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

DadJoke can i ask if you make any assumptions whatsoever about anyone using a pronoun for themselves (let's say "she") -see next paragraph - or do you consider it merely an arbitrary label with no actual meaning attached (sort of like a name, which although have meanings, most people wouldn't assume they describe the person literally - Grace may or may not be graceful, for example).

So my question is, would you assume that a "she" was female, and/or that they have a woman gender identity, or neither (ie meaningless label)?

I'm sure you won't answer directly and will change the wording of what I asked, but I'm genuinely interested.

Well that’s people you know, that’s self selecting obviously, that’s the bubble if you need to use that word.

Women are letting you know on these threads how they feel, and as you are male it’s not your reality

Yes. It's certainly a startling lack of self awareness, if nothing else. First rule of social justice, you do not speak over members of disadvantaged groups you are not a member of when they are talking about their lived experience and feelings of being treated poorly.

Reminder that all polling which asks the question is clear that most people, including most women see a difference between women and "trans women" in whether the latter should be treated like women, and up to a third of people don't know that the term actually refers to biological males.

So your circle is the bubble with the minority belief Dadjoke. Most women on here, including me, support protection from discrimination and harassment for trans people in the workplace and public spaces. So if that is all "trans rights" are, I support it. But it's a sleight of hand.

Women's sex based rights to me matter more than "trans rights" as you evidently characterise them.

No, it doesn't.

Ms is not a lie. It's not pretending that the woman isn't married, it's choosing not to reference it. Whether a person is married or not is a tangible, legal, factual material reality. 'Being' non binary is a belief. It isn't indicative of anything tangible, legal or factual. It's just a feeling.

I didn't say that Ms it wasn't political, I said it wasn't indicative of a philosophical belief. Something can be true, and real and non philosophical but also political.

(Ms shouldn't be political, but it has come to be seen as such. Why should a woman wanting the same courtesy regarding her martial status as males get as a standard be 'political'? A lot of people seem to think it means 'divorced').

I'm not sure what you think I said that was abusive.

I personally think your refusal to acknowledge women's experiences, constant patronising comments, repeating views that women have told you are damaging to rape victims and gaslighting are abusive.

But you do you.

I don't want you to leave. Im happy for people to see your views for what they are. You comments provide an opportunity to point out the inconsistencies in your views.

Yes, this works well and we almost always use "you" in instructions. We sometimes make examples plural, so we can use "they" in the plural case.

We used to use male and female characters in examples, but not so much now.

As a publisher, I've jumped through hoops to avoid gendered language in our publications, and originally I did so in a way that the old "he is generic" crowd would not be offended. Now I don't care. I'm happy to use they as a non-gendered singular pronoun.

I'd agree with that, in most cases when writing stuff I'm referring to a person of unknown sex rather than a specific individual so 'they' is completely standard. Nowadays in something like user documentation we tend to use the second person rather than the third though.

Another question related to the issue but not to same pp what is it about male socialisation that precludes listening to women?

For some listening to anyone and their experience will be ok but not if it’s listening to women

Why has society messed up so incredibly badly on this

I could rage about this

The transgender rights enacted in the EQ2010 and the GRA. You disagree with those rights and would like them removed. If I'm wrong, then I apologise.

@FlirtsWithRhinos if you think the use of Ms is not political, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is that it's accepted now.

It was only ten years ago that a customer wrote to me expressing disgust at being referred to as Ms - suggesting it was horribly modern and didn't respect her views.

Being non-binary is not "consciously political" - it's only people who oppose trans rights who are making it so. You can't get much more personal than gender identity. At some stage I hope it will be straightforwardly accepted, perhaps with an eye roll, just as Ms is now.

As a publisher, I've jumped through hoops to avoid gendered language in our publications, and originally I did so in a way that the old "he is generic" crowd would not be offended. Now I don't care. I'm happy to use they as a non-gendered singular pronoun.

I am more than happy with removing gendered prefixes and honorifics, but where people try to use gender neutral language, you get gender critical people saying "it's erasing women." I'd love to have a non-gendered version of Sir or Ma'am for example.

So, presumably, you disagree with posters who object to the teacher calling themselves teacher?

What do you mean by trans rights, exactly?

I don't want to take anyone anybody's rights. And I'm certainly not right wing!! I believe everyone should be able to live and express themselves however they choose. However, there are situations where rights come into conflict, and this is where most of the heated "debate" takes place and what as a society we are not currently being very good at sorting out.

Well that’s people you know, that’s self selecting obviously, that’s the bubble if you need to use that word.

Women are letting you know on these threads how they feel, and as you are male it’s not your reality

I’m not for driving anyone off but I am asking you to think about what is written and consider that it is our experience.

You have again conflated the view of women, with the views of people who want to reduce the rights of transgender people (who are primarily men).

And you've conflated the views of peole who support trans rights (disproportionately women and LGBT people) with the views of men.

The vast majority of women I know outside of this bubble actively support trans rights, and I also have many LGBT+ friends in the circles in which I move whose lives are now far more difficult because of the kind of views expressed here, and the resultant legislation. There are people here who actively want to repeal the EA2010 and GRA, and align themselves with the right on issues of social justice.

I certainly read and take in what you have to say. If you want me gone, just say so.

I don’t want an echo chamber but I do wonder why men do not listen to women and their experiences

You have been on many threads and so many posts explaining to you and have you considered any?

You cannot know our reality as a male but you could listen

@dadjoke there is far more nuance to Ms than that.

I go by Ms because I have a name with my life history and my professional status attached so kept it when I married. (The nane change for women is one of the many unfair sex based biases our society and IMO an underrecognised contributor to the lack of an "old girls" culture of long term social connections.) So for me Ms isI less about not disclosing if I'm married or not on principle and more that Miss would be factually incorrect, while Mrs would lead others to assume my husband has the same surname.

Before I was married I used Ms because I felt it safer for people who had my name and address not to know I was single.

In both cases the driver is practical not political, due to challenges female people face that male people don't. Yes the personal is political but not every pragmatic action is consciously political.

As an agender female what I would love is a set of honorifics and pronouns open to either sex that do not mean "I reject my sex and need you to address me in a way that respects that", but mean "obviously this person has a sex but it's not relevant to the topic at hand". These would not be "preferred pronouns" one requires for oneself, but general purpose language anyone could politely and appropriately use for someone else. Kind of like "they" except specific not general, and without the ideological baggage of non-binary.

That's incredibly patronising to other gender critical posters who are more than capable of holding their own in a discussion. I am not "overriding" anyone, I am disagreeing with them, as do women posters who are not gender critical. I was asked about this particular issue, and reluctantly agreed to address it, know it would lead to personal abuse.

I completely understand if you want an echo chamber where only gender critical views are expressed, but many people here do want to see other views.

If you, personally, or any other women on this particular forum ask me not to post here again, I will stop.

Why as a male do you feel you can override what women are saying to you on these threads?

Of course it does. Ms implies that women should not have to publicly demonstrate their marital status to the world - a political position with which you agree. If you think a person being non-binary is a political statement which should not be share in front of children, then kids should not have to say Ms. It's nonsensical.

In both cases, you don't have to believe their position to respect the titles they have chosen.

This is straightforward personal abuse.

The conviction rate for rape is very low in part because, yes, the victim is treated as if they are on trial. I thoroughly disagree with that. And even in the UK, there is a huge disparity between different police districts in successful prosecutions, which means it can be done. I believe rape victims, even if the defendant is found not guilty of the crime of rape.

The issue is burden of proof and juries not wanting to “ruin the life” of some rapist, and the fear of false accusations even though they are vanishingly rare.

No - not misgendering the defendant is not the “main thing” and I only addressed this because more than one poster asked me to, knowing that it would lead to personal abuse.

I find it interesting that this thread is about one of the cases where the victim was believed and the defendant, a rapist, was convicted and recorded as a man.

It's interesting that people like DJ refer to material reality as a pseudo scientific religious belief.

Of course they do, it's projection.

I wonder whether DJ sees victims and defendants in rape trials as somehow equivalent?

Defendant is (or should be) treated as innocent until proven guilty.

But perhaps they also believe the victim is also on trial, and is 'not raped' until proven 'raped'?

I think that disgusting misogyny underlies how a lot of rape victims are treated by the justice system.

I read somewhere that most trials are about who committed the crime, but rape trials are about whether the crime has even been committed at all - did she change her mind afterwards? It must be soul destroying and extremely invalidating for the victim.

But don't misgender the defendant, that's the main thing. Because the trauma is equivalent 🙄 It does make me wonder why some posters are so invested in rapists rights.

It's interesting that people like DJ refer to material reality as a pseudo scientific religious belief.

It really does show up their faulty logic and lack of critical thinking.

Material fact and philosophy belief are not the same thing. It is disingenuous to pretend that they are.

Ms only refers to women. It's factual - a polite title given to any woman who wants it as an equivalent to Mr (ie it doesn't reference her marital status like Miss or Mrs). It doesn't involve mental gymnastics, lying, nor referencing a belief system that may not be shared by the speaker.

This

And one where the misogyny of males like DadJoke shines through. Time after time after time.

I just can't get past the idea of having been raped, facing your attacker in court, and having people call him a woman.

It's like some kind of bizarre dystopia.

Your misogyny shines through.

Rather than hurt the feelings of the accused by using pronouns that match their sexed bodies, you would rather have court officials deny the reality of a rape victim and significantly exacerbate her trauma.