Told I was 'phobic' for not using pronouns!

[NewStartIn50s]

Asked for my preferred pronouns and I said ' I don't use them', pushed on what I use to refer to myself and I said I don't use on emails or when I introduce myself or at all. Apparently, if I use them I am showing inclusivity to others and being accepting. I'm not quite a dinosaur yet but why are these things forced on us. I don't have a beard (yet) and I think you can tell what I am/but does it really matter if you can't.

So AIBU

YANBU - don't have to use pronouns if you don't want to

YABU - you should state what your preferred pronouns are

Yup, too often hard on the heels of using pronouns just to 'be kind', or 'be an ally', there's the 'or else'.

I've used 'they' when I didn't know a person's sex or to help preserve anonymity, but using it otherwise has rarely been a feature of English.

I think the German language has tied itself in knots trying to accommodate this.

To misquote Gervais: “….HER penis, you f*ing bigot…”

Hear, hear.

It is no more bigoted to say "transwomen" aren't women than it is to say "men aren't women", or "dogs aren't cats".

Then I missed it as well.

Perhaps it wasn't very clear?

But in England we have a culture that assumes female name+she = woman and so people are not versed in clarifying. Obviously if your culture has neutral pronouns there will be language nuance that helps you navigate the lack.

When I request a female nurse for a smear for example, and they say Sally will do it she will be along in a minute, I'd like that to reflect reality or otherwise it will put me in a situation where I have to refuse someone and deny their 'gender identity' because they were trying to obscure their sex from me.

I'm dyslexic so I use eh?/cher

On the contrary. It is rarely obvious what "wokespeak" means.

It sometimes seems that words change meaning halfway through a sentence.

It is perfectly common to use 3rd person pronouns about someone in their earshot

That is (or perhaps was, in this brave new world) considered rude.

That is (or perhaps was, in this brave new world) considered rude.

Exactly. Calling someone she in earshot is not polite.

It is perfectly common to use 3rd person pronouns about someone in their earshot

That is (or perhaps was, in this brave new world) considered rude.

It was always rude, and still is imo, to just refer to someone as 'she' within their earshot without saying their name (my grandmother would have responded 'Who's she? The cat's mother?!).

But during the course of a polite conversation in a group, it is perfectly normal and not at all impolite to use the 3rd person alongside the person's name in sentences. Indeed, it would sound pretty odd not to, and to be incessantly repeating their name.

nonsense. It all depends on context.

"this is Susan, she does amazing artwork" How is that rude?

e.g. "It's great that Emily suggested that. I think she was making a really good point. And David pointed out that we could collaborate with x group - perhaps you could work with him on that?"etc. It would sound very silly to just keep repeating people's names unnecessarily.

this is Susan, she does amazing artwork" How is that rude

It's not necessary though, having just used the name. 'Who' would work perfectly well in this instance.

This !

I think all this pro noun malarkey has little to do with gender and what you identify as. It has far more to do with garnering a feeling of power and importance by putting others on the back foot.

I don't countenance any of it and never will.

Pronouns are newspeak, as are terms like "transmisogny", "misgenendering" and "genital fetishist".

Not staring pronouns on emails is not "phobic". Simple tolerance of others' choices no longer seems to be enough; now you must actively parrot and celebrate the same tenets in order not to be branded [whatever]phobic.

It's disgusting blackmail.

Stating, not staring pronouns

peaceandove · Today 13:44

It has far more to do with garnering a feeling of power and importance by putting others on the back foot.

I'd say it's helped to facilitate bullies, allowing them to be abusive. They seem to be on a power trip, aided by people, who are desperate to be seen as inclusive and not uncaring bigots.

Whilst not realising, or perhaps not caring that they are actually excluding women.

Excluding some women, who are tbh the kind of women that should be excluded.

Excluding some women, who are tbh the kind of women that should be excluded.

Really? What kind of women? Women who don't want to go along with it? Not share their spaces with male bodied people?

YANBU. It's time people stood up against this utter bollocks.

Like who? Elaborate.

Muslim women?

Women who have suffered PTSD due to sexual abuse?

Vulnerable women in prison?

Women who believe in facts and science (not the magical Twitter kind, actual real reality science)?

Who are the women you are so intolerant and hateful of that they should be excluded from basic human rights?

Oh God, this made me laugh!!

Excluding some women, who are tbh the kind of women that should be excluded.

Who do you mean?

The kind of women most impacted by the erosion of same sex spaces/sex differentiation are vulnerable women.

Domestic violence victims, rape victims, prisoners, disabled women needing care, the old and sick, orthodox religious.

So you're saying those women should be thrown under the bus and excluded? I'm surprised to hear that so bluntly expressed to be honest.

Unless they have a clone why would you ever refer to someone as a plural anything?

Because some people identify as a "plural system".

pluralityresource.org/plurality-information/