BBC Bitsize - Pronouns

I just don't see that changing pronouns will help, because the reason that gender is forced on me is my sex, that doesn't change and I don't believe that people will suddenly say " oh I know midge, yeah , I used to think of her as a woman and so was happy to talk over her in meetings, but now I know , because the pronouns zee uses that in fact I should not talk over zer. "

What most of us who object to gender being forced on us want is for people to throw the whole concept out of the window and treat people as people..so " oh midge, yeah, I don't talk over her because it's rude and anyway, she is really knowledgable in her field and well worth listening too"

I mean personally I am happy to be misgendered and called him , which happens in international collaborations that are often conducted via email only.

What I would not be happy with is for someone to say " ob midge is happy to be known as a he, so he should use the gents toilets " because I know that the men would not be happy, there would not be a san bin, and I don't want to see strange willies when going to the lol.

The zie/zer types of things don't really serve as pronouns, more like an awkward set of nicknames.
The whole point of pronouns is surely to make communication flow more easily. Non standard 'pronouns' do the opposite.

I'd be willing to take a bet it's more Pomo-inclined artsy types.

Privileged pomo-inclinded artsy types who can't imagine what its like to suffer real prejudice.

In fact, pretending that they/them or ze/zer are not pronouns that are in fact used by people is the real gaslighting.

It really isn't. There are over a 100 different genders. It's really not 'gaslighting' to refuse to comply with using them all.

It is not gaslighting to explain that someone is not comfortable with the gender society wants to force on them and wants to express themselves in a way that is comfortable for them.

When you imply that people should declare a pronoun in their bio/email sign off, as this BBC article does, you are asking them to emphasise the gender that society has forced on them; and you are enabling sexism by implying that the social construct of gender can be simply shrugged off.

It makes me very sad that an institution like the BBC can't see this.. I thought society had progressed further.

Please do not pretend that you are being kind by insisting that people choose a gender box.

I wonder how many of the people who want this new language used are computer people.

I'd be willing to take a bet it's more Pomo-inclined artsy types.
It would probably be possible to check academics email signatures for data on this.
I work in software and have only seen one (this week so maybe she'd seen the 'pronouns day' mentioned somewhere) instance in a work context - and not from a coder.

We are not against anyone seeking to express their preferences for the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with the opposite sex.

We are not against teaching children that some people are more comfortable conforming to the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with the opposite sex.

What we are against is teaching children that when a person expresses a preference, however strong or sincerely felt, for the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with the opposite sex they actually become a person of the opposite sex and that they must agree that this person is now the opposite sex or be branded as unkind, hateful or transphobic.

And not teaching our children that they cannot expect everyone around them to deny material reality in favour of their personal beliefs is irresponsible. It sets them up for a life of sheer misery, because everyone has a right to freedom of thought, belief and expression. And the sooner they learn that the better.

What makes children happy isn't always good for them. More importantly, striving to make our children happy instead of acquainting them with the truth and material facts about life and the world they live in, does not help them grow into strong, resilient, independent and successful adults.

There are feckin hundreds of the things. All made up. All arbitrary. And their users will use them as an excuse to throw a hissy fit if you get Sam (xie/xem) confused with Jo (ze/zer) or Micky/ie (she/him/they depending on day of the week and clothing choice).

There's being polite to people. Then there's indulging narcissistic twats. Happy to do the former, life is too fucking short for the latter.

I wonder how many of the people who want this new language used are computer people. No, bear with me: computer language (or jargon, or whatever) frequently appropriates a perfectly good English word and uses it to mean something which is nothing whatever to do with the original meaning -- boot and mouse are both fairly obvious, but there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of others which I have to look up to be sure I know what is being said. Appropriating the perfectly good and well-defined English word "woman" and wanting it used to mean something not in the original definition seems to be in much the same category. The difference is that boots and mice can't say "oy, that word means us! go and think of one of your own", whereas women can.

ze/zer are not pronouns that are in fact used by people is the real gaslighting.

I teach EFL abroad and my very bright advanced level teens got a few questions wrong on a recent mock because they were looking for plural nouns to match the they pronoun - in fact 'They' had been used to mask the gender of the subject to make it less easily identifiable for the sake of the exam.

Pronouns are learnt at preschool english level so it's not something we had covered and it didn't cross my mind! That we have to explain that now really really early on.

All the ze/ve nonsense will be a headache. I'm all for non binary or trans people opting for they (singular) if that's what they (comfortable) feel happy with, I'm used to having non gendered language (Romance language omits the pronoun and goes straight to a third person verb) but inventing new ones... big eye roll.

It's not offensive at all to wish to wear whatever you choose and express yourself however you want to (though there are places where saying whatever you want is not entirely a good idea -- I've known some pubs....)

What is offensive is requiring the whole of the rest of the world to alter in order to accommodate your wishes.

And it is probably gaslighting to try to convince someone, by sleight of hand, that a lie you have told is a fact.

The comments here are just so saddening to me. It is not gaslighting to explain that someone is not comfortable with the gender society wants to force on them and wants to express themselves in a way that is comfortable for them. Not teaching your children about actual pronoun use is like teaching them to count but excluding the number 6 because you don't like it. It makes no sense. In fact, pretending that they/them or ze/zer are not pronouns that are in fact used by people is the real gaslighting.

'For that', not 'that for' !

What kind of person tries to intimidate women into not informing other women about a sexual predator, whilst simultaneously campaigning that for predator to have access to their intimate spaces?

Which it isn't, of course. As the text of the law (Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 162)) mentioned in the article jj1968 linked to makes quite clear.

It probably ticks at least half of the rules of misogyny.

Starting with "The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad."

JJ was of the opinion that this person was really the victim, because outraged and fearful women were drawing attention to it.

It probably ticks at least half of the rules of misogyny.

I don't like being called "you lot" and the gleeful tone set.

Will this torrent of spite on this thread never stop?

Maybe, it seems someone has gone for a wee lie down. Different time zone?

I haven't read the whole thread, is that seriously what was said????!!!

Not on this thread knight

But there was another thread with sone serious darvo going on re that person.

Someone really does not see us as human

To which many of us commented that we thought the person looked fairly comfortable to us, particularly in the reflection. But that was thought to be unkind too

Most women's services were started by women who had nothing, and who put time and energy and resources they couldn't spare - but spared anyway - in order to help themselves and other women. Some of the early refuges were started in squats.

Stonewall - to take one example of a trans activism group - has reserves of about 5 million quid, an annual turnover of more than a million and a half quid, and something like 160 employees. Their CEO makes over £100k pa, and several more of their employees aren't far behind.

Can you imagine if Stonewall devoted a fraction of these considerable resources to campaigning for refuge provision for gender nonconforming men, instead of campaigning to steal women's refuges from the women that need them?

Consent seems to matter with the photo. Not so much with a penis free space