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

A person accused of rape

You mean men accused of rape. Male-born men. Their sex, not gender, determines that.

The victims and any witnesses are free to use the descriptions they want. Court officials do not misgender anyone. That is the guidance, and of the two options available, that’s the better one.

A person accused of rape is just as innocent as person accused of any other crime unless they are found guilty.

But yes, it is a conundrum.

I don’t see any point in repeating the same thing again, and I am the wrong person to complain to
about this policy, so I am out of this discussion unless anyone raises a new point.

I know and look where we twenty years later

We should reassess and go in another direction. One that is non falsification and better for women and children

The adults who created this made a huge mistake

They did, and some people at the time foresaw this type of situation, and they were told it only referred to a few thousand people of both sexes.

Being male or female is a fundamental fact of life. Somehow, an individual’s personal identity has been prioritised over society’s need to be able to reflect this fundamental fact about someone when it is important to do so.

And for many people, it is important to be able to acknowledge a person’s sex not their preference in their speech and their actions. It is not appropriate to coerce anyone to have to treat someone as being the sex they wish to be perceived as versus the material reality. Some people believe this is ‘kind’, for some people it is not ‘kind’ at all.

The adults who created this made a huge mistake

There’s too much harm for women and children

Forgive me if I do not care about the "misgendering" of a rapist. He can call himself Lexi till the cows come home but he's a man who committed a specifically male crime.

I think it's really bad to make all
witnesses lie under oath. Perhaps it's easier to understand it in the case of "Lexi", but it's expecting too much. People should be able to speak freely about what they experience when giving evidence.

the other option, misgendering every single transgender defendant is worse

It really isn't.

There is now a massive disconnect where society can now declare that sometimes we, as a population, can believe material reality and sometimes we ‘shouldn’t’. The entire premise of someone changing sex has been dealt a blow in ways that it will never claw back support from.

The word ‘cis’ has been shown to be completely meaningless to describe female people as well. It never was fit for purpose.

Piece by piece the basis of the belief that people are the identity they claim is being eroded. Since rapists are not the sex they claim when they claim to be the opposite to what their body is formed as, and sportspeople, and rape crisis centre staff, why do we need to continue with affirming any person’s gender identity?

If a rapist is not the sex they claim when they claim to be the opposite sex to their body’s reality, then who is?

Perhaps he + name of choice (for males), she + name of choice (for females)?

What “pseudo-religious protected belief” are you talking about?

And gender ideology as a whole leads to bad outcomes for women and children

As a male you can’t see it and despite reading many posts from women on these boards you remain incredibly closed to hearing experiences

I am concerned about all defendants being treated equally.

And innocent till found guilty.
But the conundrum is how to do that without being massively, horribly, disrespectful and cruel to victims?

They aren't going to ask you that in an interview, unless you are applying for a job with some LGBT type organisation. Most likely they have done the Equality training on LGBT at their work that told them put their pronouns in their signature so they did.

None of the pronoun people in my public sector org have ever asked me my pronouns.

And that is done by referring to them correctly to ensure that the victims are not subjected to further trauma, that crime statistics are not skewed, and that and media reporting is accurate. Men committing crimes = he, women committing crimes = she.

But obviously not at all concerned about the female victims of rape.

This is the point.

If a person is prepared to use language to reflect someone philosophical belief that does not reflect material reality, then how can the judge or jury trust anything they say without wondering if it is obscuring the material fact.

I am concerned about all defendants being treated equally.

I can't see any justification for coercing the speech of witnesses in any trial - they've solemnly promised to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Force me to mis-sex someone, my choice is contempt of court, perjury, or linguistic gymnastics. The latter may be possible in an MN post but are likely to impair the quality of verbal evidence.

So can a transgender or non-binary teacher.

How? "You're not allowed to call me Sir/Mr because I'm not a man?" That's not true though, is it?

Why do we even need to do this?

It is a philosophical belief. Transgender people and academics supporting gender identity have been saying this out loud for a while now. This is all about personal identity. Why does any other person need to comply with a persons belief about themselves?

Despite the fact that multiple defendents have stated that the use of non-sex based pronouns exacerbated their trauma, you are more concerned about hurting the feelings of the perpetrators? That says a lot.

Unless you’re happy for the statistics (as they currently stand) to be inaccurately recorded with the result the crimes by women (actual ones) show an overall increase as a result of the men committing them.

They can be referred to by their preferred pronouns in non-sexual cases. Where a sexual assault has taken place, the biological sex of the offender is relevant, which it probably isn't in a case of shoplifting, for instance.