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 would lose my job if I aired my political or religious views. As I should.

well done on the meltdown line and lie down. It was so clver the first time you had to repeat it. Well done donut.

No, I know nothing about the case. I have no interest in the opinions of transphobes, or their little happy clappy gang.

his “truth” would have to be a protected belief for the purposes of the Equality Act though so what this “truth” is would be highly relevant to whether he would win.

If you said "trans women are women" you would be expressing a political view and you would most certainly not lose your job for it.

You might lose your job for saying the opposite though.

It's interesting how the same people who were railing about the Johnny Depp verdict last week now accept a tribunal ruling without question.

It's almost as if women are bending the rules to suit themselves.

However, we have come a long way from pronouns in emails, ey?

I don't want males in single sex spaces for women.

Because these single sex spaces exist for women's safety and dignity, and they were designated single sex spaces for women, long before anyone started suggesting that "women" meant anything other than "the female sex".

There is literally no reason for people to be in single sex spaces for the opposite sex.

Almost as if they were two completely unrelated hearings, involving completely different parties, different facts and different areas of the law.

However, we have come a long way from pronouns in emails, ey?

Not really in fact Maya's result actually gives women more pushback against them.

Which is a fantastic result.

The Johnny Depp verdict directly contradicted the findings of the English High Court, that was my issue with that jury decision. I found the detailed high court judgment very persuasive. I’m not aware of any such conflicting decision here.

I haven’t read the Forstater judgment and pass no comment on it but perhaps you could point me to the paragraphs of it which contain the evidence she was acting like a dick to people?

as a general rule do you accept that people who hold gender critical beliefs should not be discriminated against in the workplace?

You'd have been much quicker at saying "he's a man".

Re the second one, she is being a dick in this article
"https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/maya-forstater-wins-two-claims-in-fresh-employment-tribunal-following-appeal/ar-AAZfX9k"

Doubling down on the hurt already caused.

You call it gender critical she's transphobic.

I think anyone who expresses transphobic, racist, sexist, misogynistic, misandrist, ableist or any other kind of hurtful view should be subjected to disciplinary and losing her job.

Under teaching registration I'm not allowed to give my political or religious affilliation in case it influences/offends anyone. I can be disciplined and struck off for that.

So why should it be OK for people like Maya?

Under teaching registration I'm not allowed to give my political or religious affilliation in case it influences/offends anyone. I can be disciplined and struck off for that. So why should it be OK for people like Maya?

this comment is interesting because my entire reason for objecting to pronouns in professional correspondence (as stated in the second thread on this post) is because it displays a political belief. If people can denote that they think trans women are women and gender critical beliefs are bigoted in a professional environment, why can’t people denote that they think sex is a material reality in the oppression of female people?

I thought we had been having a polite discussion up till now but your “he’s a man” comment was pretty patronising - I’m a lawyer who is actually pretty objective about court judgments and yes I find a 200 paragraph detailed assessment of contemporaneous evidence more persuasive than an unreasoned decision of a jury who were not sequestered and subjected to a massive social media campaign - yes campaign - against Amber Heard.

I will read your article now but as I say, I havent expressed a view on Forstater because I haven’t read it. But as a general rule, people who do not believe gender is more important than sex should not lose their jobs over it, (unless the belief manifests itself at work in a way which justifies it)

Ok I’ve read the article and the quote from her (not sure what is hateful unless you think saying you can’t change sex is being a dick?) but that is a quote from today. It isn’t evidence before the tribunal on which they could have concluded that she was treated that way due to the way she expressed that belief rather than the fact of her holding it.

have you read the judgment?

If anyone actually believes someone lost their job because they accidentally left a leaflet, the poor wee victim - well, more fool them.

I didn't mean you thought that, but others do (re Amber).

But that's the thing. The political belief aspect of trans is in question - who I vote for isn't. lots of people don't believe its an ideology, so thats the issue.

Well, because me saying I think GC views are often bigoted is not directly aimed at anyone. If I called my colleague a bigot I'd be in a lot of trouble

Maya is openly laughing at trans people and being celebrated for being hurtful.

If i made a comment about women, i dont know, being physically less strong than men, or an ableist comment, would that be OK, 'even though it's fact'? no. So how did Maya win on those grounds when actually it's disputed?

Lots and lots of homophobic, racist and sexist remarks are fact. i don't see anyone smugly seeing them in the workplace and then smiling in the papers about it.

But that's because transpeople are fair game.

How exactly is she "being a dick"?

What has she said in this article that you consider to be "transphobic"?

It seems to me that you think anyone who isn't willing to at least pretend to believe that humans can change sex is transphobic.

What's wrong about saying women are physically less strong than men @beautyisthefaceisee ?

But that's the thing. The political belief aspect of trans is in question - who I vote for isn't. lots of people don't believe its an ideology, so thats the issue.

Yes, well Christians believe they are right about the whole God thing.

Well, because me saying I think GC views are often bigoted is not directly aimed at anyone. If I called my colleague a bigot I'd be in a lot of trouble

Maya is openly laughing at trans people and being celebrated for being hurtful.

No she isn't, and she certainly isn't directing it at an individual, which is where you seem to think the line should be drawn.

Lots and lots of homophobic, racist and sexist remarks are fact.

Can you give some examples?

I don't think it's transphobic to think that.

I think it's transphobic to say it publicly in the way she has done and profit from hurting people.

Lots of people would consider that sexist.

But most people would accept that as a generalisation it is true and significant

Feminism isn't about denial about biology it's about understanding when it's relevant and when it's not

re your first point - I'm an atheist living in a society where I have to accept what to me is made up as fact, because the rules are different there.

No, I think the line should be drawn at saying it publicly, mockingly and celebrating it. She is literally celebrating hurting eople.

Well, when I was at school, there was a boy (who would later come out as gay, and was gay then) and people would call him X "gay boy" Y.

If you're getting your little dictionary out, technically speaking its not homophobic, because he is gay and he is a boy (now man). But if someone said that In my school I'd log it as a homophobic incident (deragatory use of terms).

Mind years ago in Big Brother when Jade was done for saying "fuck off back to where you came from" despite the fact she repeatedly said she meant Bollywood, celebrity background, not the country. Still hurt the same though, and still racist because Shilpa felt it was.

I work with men regularly. We have spent YEARS trying to be seen as equals to men int he workplace, and by bringing this truth thing in, it's an open playing field. We'd only just got to a point where males sitting around wiht page 3 making comments on womens' appearances wasn't OK, but now? why isn't it? Why isn't it OK for a man to say "oh look at her boobs/look at her hips/she looks sexy" etc etc.

I once worked with a man who was in his 60s who enjoyed telling me at length how erect his penis was when talking to me. How long until he says, well, it's a fact? I also met a guy who found it acceptable to call his girlfriend a "slut" because the term originally meant someone who lived in a messy house. That's OK , right?

I'm being OTT here but you see my point. When we prioritise "it's a fact" - its not a good move. There's a thread currently running about a teacher who called a pupil a "big girl" and that her eyebrows were "like slugs". Both of those things may well be facts. Now what?

Note it'll only work one way though. if I call my hideous colleage an arsehole, do you think you will see me standing in the guardian saying "the truth will out"?

Here's the thing though. Yes, all she said was humans can't change sex. They can't. But she knew exactly what she was doing with that remark, and she's done it. Allowing the transphobes to hide in plain sight, and it's a slippery slope.

It used to be that racism, sexism, homophobia was judged in a court of law on what the person at the receiving end felt it was.

Now, it's changing to the person behind the gun.

How long until Smug McSmugson is racist but factual and that has to now be accepted because the trans comment was?

Lots of people would consider that sexist.

Well people who have trouble with scientific facts might, I guess. You'd know about them

Back in reality, tweeting that women are generally less strong than men would not impact your employment status. HTH.

It used to be that racism, sexism, homophobia was judged in a court of law on what the person at the receiving end felt it was.

What complete and utter nonsense
😂 😂 😂

Feminism 'should be' about protecting all women.

Not only are you denying women the opportunity to be trans (because we're only shouting about the transwomen, despite the fact transmen have caused little to no harm and they are the majority of the transitioners) you're denying them their rights based on the fact that they're a woman, and basing it on the men.

I don't think most people would accept that it's an ideology or be naive enough to thtink that "humans cant change sex" is the issue at hand. We fucking know that, despite Maya thinking she's now some kind of world leader (brave, my eye).

I don't think lots would, no. Certainly not if the question were better defined (ie. when talking about strength are we talking about upper body strength, or endurance, or ability to bear pain?)

Is saying women live longer than men sexist in your opinion?

The feeling of the victim is always taken into account

Who do you think decides? the perpetrator?

"Were you being racist"

"no"

case closed.

In schools, if a pupil tells me they feel a comment was racist, it's logged as a racist incident. But you'll know better than the policymakers.

No. and I know you think you're being clever with that, but statistically we do.

Doesn't change the fact my friend's wife was dead at 42 and my friend has a dad in his 90s, though, does it?