The look at me of pronouns

I mean, someone could disprove this assertion right now by providing an alternative explanation of 'gender identity' but they won't. I've been waiting for two years. Others on this board have been waiting a lot longer than two years.

'Choosing' pronouns according to one's 'gender identity' just goes along with stereotypes. Otherwise there would be no need for non-binary pronouns.

If a colleague told me they thought same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, or that they believed women are innately submissive, I would equally tell them that I disagree and why.

By genuflecting at the altar of gender ideology by encouraging pronoun pronouncements, you are signalling that you think women are inherently submissive. Because the whole house of cards is built on perpetuating gender stereotypes like this.

[quote Helen8220]@Feelingmardy

Shall we kick off a discussion Helen? Genuinely I would be interested to know how, when we live in a world where the atrocities to females (sex-based, nothing to do with identity) such as those currently occurring in Aghanistan, are so commonplace why you think we do not need sex-based protections. Do you not believe in any affirmative action for oppressed groups? How do you try and make sure that your position of privilege is not blinding you to the realities of other people's situations? Do you believe you can talk for all oppressed groups who have experiences which your privilege has protected you from?

You’re basically asking me to write an essay, which I’m afraid I don’t have time to do, sorry. I came here to put the other side of the pronoun argument, as no one else seemed to be, but your questions are straying very far from that.[/quote]
Many people disagree that this is straying. This is the context in which people are stating their pronouns and the.ideology which the practice supports. If you do decide to challenge someone who does not want to state their pronouns, it would be important to answer these kind of questions. Otherwise it will not be a discussion, it would be virtue signalling.

[quote Helen8220]@EarthSight
This is exactly the problem that women face. Would you be willing to have that little discussion with an employee in the presence of an employment lawyer?

I don’t understand your question - do you mean would I have the conversation with a person that I employ in the presence of an employment lawyer? I don’t employ anyone so it’s not really relevant.[/quote]
It's extremely relevant. Say you started to have this 'discussion' with a colleague who then took it very seriously, they could potentially go to HR and get legal representation to be present at further meetings which might have involve you (given you're the one who challenged them in the first place).

Also, you still haven't answered my questions (as far as I'm aware), which were -

Why are you 'she/her'?

To be unsure of someone's sex, that means that you must feel you are at times able to correctly sex someone. How is it possible to be even be unsure of someone's sex, if sex is all on a spectrum? Wouldn't it then be infinite different shades, where it's not possible to distinguish one from the other? Where there are no binaries?

Are you so confident of your positions that you challenge someone on their views in front of their employment lawyer?

its influence on further cases*

This is what you said -

I wouldn’t pressure someone into stating their pronouns, although if they said they thought it was pointless/stupid/promoting an ideology I would challenge them on that and seek to have a discussion about it.

Discussing is fine, but they might not want to have that discussion with you. Disagreeing is also fine......but hold on, you said you would challenge them on that, which is a bit more confrontational than simply 'responding with my own views'.

I think you know full well that in this current climate, you would be able to get your HR to support you and that you would have the upperhand in this, because after all, you're just trying to be kind and inclusive (although I'm not sure how that extends to you giving yourself a license to police other colleague about their pronoun views). I do think HR would be silly to support you though, given the Maya Forstater ruling and it's influence on further cases. You could be challenged back as someone who is trying to bully colleagues into believing things they have a right not to believe in. Bully is the right word here because of the power dynamic in this situation caused by the current political climate, and because women are scared to lose their jobs because someone like you decides to pull them aside and have a little chat with them one day about their wrong-think. Some women who are more scared of confrontation or who are in a vulnerable position would be in anxious knots over that.

If you want to tell colleagues that not using someone's preferred pronouns is hurtful, you might have a leg to stand on (although there are good counter arguments to that), but trying to challenge someone on their personal views about how their frame their own identity (which is what you would be doing if you got into deeper conversation about this), is patronising and massively oversteps your authority.

Also, nice try with regards to trying to get us on-side with this -

or that they believed women are innately submissive

It is boringly attention seeking. Agreed OP

The belief that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry (and many even more objectionable beliefs) are protected under the equality act, but that doesn’t mean I can’t challenge a colleague who chooses to express those views in the workplace

You could both be guilty of harassment depending on the circumstances.

[quote Helen8220]@Datun

Just because a belief is protected under the Equality Act does not mean that no one has the right to express disagreement with it. It doesn’t even mean that the person holding the belief has a right to express it in all circumstances, regardless of the impact on others.

The belief that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry (and many even more objectionable beliefs) are protected under the equality act, but that doesn’t mean I can’t challenge a colleague who chooses to express those views in the workplace[/quote]
Of course. You're perfectly free to 'challenge' people on the basis of their legally protected characteristics.

The point was, should you be an employer doing it to an employee, it would be considered illegal discrimination.

We’ve had endless ‘discussions’ on a number of threads

Still highly disingenuous to suggest that I wasn't keen to have a debate, as if I don't want to.

I came here to put the other side of the pronoun argument, as no one else seemed to be, but your questions are straying very far from that.

As previously discussed, sexism is directly relevant to declaring of pronouns. You are therefore now being challenged on this.

Just because a belief is protected under the Equality Act does not mean that no one has the right to express disagreement with it. It doesn’t even mean that the person holding the belief has a right to express it in all circumstances, regardless of the impact on others.

What it means, Helen, is that it might be illegal harassment to force people to justify why they hold gender critical beliefs, depending on the circumstances. I think this is what you aren't grasping.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
We’ve had endless ‘discussions’ on a number of threads

How very disingenuous to suggest that I was reticent to have a debate, when you will only have it in private, which I don't see a need for.

@Datun

Just because a belief is protected under the Equality Act does not mean that no one has the right to express disagreement with it. It doesn’t even mean that the person holding the belief has a right to express it in all circumstances, regardless of the impact on others.

The belief that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry (and many even more objectionable beliefs) are protected under the equality act, but that doesn’t mean I can’t challenge a colleague who chooses to express those views in the workplace

Looking back it appears either it was you, or someone with the same username

We can have it on the thread, but you didn't seem keen to do that, did you?

[quote Helen8220]@Datun

Would you 'challenge' a homosexual as to why they are homosexual?

This question doesn’t make any sense to me. Do you mean ask someone about what they think caused them to be gay, or ask them why they think it’s ok for them to be gay? Why would I do either of those things? Particularly as I am in a same sex relationship?[/quote]
Because you seem to be picking and choosing between protected characteristics as to which ones are perfectly acceptable to challenge.

Homosexuality as a sexual orientation, is a protected characteristic.

As are certain beliefs. And the belief that sex is immutable and that it matters is one of them, as laid out in the Maya Forstater judgment. And the lack of belief in transgenderism is the same.

Which is why a previous poster mentioned an employment lawyer. If employers started 'challenging' people, as you put it, on the basis of their protected characteristics, they would be on a very sticky wicket indeed.

Behaviour that, as someone who is not an employer, you seem to consider perfectly acceptable, but only on the basis of certain protected characteristics, and not others.

@Datun

Would you 'challenge' a homosexual as to why they are homosexual?

This question doesn’t make any sense to me. Do you mean ask someone about what they think caused them to be gay, or ask them why they think it’s ok for them to be gay? Why would I do either of those things? Particularly as I am in a same sex relationship?

@Feelingmardy

Shall we kick off a discussion Helen? Genuinely I would be interested to know how, when we live in a world where the atrocities to females (sex-based, nothing to do with identity) such as those currently occurring in Aghanistan, are so commonplace why you think we do not need sex-based protections. Do you not believe in any affirmative action for oppressed groups? How do you try and make sure that your position of privilege is not blinding you to the realities of other people's situations? Do you believe you can talk for all oppressed groups who have experiences which your privilege has protected you from?

You’re basically asking me to write an essay, which I’m afraid I don’t have time to do, sorry. I came here to put the other side of the pronoun argument, as no one else seemed to be, but your questions are straying very far from that.

@Aparallaxia
That’s brilliant 😂

@EarthSight
This is exactly the problem that women face. Would you be willing to have that little discussion with an employee in the presence of an employment lawyer?

I don’t understand your question - do you mean would I have the conversation with a person that I employ in the presence of an employment lawyer? I don’t employ anyone so it’s not really relevant.

I’m not sure where people got the impression that I go around my workplace haranguing people about their views. I made clear that I wouldn’t ask someone why they don’t state their pronouns in their email signature, or tell them that they should. But if someone chooses to tell me their reasons for not doing it, and I think those reasons are misconceived, what’s wrong with me responding with my own views? If a colleague told me they thought same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, or that they believed women are innately submissive, I would equally tell them that I disagree and why.