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?

@AlisonDonut I am miss, honey.

But I wouldnt do. Yoir posts are far too illuminating and life changing, I'd miss you.

As I said, I dont need to use ot

Again, reindeer,, if you look in your inbox, you know me

I can’t access my inbox 😩

its been showing up at 2 messages since the stoopid bloomin’ site change 🤨

You identify as a teacher, but judging by the hours you are on here I think it is a figment of your imagination.

But it isnt. And doesnt that just make you furious.

I do out of school.care in tbe summer too. That must have you fizzing.

@beautyisthefaceisee out of interest..

Would you Express in your workplace that you see trans as an ideology?

Are you talking to yourself now?

"Cisgender isn't offensive because it's a policy that has been accepted."

Right. So something written into policy cannot be offensive?? Just because it's written into policy doesn't make it a good policy.

And who accepted the policy? If you don't accept the policy it's ok to find it offensive?

I have to say as a parent I would find it offensive if my children came home and told me I was "ciswoman" because school said so.

Being a woman in Scotland currently isn't good.

Feck. I meant @babyjellyfish .

@AlisonDonut

Do me a favour, my little donut friend. Without using anything like MRA, or TRA, or anything rude or offensive -

Why do you think I shouldn't be a teacher?

well, I wouldn't call a child or their parent ciswoman, because I wouldn't have any need to.

Cisgender is literally someone identifying as the sex they were born into. Ie, non trans. It's not used in every day language outside mumsnet and twitter

"Cisgender is literally someone identifying as the sex they were born into. Ie, non trans. It's not used in every day language outside mumsnet and twitter"

And you don't see the issue with your statement? People who are the sex they were born into don't identify as anything. They just are that sex.

Calling someone cis is dragging them into a political debate. You don't need "cis" in front of the sex. The sex is all that's needed.

The issue here is you don't see how it can be offensive. It's often used in a deliberately offensive way.

The word "woman" is losing all meaning. And that is scary. Can guarantee the word "man" isn't going to lose meaning anytime soon.

Cisgender can also be applied to men! the fact that you don't see that just shows how much we have lost all sight.

I can see how it CAN be offensive. I find it offensive that people imply that trans is an ideology.

In fact, I find that far more offensive, because we don't actually use ciswomen in every day speech - I couldn't tell you the last time we said it out loud. Yet trans people have to listen to how they're either not trans, cause it's made up, or they are trans, to get into womens' bathrooms, or they are trans, because they want to escape being a woman (depending on who wants to pull them into politics first).

Cisgender is literally someone identifying as the sex they were born into. Ie, non trans.

Sex is a matter of biology, not 'identity'. I'm a woman. End of story.

Cisgender can also be applied to men!

And yet it seldom is.

Only because you're debating on a women-based site.

FTM is far more common as transition.

Yes, you are a woman, and I agree.

But wouldn't you think ciswoman (sorry to keep using it) was brought in originally to make sure you kept that due to the TWAW debate?

Fwiw, I think you're a woman, but I do think that someone who transitions (and I mean fully transitions, fully) is a woman. I think someone in between is a trans woman. I appreciate that view is controversial, but we are all entitled to our own.

Re the appropriately named donut thinking I push this view on children, I don't. as GTCS registered we cannot give our political or religious views - I've never been allowed to say that I vote for SNP or that I'm an atheist, ever (Which was pretty irritating as an RE teacher, originally).

The fact these terms are being taught as part of LGBTQI+ Youth Scotland is not my doing. I don't make the policy, just as I don't make the behavioural policy, just as I don't make the safeguarding policy.

Posters expect me to say in a staffroom that I find cisgender offensive (I wouldn't, but given the open nature of our base I miht well say about what peole say online). Would you say that you find trans to be an ideology? No. Or I would like to think not.

@IcedPurple Identifying is exactly that - they weren't born into that sex but they consider themselves that sex.

FWIW - I only support this at full transition. Up until then, I would consider them trans.

"Cisgender can also be applied to men! the fact that you don't see that just shows how much we have lost all sight.

I can see how it CAN be offensive. I find it offensive that people imply that trans is an ideology.

In fact, I find that far more offensive, because we don't actually use ciswomen in every day speech - I couldn't tell you the last time we said it out loud. Yet trans people have to listen to how they're either not trans, cause it's made up, or they are trans, to get into womens' bathrooms, or they are trans, because they want to escape being a woman (depending on who wants to pull them into politics first)."

Where did I say it cannot be applied to men? But the simple fact is it is rarely used to describe a man. A man is just a man.

I don't have an issue with anyone who is trans.

I do however have an issue with being told I was a person who breastfed. I am a person who has given birth. No. I'm a woman.

I have an issue at women being told they are transphobic if they want a biological female as a rape councillor. Or by wanting a biological woman as a doctor. Etc etc

but they consider themselves that sex. FWIW - I only support this at full transition

Even at full transition (and I'm not sure of the specifics of what constitutes this) this is a fallacy. No one can ever change sex, that's just a fact.

I have an issue at women being told they are transphobic if they want a biological female as a rape councillor. Or by wanting a biological woman as a doctor.

Exactly.

And these people are transphobic by beautys earlier stated definition, because they aren't recognising these individuals as women.

Identifying is exactly that - they weren't born into that sex but they consider themselves that sex.

They can consider themselves the Cisman on the Moon if they like.

It doesn't make it so.

Agreed. And I find that terrifying.

Fwiw, I think you're a woman, but I do think that someone who transitions (and I mean fully transitions, fully) is a woman.

You don't 'think' I'm a woman.

I am a woman. An adult human female. What you 'think' is of no relevance.

Same goes with you 'thinking' that someone born male can be a woman. They cannot. It is biologically impossible to change sex. Opinions have nothing to do with it.

No, pal. I don't think that.

Nice try.

I fully stand with you on counsellors (misspelling on your part - I'm a trainee counsellor which will upset donut even further, despite the fact I'm taking that road as an ex DV survivor due to a particularly bad experience with the male policeman who attended) and I don't believe a man, trans or otherwise should be anywhere near a rape victim, and I don't believe in shared groups

I stand with you on prisons, shared spaces and sports.

So your problem with me is what?

Use your imagination.

Cool.

But my willingness to support people only at full transition actually gives more than your total lack of compromise, which is what you're missing. And ultimately means that compromise can't be found. and in our lifetime will mean full self ID (which I totally object to) but since reasonable debate clearly can't be had, it will happen.

No, a man is a cisman, or a man.

The fact they dont sit around on Mn discussing it doesnt make it less true.

I agree with you on those last 2 points, despite PP making things up.