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 don't disagree, but I don't think they even thought or cared about what the women included actually feel or identify as...it's just a way to say 'transwomen and CIS women' make up the category of women. The 'what this means' came long after they placed all non-trans people into the category 'cis'.

The pronouns thing is a nonsense (like so much in the world of LGBT, imo).

Pronouns are actually specified by the rules of the language we speak - we don't get to select them ourselves.

If we all started selecting our own pronouns / other words, our system of language would collapse.

Like the nonsensical made-up genders, if campaigners can get reality (men & women, him/her etc) relegated from being reality to just one of many options, then it gives credence to their false claims that their are many genders and pronouns options.

There are not.

People should refuse to indulge in this nonsense, even though it if often pitched as being inclusive etc. Obviously inclusion is a good thing, but not at the expense of dignifying nonsense.

If employers try to force the matter, play them at their own game.

If I was forced to pick pronouns, mine would be:

jinga / jonga / bingabonga

And I would scream blue murder anytime someone forgot or got it wrong.

A full on, spittle-flecked, "LGBT special" meltdown about 'bigotry' etc. I would be on to HR and everything.

I would actually quite enjoy the humour in that, but Im fundamentally too sensible / busy for this kind of nonsense!

I don't disagree, but I don't think they even thought or cared about what the women included actually feel or identify as...it's just a way to say 'transwomen and CIS women' make up the category of women. The 'what this means' came long after they placed all non-trans people into the category 'cis'.

We don't need a word for that though.

I don't need to describe myself as "a biological woman who does not suffer from dysphoria", just like I don't need a word to describe myself as "not Chinese", "not a dog owner" or "not allergic to peanuts".

I certainly don't "identify as a woman", and even if "vagina + no dysphoria" were an identity, it wouldn't be the same identity as "penis + dysphoria".

Because humans cannot change sex

I know.

I'm not the one pushing it.

Just giving some context for the lurkers. And how we got to this ridiculous state of handwringing about what we dare to call ourselves.

It is offensive, yes.

She makes a good point though, @beautyisthefaceisee.

Absolutely nothing about a male person who has taken all the hormones and had all the surgery is female.

And the things they have done to achieve some sort of visual approximation of a female body are things no female person has ever done or will ever do or can ever relate to in any way.

And they have never done and will never do and can never relate to anything about being female.

'Ridiculous state if handwringing'but trans people arent handwrjnging. Feminists are. It's rather mean of you to call people on your side hand wringing, really.

I thought of you today. I saw a picture that said I am happy to be woke, I'd rather be woke than a rude person that hurts peoples feelings (I'm being polite)

'Ridiculous state if handwringing'but trans people arent handwrjnging. Feminists are. It's rather mean of you to call people on your side hand wringing, really.

Why would they?

They're being given everything they want, at the expense of women.

I'd rather be woke than a rude person that hurts peoples feelings (I'm being polite)

Why are the feelings of this one group the only feelings that matter?

I have today received an email from my energy provider asking me if I want to add a pronoun to my name.
My reply wasn't quite what they expect I would imagine.
To say I was furious is an understatement.

Please do explain exactly what is offensive about this. The fact that it’s the truth?

they're not.

But I'm not prioritising JUST women. Amazing, that.

Lots of offensive things are also true.

I honestly don't understand how human beings can't see that.

Why on earth would you be "furious"? NO thanks will do. It's not about you.

Good to see that we have the usual ‘you are mean’ and ‘you are rude’ on this thread. Nothing new.

Great contribution, thanks.

Yesterday, Bette Midler tweeted about the word woman and a prominent transactivist likened her actions to Goebbels et al in a rant about 'fascist demigoggery'. Honestly the handwringing isn't from women.

Katie Hopkins tweets absolute gobshite all day every day.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about irrelevant people just because of their sex or beliefs.

But it is about us, of course it is!

Women are being affected by the adoption of this ideology, even if some haven't realised it yet.

And trans people are being affected by your behaviour about their "ideology".

Is it only your feelings that matter?

@beautyisthefaceisee
My feelings and whether they're the only thing that matter or not (🙄) have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that what you posted just isn't true...the 'it's not about you' comment.

I'm guessing you're a fan of the old 'attack is the best form of defence' style of argument.

@beautyisthefaceisee

I was thinking about your support for single sex spaces and provisions in some cases and there's a question I should have asked.

Who do you think is going to make sure that happens? Because I honestly don't see where that brake on the process that is removing the acceptability of single sex provisions or the female political voice is going to come from.

Women have been saying no, that's a step too far to be justifiable as just trans inclusion and offering compromises and suggestions for years now and all we get are dismissal, insults and threats. Politicians and institutions are following the hard lines required by Stonewall. You assume a reasonable middle will be found but how if no one is prepared, or allowed, to champion it?

A reasonable middle will only be found when both ways give compromise.

For as long as feminists continue to chum each other along with their bile, and TRA's do their bit, compromise won't be reached.

All of this "we say no" bit is all well and good but all it's actually doing is handing ammo to the other side.

All trans people get is dismissal insults and threats too if these threads are anything to go by.

I think what’s very telling is that people who want to find a middle ground are dismissed as transphobic - see people like Hadley freeman, Helen Lewis. Look at Eddie Redmayne who said only that while he disagreed with JK Rowling, she shouldn’t be threatened or abused, and he got absolutely piled on. Nothing short of total capitulation is acceptable. That sort of thing simply wouldn’t happen among feminists. One side is just inherently more reasonable than the other, and I hate this “both sides” thing.