pronouns yourself: Have you heard of the STROOP TEST? (continues)

They dull your defences. They change your inhibitions. They’re meant to. You’ve had a lifetime’s experience learning to be alert to ‘him’ and relax to ‘her’. For good reason. This instinctive response keeps you safe. It’s not even a conscious thing. It’s like your hairs standing on end. Your subconscious brain is helping you not get eaten by the sabre tooth tiger that your eyes haven’t noticed yet.

Incongruent pronouns also make your brain work much harder; not just when you are using them, but when you are receiving them as information. You are working constantly to keep that story straight in your head. Male or female? Which one, again? Concentrate harder. Ignore your instincts, ignore your reaction.

And that’s just you. You’re already aware of all the pertinent information, already alert, you know the score, no flies on you.

And you’re still affected emotionally and instinctively by incongruent pronouns, nouns, and names. Despite your efforts to be immune. You’re not immune to this effect. You can know perfectly the actual sex of a male person, and yet you will still react differently if someone calls them she instead of he.

So what then, is the impact on everyone who isn’t even aware yet, hasn’t fully comprehended yet what’s going on?

They change our perception, lower our defences, make us react differently, alter the reality in front of us. (continues)
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Pertella · 25/04/2020 20:51

I understood where you were coming from jelly Smile

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 25/04/2020 19:11

But going along with it to the extent of pronouns yes we are expected to. (Yes yes pronouns are r etc etc I know).

You know, Field? And yet you still assert that we are expected to go along with it?

So what do you know? That pronouns are in fact Rohypnol, but you don’t care about the damage and danger to women as a result?

Or you know the argument exists but you choose to dismiss it, because... because why?

If the former, then you may as well wear a great big misogynist MRA hat.

If the latter then you really need to present some kind of counter- argument to it. A reasoned, rational one, rather than #bekind. Otherwise you might as well still be wearing that great big misogynist MRA hat.

Over to you.

midgebabe · 25/04/2020 18:17

Erasing a person could mean killing them
it could mean blanking them, refusing to talk to them , pushing them out of society
At a class level, ie erasing trans or woman as a class , would mean refusing to consider what special issues they might face distinct from other groups

Now clearly calling transperson by sex consistent pronouns isn't killing them or excluding from society.

Which means that talk of erasure is referring to them at a class level

However calling transwomen women, using female pronouns actually erases woman as a class level without providing a class for transwomen
In other words
It at the same time erases the transwoman as a class that might have special requirements or face special discrimination

So the people trying to erase transwomen and women are transwomen

Ikeasucks · 25/04/2020 18:00

If we hadn’t started using female pronouns for males, we probably wouldn’t be in a place now where males are competing/winning in female sports and where males are being sent to a female prison. Or with charming males being called women/she/her. It’s just all so illogical.

Can someone please help me out with pronouns
Can someone please help me out with pronouns
Can someone please help me out with pronouns
jellyfrizz · 25/04/2020 17:41

Using pronouns of the opposite sex is not respecting their being trans, it is erasing their being trans

Trans logic v actual logic 😉

I'm not even being facetious Pert! I honestly don't get how you can accept someone for being something by pretending they are not that thing. It is denial, not acceptance.

TyroSaysMeow · 25/04/2020 17:33

I might take it more seriously if we had a proper definition of 'trans', testing.

But that's unlikely, given the cis/trans binary isn't real.

testing987654321 · 25/04/2020 17:09

What about someone like Pip Bunce.

Are they not really trans because they change gender identity on a whim and express this via the medium of a pink dress or dark suit? They don't have a persistent need to be seen as female but apparently get celebrated as a businesswoman despite clearly being a man.

I don't understand why anyone would take that seriously.

terryleather · 25/04/2020 17:02

Field's argument only works if you think trans people are the only people deserving kindness, compassion, etc and that they should be centered at all times.

FFS Kittens, the brave & stunning are the only ones who matter - didn't you get the memo?

"Be kind" and "It doesn't cost you anything" and all the other appeals to female socialisation are not arguments - they are just a more politely couched request to submit.

So that'll be a big no from me.

midgebabe · 25/04/2020 16:57

It's a damn sight more compassionate to work for better mental health support for people who have a serious disconnect because they are not and never can be the opposite sex. They will spend their lives fighting the obvious , and themselves in the process. Not good

I don't go along with a fat person who tries to get me to say they are slim
I don't go along with an anorexic who tries to get me to say they are fat
I don't go along with a person whose statistics is poor who wants to be seen as an expert
I never brought my child up to believe she could be anything she wanted to be
I could go on

RuffleCrow · 25/04/2020 16:54

I'm sure the whole thread is on tenterhooks for that peer reviewed meta-study you've got lined up for us that shows 'irreversable gender identity' is an actual medical condition @Fieldofgreycorn Grin

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/04/2020 16:52

Also, being expected to lie constantly is bad for people's mental health, which is not a trivial consideration, especially when they're being told they must do so to protect the mental health of others.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/04/2020 16:51

A compassionate, civilised society shouldn't be expecting women and girls to undress in front of boys and men or face shame and bullying if they don't want to. Field's argument only works if you think trans people are the only people deserving kindness, compassion, etc and that they should be centered at all times.

TyroSaysMeow · 25/04/2020 16:50

If someone has an irreversible gender identity - that is a bloody enormous 'if'.

I know what they mean by gender identity even if most of them lack the wit to articulate it in a coherent and non-offensive way. So I'm prepared to accept for the sake of argument that there is some facet or quality of one's internal experience that could, if you wanted to use deliberately obfuscating language, be called gender identity. It is not an innate and unborn something, however. It develops over time within a sexed and gendered context. It is not immutable, unchanging, or irreversible.

It helps to keep in mind that we are processes, not fixed points.

Pertella · 25/04/2020 16:50

Using pronouns of the opposite sex is not respecting their being trans, it is erasing their being trans

Trans logic v actual logic 😉

OldCrone · 25/04/2020 16:45

it is more about being a compassionate or even just civilised society that seeks not to make that person’s situation worse.

Which brings us to the conflict of interest. Using gender-based pronouns erases sex. Using sex-based pronouns upsets trans people. Who deserves the most compassion? Women or trans people?

Fieldofgreycorn · 25/04/2020 16:40

We know that X is male, but X wants everyone to believe that they are female so we must go along with this so as not to upset them"

‘Not to upset’ is trivialising a serious condition. If someone has an irreversible gender identity then it is more about being a compassionate or even just civilised society that seeks not to make that person’s situation worse.

‘Go along with this...’ only to a certain extent. No one can make you believe it and you don’t have to associate with whoever you want outside work. But going along with it to the extent of pronouns yes we are expected to. (Yes yes pronouns are r etc etc I know).

TyroSaysMeow · 25/04/2020 16:35

I saw that one too, Rita, and couldn't resist a snarky reply. The wording of the thing irritated, for a start - something along the lines of "which of these do you use?" I use every one on that list, depending on who I'm talking to, with the exception of the unpronounceable 'mx'.

It is a bit depressing that some people think compliments have to be appropriate to sex. And it's horribly depressing that some people think they have the right to dictate how other people experience them aesthetically.

As for beautiful, whatever happened to beauty being in the eye of the beholder? Whether I describe someone as beautiful is dependent on how I experience their looks. Their opinion on the appropriate gendering of compliments is irrelevant.

midgebabe · 25/04/2020 16:32

So what you are saying is that refusing to use sex based pronouns erases someone whose gender identity does not match their sex? In other words Making pronouns refer to the gender of a person not the sex.

But you are quite happy to erase people who do not have a gender identify and would therefore be erased because there would no longer be a pronoun that could be used for those people ?

Tad mean I think

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/04/2020 16:30

It's difficult to argue that you're not discriminatory towards women when you're trying to erase us as a discrete legal category.