Pronoun badges for train staff and mis-gendering passengers

I don't get how the name change is relevant? The only Eden I've known was a bloke.

Maybe we should just call everyone 'mate' . Is there a polite unisex term?

This is an interesting quote from them.
just had facial surgery seven months ago, I've legally changed my name and I'm on hormones every day yet people still decide to ignore what they see in front of them
I would say the ticket inspector didn’t ignore what he saw in front of him. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I wouldn't correct 'lady' although I'm not a fan of it either, but I'd correct 'Sir' or 'he'. Ok, guess we're all different . I'd prefer 'Sir' or 'he' to being referred to as a lady!

The staff did not need to use any pronouns at all at the comment at the end is just rude.

I wouldn't correct 'lady' although I'm not a fan of it either, but I'd correct 'Sir' or 'he'.

It's pretty clear from Eden's instagram (where the Manchester Evening News presumably got the images of Eden) that Eden makes a considerable effort to try and pass. Eden has a very valid point about the corporate endorsement of Pride. I grew up with 'who's she, the cat's mother?' so don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to not use gendered pronouns in my presence.

Would a natal woman make a fuss and continuously correct a person missexing her if it wasn't relevant to the conversation? I know I wouldn't. I've not insisted that I not be called a lady even though I hate it.

Meaning that men tend to be taken at their word, while women perhaps are less so. I don’t think it relates to the incident, rather to the raft of people who are taking Eden’s complaint at face value. Not sure if it’s true, but that was what I took it to mean

As I said before, we only have the wording of the article to go on - in which Northern Rail have not denied what happened - they've apologised for it. Of course I get that that may simply be a public relations decision on Northern Rail's behalf, but in a discussion of events as presented in an article, it isn't unreasonable to discuss the events at face value. Otherwise, we might just as well say 'It's probably all made up, so let's not entertain a discussion at all.'

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the article was about a natal woman who'd been repeatedly misgendered for whatever reason - do you think the absence of (perceived) 'male privilege' would mean everyone would say 'oh, that's all right then'?

Did it happen though...

Meaning that men tend to be taken at their word, while women perhaps are less so. I don’t think it relates to the incident, rather to the raft of people who are taking Eden’s complaint at face value. Not sure if it’s true, but that was what I took it to mean,

My experience of customer complaints is that very often, there has been a degree of grumpiness or rudeness on both sides. As someone else said, there’s one side’s version and the other side’s version, and then there’s the truth.

These workers deal with thousands of different people, very very quickly, ever day. They make snap decisions!

Fine, but they were asked five times to stop addressing Eden as 'Sir'. If they came to the wrong decision and said it once, fair enough. But not five times. If they were ideologically opposed to using a female form of address then they could have asked for and used Eden's first name.

Many ticket inspectors get caught out by men and women not being what they think they are.

These workers deal with thousands of different people, very very quickly, ever day. They make snap decisions!

Perhaps all passengers should be required to wear pronoun badges?

And males demanding that we pretend they are women is not stretching the bounds of credibility?

Taken at face value with what we know from the article this seems like a case of transphobia to me.

It does happen and it should be called out when it does.

But He said something along the lines of ‘man, woman, whatever! God, what’s the world coming to, eh?’ reads more like the staff member was confused and did not understand what Eden wanted from him.

That interpretation is really stretching the bounds of credibility. This was a customer service situation - the remark was highly unprofessional if nothing else.

If the member of staff was being deliberately goady, that is wrong and bullying. But He said something along the lines of ‘man, woman, whatever! God, what’s the world coming to, eh?’ reads more like the staff member was confused and did not understand what Eden wanted from him. And why should he? Why would it occur to most people?

This is a prime example of the naval-gazing narcissism of the trans ideology:

“It’s just frustrating because when you’re trying so hard to be perceived as the gender that you are and trying to meet expectations of how people view you, it just completely undermines it all.

So this person is trying to undermine people’s perceptions and is frustrated that they cannot change them. Frustrated that they cannot change reality. Frustrated that when people see a male their expectations are that the person is male, regardless of what he wears. Frustrated that others don’t particularly care about what Eden thinks of Eden’s self.

“I just had facial surgery seven months ago, I've legally changed my name and I'm on hormones every day yet people still decide to ignore what they see in front of them.

Sorry, Eden, they are not ignoring what they see in front of them.

“It’s just unfair. It’s really, really unfair.”

Who ever said life was fair?

Eden got on a train they weren’t entitled to use

This is speculation, but it's very easy to get caught out by Northern Rail's off-peak rule.

You can't get on a train before 9:30 am or between 4pm and 6:30pm (I think it's 6:30pm). That sounds easy enough, but the 4pm rule also applies to connecting services - so if you get on the 15:30 at Leeds, say, and it's a direct train getting you to your home station at 17:00 - fine. If you get on the 15:30 at Leeds but have to change onto the 16:20 at Bradford, say, that's not allowed. Many infrequent travellers get caught out by that one.

@NeedNewKnees I agree. 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' was hardly the important part of the conversation. My DS and I have been referred to as 'ladies' when he is male and I hate being called a lady but we just ignore it, it's not that important.

Eden also assumed the gender of or else chose to refer to the railway employees by sex themselves. "A woman scanned it and then passed me over to two men who were working at the ticket desk.

"“He said to me: ‘Yes, sir, you have to board that specific train'.

“I was literally standing in front of him with a ponytail, acrylic nails and a bra on - all the signs were there.”

To be fair, railway staff see all sorts of people in their working days and years, and are accustomed to seeing men in drag going to various events. I bet they didn't mean any offence at all -- after all, they used "sir" which is polite.

Eden could have just shrugged it off.

When my boyfriend called the very butch dyke security guard in our local Iceland "he", within her earshot, I apologised. She laughed and said "no worries --- it happens all the time". She does not care if anyone calls her by male pronouns. They are 100% wrong, but she isn't going to raise merry hell about it. Why bother?

This is why you are missing the point Arbadacabra

All that was asked was that they stopped calling Eden 'Sir' and referring to Eden as 'he'. They could have used Eden's name - that's not 'denying reality'. They could have used 'this customer' or again, 'Eden' when referring to Eden.