Pronouns - Can someone remind me why we are against this in emails

[landantan]

Hi

Can someone remind me why some people (likely myself included) does not agree with stated pronouns in email signatures?

It is being requested at work from the perspective of being a small step to being an ally to LGBTQ+ community.

I just think it is a bit pointless and whilst I have nothing against this or any other community I cannot see what knowing or sharing pronouns really does apart from make you look like a bit of a tit.

Can someone offer a more articulate explanation please?

I wouldn't refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns either. It's the expectation we all do it is the problem.

Yes, I would absolutely always use someone’s preferred pronouns and would call out anyone I knew who didn’t.

However the problem is that the stating of pronouns in a signature isn’t about telling someone your preferred pronouns. As it said upthread, it’s a political statement signifying you agree with the approach to things sophielegrand has outlined in her post. It is incredibly naive to think stating pronouns has anything to do with actually conveying that information in the majority of cases.

I don’t want to declare my pro nouns, and don’t. I am not criticising the challenge to the issues at all.

I just see real people who are feeling real challenges irl and in these comments there is intolerance. Not wanting to declare is fine, refusing to accept someone else’s choice makes me very uncomfortable (as does calling someone else's choice nonsense) and jumping from pro nouns & I don't want to identify as male/female to the more dramatic issues seems to only be harming. I agree there are many many challenges in the way that society is dealing with this and it is conflicting with woman's rights in a way that seems illogical to me. I was not suggesting for one min anyone should just accept. I just think the anger and lack of empathy is polarising and wont solve the issue. It genuinely surprised me - i am new on here and have not seen views expressed with such anger - i have only seen tolerance and some confusion how to best manage irl. I was commenting on my shock.

The problem (as I see it) is the societal construct of gender & societies management of this issue. The problem is not the individuals struggling through (albeit some people will be problematic as will some in every grouping of people)

The problem (as I see it) is the societal construct of gender & societies management of this issue. The problem is not the individuals struggling through (albeit some people will be problematic as will some in every grouping of people)

The problem for female people is that those struggling individuals are being used as justification to redefine womanhood as a mental attribute not a physical one, which if accepted by society means all single sex provisions created to support female people are open to any male who claims to have a woman's mind.

refusing to accept someone else’s choice makes me very uncomfortable

I don't think anyone is doing that however

The problem (as I see it) is the societal construct of gender & societies management of this issue. The problem is not the individuals struggling through (albeit some people will be problematic as will some in every grouping of people)

And again, I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

You seem to be misunderstanding the target of people's anger. It isnt individuals struggling, but the extreme TRA movement that have pushed this agenda in this first place.

@Popcorn77 But I don't think we naturally lack empathy for people. I think what you are seeing here is a hardening of attitudes caused by the unreasonable demands of trans activists, whose agenda is being promoted by people in positions of power.

I am sick of empathy being demanded from women for this one group - which in my view includes some people who don't need or deserve it - and not afforded to women, many of whom do need and deserve it.

If I had to work with a trans person, I would probably try and avoid talking about them in the third person as much as possible, and if I had to, I would try to use their name rather than pronouns. Obviously when talking to them I would just use "you".

I would find it easier to use the preferred pronouns of someone who seemed genuinely dysphoric, and in particular a trans man. I would struggle a bit with some people because I know that for some trans women the reason for it is autogynephilia. There are such people who openly admit on social media to feeling turned on when people use their pronouns. I don't want to be coerced into participating in someone's paraphilia.

I won't use the preferred pronouns of people like Lia Thomas. I will never meet Lia Thomas in real life, and the only thing I'm ever likely to say about Lia is to criticise Lia for Lia's behaviour. Being forced to pretend that Lia is a woman has directly harmed female athletes, and indirectly harmed women's sport as a whole. In that context, it would be hypocritical to use Lia's referred pronouns. I feel zero obligation to pretend that Lia is a woman, and neither should anyone else.

This is all a bit wide eyed and disingenuous. You are doing what TRAs do- women who say no are evil and uncaring (how unwomanly).

You seem new to this. Perhaps go and have a look at the Forstater case or Alison Bailley’s current case to see just how far the enforcement of speech has already gone.

While you weren’t paying attention the law has been changed on Scotland so that anyone who self declares themselves as a women had unrestricted access to ALL women’s space. No exceptions. Is that right?

perhaps they do not believe that a transwoman is a woman (for example) so consider the pronouns to be untrue Some people believe TWAW but like the flat earthers - this is a belief, like religion not based on fact. A transwoman is not a woman - there is no belief, it's a fact.

In terms of using someone’s chosen pronouns- - I would endeavour to do so. I wouldn’t deliberately use the “wrong” ones just to piss them off.

however if it was pronouns clearly at odds with the evidence of my own ears and eyes as to their actual sex it would only be out of manners/politeness, not because I accept their notion of gender identity or that they are that gender.

Also, like most people I have a lot going on in my head. It may just slip my mind that Jane who looks and sounds like a man uses she/her pronouns. I would not find it very “kind” to be torn a strip off for a genuine mistake.

I can see though why people might refuse to use them and use the sex based pronouns they see as appropriate. It’s not what I would necessarily do (I make exceptions for criminals, people like Lia Thomas and Eddie Izzard) but I can totally see the compelled speech point and that people shouldn’t be obliged to partake in others’ delusions:adherence to an ideology if they don’t want to.

Totally agree

100% this. I believe that people should be free to believe whatever they like. I’ll defend their right to choose a belief system. That is enshrined in human rights law.

But almost all the problems in history have been cause by one set of people trying to enforce their beliefs on whole populations. The zeal of new genderism feel very cult like.

And just like I have had colleagues who were Scientologist or JLS believers and have worked supportively and politely with them, while also managing to not believe what they believe, I would do the same to trans colleagues. Because it is not my business how other people lead their lives. It only becomes my business if they are demanding that I think the same way too.

I don’t believe that sex= gender and I never will.

I didnt use the word alienation.

I stand by all the things I said.

These are real people you are talking about.

I really object to this notion that you mist be rude about it, because if you're nice or kind to real people you're part of tbe problem.

In the last five years it has got completely out of hand, so how is being 'factual' and saying no' going for you? When was anything in life solved by doing things that way?

No.

And most trans people would agree with you. So why are they copping for your anger?

"I certainly don't think my identity is based on me having a vagina, as you clearly do!"

I don't think that woman is an identity though, I am a woman, my identity is my personality, likes, interests. Why on earth is a movement basing itself on identifying as a sex and sex sterotypes? Your sex is certainly part of you and it may impact your identity as also your sexuality and race may do, but to hang your entire being off identity as a sex is not rational imo. It makes a person very flat and one dimensional. And the fact that we are pandering to sex stereotypes is very repressive, we have worked hard to remove these barriers and are back at point zero but with added attacks to women's rights being cheered on.

Exactly. that's my point, maddening.

Take the TRA's out. People don't want to change gender because they want to have a certain anatomy. For whatever reason, reasons I don't necessarily understand, they want to live as the opposite gender.Now we might not understand that, we might argue amongst ourselves about why, and why its wrong, or why it should change, but here's the thing - it isn't going to. The power of discussion alone is not going to stop it.

Remember when you were younger and you'd make stupid decisions and your parent or whoever looked after you would tell you that and out of sheer stubborness you'd dig your heels in deeper? That is the equivalent.

We have to listen. We have to try and understand, even if we don't agree. And we have to work TOGETHER to stop the safe spaces, prisons etc being infiltrated. Most trans people don't want that. The nutters are not the voice. Labelling it as "nonsense" and "flat earth" and all the rest of it is not goign to make trans people listen, it's going to push them away, and into the hands of the TRA's. Now you can say that we shouldnt have to be kind, and we say no, etc etc, but that doesn't actually fix anything. All it does is create two sides shouting a lot and as pointed out above, women are not winning.

I'm not trans but I've paid more attention to your posts than most of them on MN because of the respectful way you write (and before anyone points it out, yes I have not been brilliant at times on here, but that's what happens, it all gets silly.)

PS - If I did, as PP said, offend you with the cis comment, I genuinely didn't mean to. I was actually agreeing with you, and just pointing out that the reason it's at play is because as of our end of term, it's being put in schools as a word we have to use. I'm sorry if itoffends you, we enjoyed a respectful discussion so I wouldn't want that.

I was actually agreeing with you, and just pointing out that the reason it's at play is because as of our end of term, it's being put in schools as a word we have to use.

Don't tell me you are a teacher?

I am, (not currently obvious, I work with the same children in a different environment over summer) and hasn't that just ruined your day, my little donut friend!

@AlisonDonut is one of the reasons you picked that out because you could find nothing remotely unreasonable in my latest post? Shame.

No, but it explains the ‘I’m so kool and down with the kids’ malarkey.

Yeah, but I'm not though.

You just don't agree with my views which is absolutely fine. If you read, like super carefully, before you start frothing, you'll see that many of my views re trans are the same as everyone else's - I just talk about them differently.

How is stomping your feet and saying NO going for you?

No I picked it out because I am horrified that you have been told to refer to women as 'cis' and have immediately swallowed this bullshit with zero objectivity and you are pushing this cruel ideology onto kids and can't see what damage it it you are doing when in a position of power.

@Hiphopopotamus What about the people who just aren’t ready to reveal their gender identity? Due to worries of discrimination etc. Not everyone wants to advertise every protected characteristic in an email signature. Those who want to avoid misgendered can contact their HR department and notify them what they’d prefer to be called or include in their signature their preferred name etc. to avoid being “dead named”. By including preferred pronouns it’s very obvious who is or isn’t trans so how would that protect trans-people?

Did I say I'd swallowed it though? I said we've been given it, which we have. You're going on like I wrote the training myself.

Where did I say Im pushing a cruel ideaology? Where did I say I'd swallowed it?

The reason I find you so amusing is because you're winding yourself up over something that actually isn't the case.

Stamping our feet and saying no is actually going pretty well thanks. The Forstater, Bailey, Bell cases, the Nolan podcasts, all the women out there patiently writing to councils and schools pointing out that the protected characteristics are “sex” and “gender reassignment” not “gender” & “gender identity” so policies are changed & read as they should.

using female pronouns for men so they don’t feel sad leads directly to men in woman’s sorts, prisons, refuges & in programmes designed to increase female representation in STEM & politics. Women are not support humans. It’s not our job to validate men with issues. A man is no more a woman than he’s a banana or an aardvark.

i used to be like a number of posters here. I thought “what harm can it do do call Dave, Jane if it makes them happy?” then I realised all the harm redefining women to include men can do

i don’t believe in gender identify and I’d no more declare my pronouns or expect others too than I’d declare my religion or political beliefs on my email signature

How is stomping your feet and saying NO going for you? @beautyisthefaceisee

Saying NO is going pretty well for women now actually, thanks for asking.
Women like Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, Sharron Davies and the inimitable J. K. Rowling are all creating genuine change that will benefit all women by standing up and saying NO to the harms being done.
None of these women are transphobic. They are all concerned, horrified and angry at the collateral damage suffered by women in the name of gender ideology.