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?

They do indeed lose their minds, but not how you mean.

To be fair, I fancied Simba.

Page is a biological woman - they can’t change that, the best they can do is present as a facsimile of a man, they can’t ever actually be a man & they’ll never be treated like one either.

No, they won't, by transphobic people, but not everyone is. Thankfully.

If I don't stand completely in defence of feminists, completely and utterly without question, I'm supporting the TRAs. a PP said that.

Assuming I am the PP:

No I didn't. Please don't misrepresent me.

You have said many times that you do not agree with many parts of the TRA position and I fully accepted that right from the first time you said it.

I have never said you must "stand completely in defence of feminists, completely and utterly without question". That is either lazy hyperbole or deliberate misrepresentation. I would never, and have never, told anyone to defend something they do not believe in.

I have said that if you do not speak up about the times you do not agree with TRAs - not "stand completely in defence of feminists, completely and utterly without question" but simply based on the views you already have, then your acquiesce to the views you do agree with (Like politely complying with pronouns is entirely unconnected to female disempowerment, or that it is inescapably transphobic to question whether how trans people see themselves must supercede any other source of information, or that to poke fun at the huge holes in the genderist assertions is horrid abuse) will be taken as support for the whole TRA agenda whether you do support them or not.

And I also said that telling us we cannot refer to the impact of the wider TRA agenda when explaining why we may say or do things that you (not us) consider transphobic because TRAs are a small group of nutters and most trans people and allies don't agree either is missing the point that until those trans people and allies actually stand up and say they don't agree, the agenda will continue to be driven by the small group of nutters.

I have been polite and clear despite your ongoing misrepresentation of what I am saying. I will continue to do so. But this hyperbolic misrepresentation has to stop.

You can play your word games as much as you want. It is clear what you mean.

You actually said that if I don't stand up against the TRA's, it will look like I agree with them. It's the same bloody thing.

So how come people on here can either not address transphobia (ie the Elliot Page comment) or border on it themselves with their views and I can't say that?

You actually said that if I don't stand up against the TRA's, it will look like I agree with them.

Ah, so you do understand. I didn't say you did support them, I said it's the same outcome. And only, of course, in the context of there being things that you genuinely do disagree with, not an expectation of blanket condemnation.

Basically it's the difference between thinking just about your own perspective and motivations, and thinking about how your actions might impact the wider world in ways you did not intend. Thank you for acknowledging that.

So how come people on here can either not address transphobia (ie the Elliot Page comment) or border on it themselves with their views and I can't say that?

You can say what you want (as long as it's within the board rules of course). If you think something is transphobic of course you can say so. What you cannot do is expect others to agree with you.

Nor can you force them to address a "transphobia" in your terms when they may not agree with those terms.

Some things will be agreed to be transphobic by almost everyone. Some things will not considered transphobic by almost anyone. Between the two will be disagreement where people explain why they have come to the conclusion they did. In that space between the two ends of certainty yes, people may challenge assertions you make and not agree with you. They may point out that your position is inconsistent but it's not a personal attack on you. If you make a good case, which means acknowledging and engaging with their perspective rather than just blocking it, you may well change someone's views. I know my views have evolved through conversations here, sometime in ways I would never have expected. And even if you now consider all our previous interactions tainted, I think they were worthwhile.

Of course, if you repeatedly misrepresent people they will repeatedly correct that, not necessarily for your benefit but to make sure their actual message isn't missed.

I'm not sure if you noticed I didn't discuss Elliot Page at all but FWIW I am enjoying UAS3.

You're basically saying it's transphobic to believe that "women" means "female people" and "men" means "male people".

You're saying it's transphobic not to believe someone's subjective identity trumps biological reality.

That's the problem here.

No, didn't say that.

Calling Elliot a woman is transphobic.

The thing is though, there's such a tiny nuance between what you're saying and what you're worried about saying, that I honestly think you've lost track of what is acceptable to say on that one.

Btw, legally, transphobic uses the same logic as racism. If they find it transphobic, it is.

I don't think they were tainted. I've enjoyed our conversations throughout.

Elliot is an adult human of the female biological sex.

Which is what the word "woman" means.

Great.

By the same logic, if I find the idea that trans women are women is misogynistic, it is.

And if I say the word "cis" is an offensive slur, it is.

Unfortunately not, because it's used in schools under policy, as I've said above.

Misogyny isn't legally a hate crime.

Do you not see your double standards @beautyisthefaceisee ?

Nope. Can you expand

I think the problem is beauty is that you are taking the stuff you are fed on school training courses as fact. It is not. It is just the opinion of whoever is leading that training.

a belief in the binary nature of sex and that it is immutable is a protected philosophical belief in law. An expression of that belief is not in and of itself “transphobic”

Basically that the feelings of trans people have to be respected or it’s “transphobic” but women who’ve said they find “cis” a slur and misogynistic aren’t entitled to do so

thats basically what you’ve said isn’t it

if I am wrong I apologise, I may have missed something in the chat

Misogyny isn't legally a hate crime.

The reason that they can't make mysogyny a hate crime is that the police would never ever get to do anything else. They quite clearly stated this and that's why it is the only protected characteristic that is missing on the list of hate crimes that are reportable.

Because it is so engrained, that many people cannot even see it.

Misandry is a hate crime then , I s it

Thought not.

People who cry misandry when it isnt part of the reason it is not taken seriously when it should be.

I didn't say it wssnt okay to find Cis offensive.

But my hands are tied because of the policy.

I've not RTFT

I think mainly because it is a load of bollocks.
There will be no way on earth I'll be ever be including it on an email or anywhere else.

I have a unisex name and there is no valid reason for me to label myself to anyone. I honestly thinks it's insanity.

Women are not killing 3 men a week.

Women are not assaulting, harassing and raping men on a regular basis.

Why would misandry be taken seriously when it consists of women basically saying 'no' to men?

As I said, mysogyny is so ingrained...

That's a cop out.

If people consider that "cis" is an offensive slur, the policy needs to be changed.

You now know that many of us consider "cis" an offensive slur.

Will you really continue to use it, now you have this knowledge?

"That's a cop out.

If people consider that "cis" is an offensive slur, the policy needs to be changed.

You now know that many of us consider "cis" an offensive slur.

Will you really continue to use it, now you have this knowledge?"

I agree. It is a cop out to say "but it's policy" if my work had a policy that said I had to call people "cis" I would be challenging that vigorously. To openly use language people find offensive is plain wrong.

At work, as instructed? Yes

Directly to you? No

So you'll knowingly use it to describe people who don't identify as "cis" then?