Good guide on what declaring your pronouns really means

*alongside

Dear Hoardasurusterf,

Being a South London resident and being a busy person just trying to get by in life, I really agree with your take on this issue. I find the current gender\identity thing totally confusing and to have to deal with the ins and outs of it while in a medical situation just nonsense - are we all not human beings. I wish you luck in your work and support your view.

That manes me really angry @Hoardasaurusterf

Apart from the cost and distraction,your jobs are to look after sick people. They don't give a shit what your pronouns are, nor should they.

I've see a very obviously male person my my bus occasionally who wears a badge saying they/them. I think that would make a lot of elderly or other vulnerable/ confused rope really anxious. What if they get it wrong? What if they can't see your badge and use the wrong pronouns? It's really bloody unkind.

I will have to be deliberately vague here as potentially very outing! Professional body for my profession has advised that we must state our own pronouns to patients in order to make patients feel more comfortable with their own🙄
I work in busy A&E dept of a large city hospital where many patients are living in poverty, drug & alcohol abuse are rife, domestic abuse, violence, homelessness and mental health issues are the reality. Not gender identity nonsense! People just trying to survive from day to day without the luxury of thinking about how they identify🙄
How about the NHS address the real common problems such as addiction instead of making such a song and dance over something affecting a tiny number of patients. I have come across a handful of trans patients out of the thousands I have dealt with over the years! And my own pronouns are completely irrelevant🙄🙄

I work somewhere where everyone on Zoom meeting introduces themselves and then says 'my pronouns are...' as a matter of course.

Thanks for the link and everyone’s highly articulate excellent points on this thread. A very helpful resource for as and when the day comes we are asked to use ‘our’ pronouns in work email signatures.

E.g. look at the proponents of TWAW with loads of followers. If not TWAW then you know. Nazi, racist, want children to die including their own etc etc.

Then.

Women in Afghanistan fear Taliban restrictions.

FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL BASTARDS.

if not consistent then THEY don't believe it. It's simply a tool to fuck women over, demonise any woman who even slightly expresses doubts.

It's so in your face.

And it's mainstream and everywhere. In multiple countries.

Not if you have redefined it.

That Is the real problem.

It's clever. Result it bickering over what is a woman. (A question men have been pondering for millennia while women get on with the work).

Rather than the actual issue.

Diverted to semantics.

Rather than THIS IS NOT YOUR WORD TO APPROPRIATE.

Not saying not totally completely understandable. To get into it.

We are constantly on the back foot. With things that are globally, through history, across languages and cultures always there.

The fact that the word woman was taken and redefined (by males) totally unilaterally.
And most of society says so what/ doesn't matter. And even the most ardent still use women/ girls all the time when it suits them, to mean sex not gender.

It's not to do with anything except forcing women to concede. Put us on the back foot. If we don't roll over then we're proponents of mass executions.

‘Woman is not a feeling. It's not a costume, an emotion, or a performance. It's just a body. A body that is oppressed in a multitude of ways, not because of identity, but because of sex. A body that requires certain protections in law because it is vulnerable to physical violence from men and at risk of exploitation because of its reproductive function’ This.

There are websites and short urls that provide pronoun services so you don't have to put them directly in emails anymore.

Hiding/occluding issues seems to be a thing...

I do hope the short urls stay when this all blows over. They are a great idea for a short bio.

Ah. The definition has been changed and is in place across public sector govt schools you name it.

Meaning that

The statement TWAW says something different to many orgs, services, individuals.

If a woman is... Just whatever you want it to be. Then of course TWAW. Makes total sense.

The fact that 99.99999999999% of the world use the old meaning (in what 100s of languages) makes no difference. The fact that NO ONE ASKED WOMEN makes no difference.

The argument TWAW to those who accept new definition. Well it's true. Obviously.

The ACTUAL argument is the underlying definition of the word.

As we know few attempt to define in a non circular way. And those who do. Holy moly the misogyny! Off the scale.

The TWAW argument is a semantic thing. Distracting from the underlying definition. Which from what I've seen has never been defined in a way that isn't deeply misogynist.

No one can 'identify' as a woman, nor can they identify out of being one; you either are one or you are not. Woman is not a feeling. It's not a costume, an emotion, or a performance. It's just a body.

Yes. Exactly.

So sorry wrong thread. I should be over on 'cancelled'

Conclusion.

Nothing to do with inclusion, oppression etc at all.

Wholly to do with a certain group that have always been prioritised in society getting what they want.

Trans men? Where the fuck are they?
Only mentioned to prop up arguments...

Oooh fake Diversity and Inclusion scheme.

This could be interesting.

In short.

The declaration of internal gender identity is nothing to do with helping everyday trans people in their lives.

It's to do with visibly showing you are on board with/ believe everything that is claimed, demanded.

If you don't agree. Disagree totally. Have any issues with any of the things said/ demanded.

Then you will not have your preferences respected.
In fact you will accept the labels given.
Up to and including
Truscum
Cis

In addition it is fine to say essentially whatever you want. Nonsensical accusations (eg wanting to see massive numbers of people executed). Threats/ insults/ violent often sexually violent fantasies about you and all your sort.

Penis men. Out the picture. On all this. Only women, trans people, men. Including LGB people. Who even hint ???. Get this stuff.

Bog standard men?
Like they don't exist. Left totally to themselves.

Ah but interestingly.

While the approach is supposed to be-

Never assume anyone's gender.
Never question anyone's gender. If not sure (from appearance??? Another massive issue) then ask.
Always respect a person's gender identity and adhere to pronouns.

It's funny how some people/ groups it's ok to TELL THEM what they are, assume.

Whether your identity is respected or not seems strangely correlated with who you are and what you think. Especially if you've got a fanny....

From what I've seen

If you don't have an internal gender identity, and do not want to use eg agender or similar.
-Then you ARE cis. The end.

• If on top of that you are ??? about any of the things that non bigots must do.

• IF a woman says I'm not cis, I do not want to have that term applied to me.

Note as ever that with.. men who are bepenised. This doesn't seem to even slightly be happening at all. That's strange.

And then-

Yes there are trans-sexuals, people with dysphoria. A very small group in the context of the current transgender cohort. Where it's important to them personally. And it's a massive deal, loads of difficulty, loads of discrimination risk etc. And imo in real life in person yes of course don't be a sod when you meet.

But... Surely the approach of drawing attention, outing yourself, making it a 'thing' would be... Counter productive.
It's not those people who demanded all this.
And of course there are plenty in that group who say. You're fucking women over.
Listening to all in your interest group is important. What are you DOING?

Reaction to that-
The term for them was 'truscum'. Not seen for a while but it was all over the place for a long time. Lovely. So inclusive! So concerned for all trans people...

As I recall, @NoNotMeNoSiree , you believe men and women have different types of brain or soul or essence, and you would know that you still had a woman brain/soul/essence even if you had a male body? (I'm remembering from a thread long ago, as you very rarely answer when asked what a woman is, but you said it was "something more" that made you a woman that you feel you have, but can't possibly attempt to define it) - does that sound about right?

You must realise that most feminists in the 21st century think this is akin to a religious belief, as it's certainly not borne out by any scientific investigation.

And certainly shouldn't be the driver for law and policy.

If you don't believe in the dogma of gender identity, don't declare your pronouns to anyone

Declaring pronouns, to me, says that you agree with teaching children to choose a 'gender identity' on a 'spectrum', with an extreme feminine stereotype on the left and an extreme masculine stereotype on the right. So that a child is forced to 'look inward' and match their personality and preferences to an 'identity'. It's inherently sexist, de-humanising and psychologically damaging.

[quote shakeyourshaggyshanks]filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/12/1/should-you-declare-your-pronouns-a-simple-guide[/quote]
This is excellent, thanks for sharing OP

I work for a minor department for one of the big 4. I’ve found that a lot of cis men in the department happily display their pronouns at the end of their email signatures. Sadly, I prefer to keep my own hidden - not because I’m ashamed to be a woman - but because I’d rather steer away from the negative context of womanhood in a corporate environment

Copied and pasted from my reply in another thread because the FILIA article omits several other

Problems with "Pronouns":

1. nobody likes compelled speech

1. they are generally unnecessary since pronouns are sex-based, it is rare for people to get them wrong face-to-face and they are anyway most often used when the person referred to is not present

1. they are unnecessary in correspondence. We already have conventions for signalling our sex in signatures if we want to dispel any doubt, eg. due ambiguous or unfamiliar names, by including a Title before or in brackets after the name (Ms, Mrs, Mr etc.)

1. sometimes it does not work in writing, eg. Dr. However, is significant that women with such titles have not been clamouring over the years to be able to signal their sex in their signatures

1. they lay the grounds for sex-based discrimination (see above) since women and their contributions still tend to be perceived negatively in most workplaces compared to men and their output

1. they creates additional, unnecessary work-related stress due to the fear of shunning or threat of sanctions if you accidentally "misgender" someone

1. they are a distraction requiring extra cognitive effort, which in some circumstances could affect performance and results

1. they discriminate against people with certain types of neurodiversity, eg. autism (difficulty deliberately lying), pronomial confusion (dysphasia), proposagnosia (problems recognising faces)

1. they discriminate against people who do not wish to take part in a ritual of a belief-system or political ideology to which they do not subscribe. It is as bizarre and inappropriate as in a workplace or meeting where everyone is expected to declare their sexuality or their religion - and anyone who declines is tarred as pervert, infidel or heretic.

10. they are illogical. Since gender identity and gender expression are purportedly different things, a person professing to be "gender fluid" could change their pronouns from day to day depending on how they "identify" without any alterations to their appearance. If that person instead explained that they had a Dissociative Identity Disorder and felt themselves to be a different "alter" from day to day, it is hard to imagine that it could be seen as a reasonable adjustment to their disability to require their co-workers to comply (however willing) under threat of disciplinary or legal sanctions.

11. like it or not, I think most people consider "preferred pronouns" to be an immature, narcissistic, bourgeois affectation. The equivalent to requiring people to doff their cap to a co-worker, for no other reason than it makes them feel "validated" when people defer to their delusion of superiority.

12. Those of us unlucky enough to have seen videos of "people" explaining that receiving the courtesy of preferred pronouns gives them an erection have good reason to want to avoid using them.

Nope. Preferred pronouns. Not doing it.