How best to answer 'What are your preferred pronouns?' in an intervew

Gender critical people are not a disadvantaged group.

No, but women ARE.

You know, the more I have thought about this, the angrier and more exasperated I am.

What happened to not allowing someone who is not a member of the group in question to define them? So again, the group 'women' is being defined in a way that suits a man, in this case it apparently means 'non gender critical women'.

Having othered us, he apparently believes he is justified in ignoring our experiences and views, because he has determined that we aren't 'proper' women (yes, I know that listening doesn't mean agreement, but it's astonishing how often women's concerns have been hand waved away with 'well I don't agree' without the hand waver ever giving an explanation of why)

All apparently on the basis of a difference in belief/ non belief (in this case, gender identity).

Imagine doing this to any other marginalised group: thinking you don't have to take the concerns of a particular subset of disabled people, or elderly people etc, seriously, because you didn't agree with some of their views!

That's not how meaningful interaction or listening works!

We think it would be forcing us to take a stance, because we spend time on here discussing this stuff and we understand the ramifications of pronouns. But not everyone does. Some people just think, "That's what you do these days."

I speak to plenty of women who aren't gender criticalm with whom I agree.

Also, just wanted to use this quote to address this idea because I see it a lot online. Not just having a go at male posters on Mumsnet.

Men in general who only listen and consider the views of women they already agree with, that conveniently support things other men want, like males in women's spaces, the erasure of sex, and the promotion of prostitution and porn, and don't listen to the women who are affected by these things, are not supporters of women's rights, or any sort of feminist ally.

Gender critical people are not a disadvantaged group.

But women are.

Once again, refusing to acknowledge women's experience.

Perhaps DJ excludes women who are also GC from his definition of women?

This really is taking twisting established definitions to a new level.

Or perhaps women who don't agree with him don't count?

Fuck knows. Make it make sense!

It's like someone asking what God you believe in. It's not a courtesy it's a passive aggressive way of to forcing you to take a stance on a political issue and they would be an asshole to ask her that question.

Because they are driven by and for men.

They knew the policies would have negative and detrimental impacts on women but they neither cared nor considered that relevant, the only consideration was for men.

This is borne out time and time again by the male poster who point blank refuses to listen to women or indeed show any care for their lived experience.

We just needed a room full of adults who did as pp and refuse women when they are giving their views, anything other than listen.

No wonder we’ve ended up with this harmful mess

The legislators mostly are accountable but you can see in that snapshot how it happened

How have women been sidelined in policy and views that impact them so much?

Because we live in a sexist society.

How have women been sidelined in policy and views that impact them so much?

I’d say doing anything over listening is instructive

Even the terminology used is designed to remove women, when it’s us who are impacted not men.

If you are suggesting I should defer to your views on trans rights because you are a woman

It's her views on her own rights as a woman that you should listen to, as a man, rather than glibly dismiss.

Is this how you treat other disadvantaged groups that you are not a member of? Do you weigh into discussions about funding for cataract removal to opine that the funding would be better spent on hearing aids?

Forstater's beliefs were only protected because she agreed she would not do this.

That's not true. She said she wouldn't do it gratuitously, not that she would never do it. And the EAT thought that was reasonable.

Para 104. My bold:

"The Tribunal correctly acknowledged, at para 87 of the Judgment, that calling a trans woman a man "may" be unlawful harassment. However, it erred in concluding that that possibility deprived her of the right to do so in any situation."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/MayaForstaterrvCGDDEuropeanddothersUKEAT0105520_JOJ.pdf

I think you should listen to women yes. It’s clear from your description in the pp which didn’t even use the correct term.

Listen is not leave. Maybe the next thread then.

Tell me to leave and I will

Don't leave.
Do have the honesty to answer questions about things you claim to believe.

If you're not honest enough to do that then it's a bit pointless coming here and just pretending all the time.

All this expertise from a poster who doesn't know what women are or what pronouns mean!

Do you genuinely not see yourself?

If you are suggesting I should defer to your views on trans rights because you are a woman, I simply will not. I am not willing to be that patronising and sexist.

When you are discussing issues which affect women, or you personal experiences I am not going to dispute them. When you denigrate and dismiss non-binary and transgender people, I will disagree.

Trans women in particular are treated odiously here, with specific bad actors being used to paint an entire protected class just as bigots do with gay people and Muslims. The idea of you listening and accepting their lived experience is laughable. They are hounded off here pretty quickly, and trans men are just patronised and pitied. It's pretty unedifiying to see you playing the victim card in the arena of trans rights.

If you want a gender-critical-only space which excludes men, I will respect that. Tell me to leave and I will.

Anyway, I done on this thread.

dadjoke are people who don't have gender identities that they consider align with their sex a disadvantaged group due to fitting that description?

As per my previous question I expect you'll ignore it.

We also get more extreme versions such as violence, threats and abuse online and offline which is linked to the same

Male socialisation, and behaviours

I am not suggesting the pp is employing these tactics but society is enabling them due to that male focus

Afaic it’s male socialisation and a male centred society that leads to any man who thinks they should do this.

Yes. It's not just men like Dadjoke to be fair, there are plenty of men more on the side of sex based rights who like the sound of their own voice a little too much, and plenty of female socialised fawning over them and their "hepeating" of what a woman said first.

As a woman who has always known what a woman is and has suffered for being female , I don't pay much mind to men of DadJoke's ilk and the views of his so-called feminist friends, I just think it's important to call out this sleight of hand when "trans rights" is being spoken about.

You are disregarding women’s voices and their experiences. Even with the numerous posts outlining them.

Afaic it’s male socialisation and a male centred society that leads to any man who thinks they should do this.

Followers of "trans rights" say a variety of things. Some believe that it's simply a matter of ensuring that people who identify as the opposite sex cannot be sacked without protection on the grounds of that identity. I fully support this. Others think that most "trans" people should be able to be treated as the opposite sex in most situations, that's where the "preferred pronouns are just kind and basic courtesy, why wouldn't you" brigade come in. But many of these women still don't want males in their spaces.

Plenty of these women make an exception for males who have had full genital surgery. They are not ok however with other elements of "trans rights" such as males competing in the women's sport category, or intact males in women's spaces where women and girls are particularly vulnerable.

Then on the fringes you have those people who will not tolerate any dissent to the idea that "trans women are women" and always have been, and there can be no women only spaces or acknowledgement that sex ever matters as this gives the lie to this. That is the management team of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre for instance, many public sector environments and many people in the arts, yes also fashionable, primarily middle class industries like publishing, law, charity etc.

As I said, referring to all these people supporting "trans rights" sometimes and just some of them at other times is a sleight of hand.

I speak to plenty of women who aren't gender criticalm with whom I agree. I am not diasgreeing with you because you are women, but because you are gender critical. I disagree equally with men (the majority) who attack trans rights.

I am not going to patronise you by agreeing when I think you are wrong.

Witnesses and victims can describe what they witnedsed as they saw them, so that's already the case.

Gender critical beliefs do not allow professionals to misgender people - Forstater's beliefs were only protected because she agreed she would not do this. This applies equally to court officials.

Gender critical people are not a disadvantaged group.

You are speaking to women.

You would listen to any group other than women, male socialisation and society has messed up.

Gender critical people are not a disadvantaged group. Transgender people are.

Sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics whose rights are balanced quite successfully in the EA2010, GRA and statutory guidance. If you want those rights restricted (and you do) then you want to restrict trans rights.

When you have your gender critical hat on, as far as I am concerned, you are punching down. When women are talking about issues other than trans rights issues, I will defer.