Need help to stop my organisation compelling us to use preferred pronouns!

that’s the difference between us I think. I don’t see it as capitulating to unreasonable demands to call someone by their preferred name/pronouns. I think it’s just good manners.

I didn't say anything about how you should interact with people in the workplace. I'm sure most of us would be polite to these people in such situations. I was responding to this:

I think insisting on using sex pronouns for people who would prefer that we didn't gives license to those who want to refer to us in ways we don't like.

My point is that it doesn't matter what you do, they'll do what they want anyway. They're not waiting for us to object before deciding to call us 'cis cervix havers'. Go ahead and use the language they want. They'll still use the language they want to when they talk about us.

I'm not capitulating to anything. I believe that referring to people with their preferred pronoun is the right thing to do, especially in a work setting. I'd be capitulating if I used sex based just because people on here told me to.

When one of my male colleagues ‘came out’ as a TW I just used their chosen name and if I needed to use a pronoun I used ‘they’.

So I didn’t used sexed pronouns at all to refer to them.

Capitulating to unreasonable demands by others, whether because they are potentially violent or because they have unsubstantiated beliefs about themselves, is how we got into this mess. It won't solve the problem.

But they'll do that anyway. Pretending that you subscribe to their quasi-religious belief system will only encourage them to think that it's OK to call you 'cis'.

That was to answer OldCrone’s question

i don’t know how to make the judgement as to whether someone is genuinely trans. My point is i don’t need to as i’d use their preferred pronouns in both cases.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I can understand that with your child it must be much more difficult than with a random colleague.

For me, it’s a matter of courtesy to call/refer to people as they wish. So using she/her does not mean ‘I think you are a woman’ ; it means ‘I respect your right to be called as you wish’

Me too. I also feel like if I insist on referring to trans people as I see fit rather than as I wish then surely the upshot is they can refer to me as they see fit (eg cis, cervix haver). I think insisting on using sex pronouns for people who would prefer that we didn't gives license to those who want to refer to us in ways we don't like.

I can't call my son "she". There are two intertwined reasons.

One is that I would be lying, every time I referred to "her". I have known since the moment of his birth that he is male. He is still male, and he cannot change that however much he would like to, however much he tries to behave "as a woman", however he dresses, and whatever drugs he takes or surgery he has to make him appear on the surface a bit woman-like. I will not turn my relationship with my son into a lie because other people (specifically his girlfriend) tell me that I must not be "unkind" and that it is bigoted to think differently.

The second relates to my own mental health. Constantly trying to pretend that he is in some mysterious sense "a woman" means ditching my own integrity and sets up such cognitive dissonance that I have had to pull off the road while driving. I have never experienced such dark thoughts even at the worst times of my life. I want to be around to support my son when he needs me.

I do use other people's preferred pronouns sometimes, but even that causes cognitive dissonance. I wish we could get back to sex-based pronouns.

This is almost always the case. And it seems understandable that a parent of a "trans child" might become an advocate for trans people, just as a parent of a disabled child might start to notice the difficulties that disabled people are faced with and advocate for them. But the real parallel is with religion.

What is happening here is like a Christian forcing everyone else to say grace before a meal, or a Muslim insisting that everyone fasts during Ramadan. Transgender ideology could be recognised as a belief system which would give its adherents the same protection as those with religious beliefs, but just as with religion, there is no compulsion amongst non-believers to comply with the rituals and requirements of that religion.

What this organisation has done here is equivalent to saying that because someone high up has become devoutly religious, everyone working for it also has to convert to this religion. This is totally unreasonable and unacceptable.

How do you make the decision about whether someone is a "genuinely trans person" @MrsWobble3? In your opinion, what makes a person "genuinely trans"?

I’ve found this discussion really interesting having recently had trans inclusivity training at work. I think I start from a different point to you though as I can’t get worked up about pronouns. For me, it’s a matter of courtesy to call/refer to people as they wish. So using she/her does not mean ‘I think you are a woman’ ; it means ‘I respect your right to be called as you wish’.

So following on from this I also think that use of pronouns does not convey any follow on rights, for example the use of women’s toilets or changing rooms. I can draw a clear distinction between gender (which you can choose) and sex (which is a biological fact). So for me, names and pronouns fall into the gender camp so are a matter of personal preference.

Further, I can think of two distinct situations where this arises - firstly where a genuinely trans person wants it acknowledged - and not to do so would be unkind, and secondly where a troublemaker is looking to pick a fight - so why give them the chance?

Morning!
Was just coming on to suggest the Pronouns are Rohypnol article, but Datun was on the case.

i’d use their name or “they”.

I found this article by Akua Reindorf KC very helpful
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sex-and-Gender-Reindorf-ELA.pdf

I've been looking into this same thing for an issue at my work. Forstater judgment does not give us the right to use bio sex pronouns in all circumstances. It's about balancing competing rights. Sadly it's not clear cut. Lots of info on the Sex Matters website.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

It's my understanding that despite not believing in gender ideology, and not being able to compel people, if you don't use the preferred pronoun, it's possible it could be seen as malicious, or harassment, based on a protected characteristic. But I don't think it's ever been proved in court. Hence the difference in interpretations of the law.

So you can't go up to a tw, and keep saying you're a man, you're a man, because that would be seen as harassment. And deliberately going out of your way to correctly sex someone, might be viewed the same.

Maybe saying, I don't believe in gender ideology, but for the sake of courtesy, I will use your preferred pronouns might possibly work. It would probably get you in trouble with your company, but, I can't see how you would fall foul of the law.

I feel for you tho. It's infuriating.

Not anti-trans. Just not willing to lie and call a man 'she' or a woman 'he'.

So your organization is anti-trans? Or just you are? Make this make sense.

Thin end of the wedge, perhaps, because compelled speech has a symbolic function. I think it was Hannah Arendt who noted that forcing people to say things they don't believe is the way that tyrants and conquerors enforce power. Once you've said it, against your will, you've capitulated and given the 'other' power over you. You start by saying the words, and at some point down the line perhaps you start believing what you're saying.