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

It's not "anything but the GC viewpoint" it's the idea that biological males cannot be described as male. It's very much scientifically evident what biological sex is.

And I’m afraid this is where I log off for the evening and read before I go to bed! There’s no point in engaging further when the response comes back that anything other than the GC viewpoint isn’t ‘valid’.

I work in HR and this question definitely would not come up in an interview where I work.

I don't use pronouns on my emails. Other people do. That's up to them. No one cares whether you do or don't. No one asks us to do it.

In my opinion asking what my pronouns are is unnecessary. I don't care what you call me when I'm not there.

I don't think I've ever in my life asked someone if they were a man or a woman.

In what circumstance is that ever likely to arise?

They said:

No to self ID
No to pre op "trans women" in toilets and changing rooms
No to males in women's sports

When a representative cross section of women is asked, they give the lie to the idea that they see MTF trans people as "women" in the same way women are.

@FlirtsWithRhinos I don't have time to respond - but I thank you for your considered response.

Women" in general do not think they have lost the very language to describe themselves. I don't know a single woman who isn't gender critical who thinks this.

The worst of it is that I think a large number of women are unaware this is happening - who, for example, would sign up to a women-only walking group wanting a sense of safety in the woods, or wander into a women's loos, without the faintest idea that other people are now understanding something entirely different by the label on the box. This is another way in which I think this appropriation of our language is at best disrespectful and, at worst, dangerous.

And @DadJoke may take issue with me using the generic noun women above for what may be, potentially, vulnerable transwomen, or transmen, or non-binary individuals... And that would prove my point all over again, because although I have similar concerns about them and their needs, my focus here is the demographic adult human female, and that's the only word I have for them.

That we've been told the descriptor AHF is itself problematic says everything, too. Who - who?!?! - can argue in all seriousness that it should, effectively, be made impossible to describe a particular oppressed group with distinct characteristics enabling their oppression?

I'd venture that you are alone in your view here that "trans women" are not just women, but female, @ElleWoods15

But you can accept surely that that is a GC viewpoint to say ‘but they ARE male’, and I think it’s patently obvious that I, and some other posters on this thread, do not agree with that viewpoint.

There is literally no scientific, legal or social basis whatsoever for saying "trans women" as a group are not male.

But you can accept surely that that is a GC viewpoint to say ‘but they ARE male’, and I think it’s patently obvious that I, and some other posters on this thread, do not agree with that viewpoint.

It's simply not a valid viewpoint. 'Male' is a word that specifically refers to sex, whether it be human, dog, holly tree....
And mammals can't change sex.

It's bad enough trying to get a coherent description of what 'woman' can possibly mean other than 'adult human female', so I doubt there's one that remotely allows female to mean male.

Women" in general do not think they have lost the very language to describe themselves. I don't know a single woman who isn't gender critical who thinks this.

This is your "inclusive" bubble. You are in no position to comment on what women in general think. Not all women who believe "trans women" are not women identify as "gender critical". Most women want women only spaces when they are undressed or vulnerable. Some women will make exceptions for males who have had genital surgery.

I've just been reading the Forstater judgment due to discussing this with you earlier, the judge makes the point that it might be necessary to "misgender" to advocate for women's sex based rights. So the two things go together.

You have on multiple occasions failed to demonstrate how you refute biology

trans women are men - popping on a skirt will never alter their male skeletal structure or DNA

they can no more be women than they can fly to the moon and all the endless obsfucating word salad you post doesn’t change thsat basic fact

Thanks for that @DadJoke. I actually just got some good news - progress. I really hope things start to go more smoothly for you, too, soon, too.

Ah the old 'male' to 'men' switcheroo

Well it all comes down to this doesn't it?

It leads to nonsensical and harmful what are your preferred pronouns questions

Women do get to say what they consent to, and many do not.

But you can accept surely that that is a GC viewpoint to say ‘but they ARE male’, and I think it’s patently obvious that I, and some other posters on this thread, do not agree with that viewpoint.

But seriously do we really need to go there again? There are so many other threads dealing with your argument that it is ‘fact’ that ‘transwomen are men’, and why we refute that.

I am very sorry to here about your family crisis. I'm also distracting myself from unpleasant stuff.

They are applied on the basis of sex by gender critical people. They are applied on the basis of gender identity by non-gender-critical people. Usually these align, and there's no problem.

What confuses me is why the phrase "basic level of respect" (and various synonyms) is more likely to be used in relation to trans people, whereas the phrase "big fuss over nothing" (and various synonyms) is more likely to be applied to women who favour sexed-based pronouns as safer for them, truer to them and respectful of them.

This. It's like MTF trans people wanting to use women's facilities and not share with males is allegedly essential to their safety and dignity, but women who don't want to share women only spaces with males are just making a big fuss again.

Yep, just as an update, have reread, and all good as far as I'm concerned. If you reread, @DadJoke, hopefully you'll see from my numbered list that

1. I use "women" to refer to the collective female part of humanity in a post arguing that we need a word for this - and you seem to perceive my use of it as problematic or, alternatively, misunderstand what I mean by it (thereby, I'd argue, rather decisively proving my point - this really wouldn't have happened 20 years ago!)

2. & 3) I use "women" to refer specifically to the GC women on here who are arguing for a sexed-base meaning to the word - I don't think they'd take issue with that, and am not sure why you do (except that I'm aware we have some fab male contributors who share our views - if I inadvertently excluded you, apologies!)

Their biological sex is male

I don't see your words in brackets as changing that

So when I say accept all men I mean everyone who is male.

No, I didn't. I'll reread to be sure I've not missed something - multi-tasking, using this in part as a distraction through a family crisis - but I think assumptions are the issue here, and too easily made in recent pages.