To shriek from the rooftops that there is No Such Thing as “preferred pronouns”?

[Ddakji]

That’s it.

They don’t exist - any more than preferred adjectives, adverbs or nouns exist.

Even people who don’t like them still seem to think they exist.

Language is a shared, collective endeavour that belongs to all. It’s not a pick’n’mix for individuals to choose and change at will. For words not to be garbage they have clear definitions - in this case she for females, he for males, they (singular) for sex unknown.

Saying my preferred pronouns are she/her, even if that doesn’t fly in the face of reality, is no different to saying my preferred species is human, my preferred adjectives are sporty and lush.

It’s nonsense. Nothing to do with being kind or they don’t affect me, or I don’t mind if others do but I won’t. It’s nonsense.

Let’s make 2025 the year we kick this nonsense into touch.

“Preferred” means they have a choice in whether we see them as male or female.
As far as I’m concerned, they don’t.

Exactly. It's not preferred, it just is

No. The correct pronoun according to his sex and the rules of English. No preference.

In the example of the group work call, people
did not have their cameras on. In my hypothetical I am suggesting they have not spoken yet.

Grand, so if I decide that someone looks a certain sex (as OP said earlier, if a lesbian is mistaken for a man because of dressing in a butch style, it’s just a “pitfall”) then I will address them using the pronoun I believe to be correct.

And if that person disagrees I will tell them that I will not be changing it because I am using the pronoun I believe to be correct, and that their preference is irrelevant.

Being correct is all that matters.

How many people can’t tell a masculine presenting lesbian from a man, do you think?

Exactly, we can tell females are female we just use our eyes as people have done throughout our existence.
As well as being factually incorrect, it's why we cannot pretend men are female, they look like the males they are.

Pleased to see that we’ve reached the “we can always tell” section of this discussion

Yes, we are at the stage of accepting reality.

Angriest English lesson ever.

Back to subject though, I suppose this was always going to become part of the debate following the SC ruling and we are expected to "declare" our pronouns in so many places now. In all honesty, I don't actually care what labels, pronouns or otherwise, people would like applied to them and am more than happy to respect their choices.

For me, the SC ruling was much more about the legal standing of women, women's safety and women's protections and rights. A pronoun threatens none of these; the legal definition stands.

Do you often mistake lesbian women for men. Why?

If the legal definition stands (and thanks be to Christ it does), why are we still entertaining the nonsense that we must “respect” people pretending to be the opposite sex? Or no sex at all?
No.

Or, and here is a wild idea for Mumsnet, live and let live. Why does it affect you? Why does it matter to you? Do you even know anyone who has asked you to use different pronouns?

Grow up and get back to worrying about your own problems instead of fixating on someone else.

For me, the SC ruling was much more about the legal standing of women, women's safety and women's protections and rights. A pronoun threatens none of these; the legal definition stands.

It would be useful if people gave some thought to language and how it affects people's ability to articulate and safeguard their rights.

Thankfully the SC ruling has made great strides here, but pronouns are not unimportant. Particularly with many organisations dragging their heels on its implementation.

Take this example from the Sandi Peggy case, which has still not been resolved.

Here are two ways of describing Dr Upton's behaviour.

He went into the woman's changing room and took his clothes off in front of the women present.

Or

She went into the woman's changing room and took her clothes off in front of the women present.

These sentences describe exactly the same eventz One uses preferred pronouns, one uses sex based pronouns. The impact of each is quite different, don't you think?

@Atina321 When we am told to use wrong words to describe reality, when I’m told to deny reality - that impacts everyone. And when people support a concept that further drives that, that impacts everyone.

Here’s a wild idea for activists - don’t use others as your support poodles, don’t outsource your sense to self to others especially if that involves coercing their speech and demanding they deny reality.

Oh - and don’t act unlawfully.

I don't see why the SC ruling means I have to go out of my way to disrespect people. I am more than happy to support people in whatever choices they make, so long as they don't harm other people. That extends across other issues too.

I fully support transpeople to live in society in the gender they identify as, and other than in very specific circumstances covered by the SC ruling-see no reason to not support them in that choice. The legitimate concerns I had about biological men in women only spaces have been obviated by the ruling. That doesn't mean on a societal level there cannot be acceptance and support.

Liverpool University have updated their guidance
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/equality-diversity-inclusion/our-initiatives/lgbtqia-equality/why-pronouns-matter/what-you-can-do/

Final sentence is v important IMHO and useful for anyone whose employer demands they declare their pronouns "Finally, do not force other people to share their pronouns, it is a personal choice that should be respected"

Liverpool University have updated their guidance
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/equality-diversity-inclusion/our-initiatives/lgbtqia-equality/why-pronouns-matter/what-you-can-do/

Final sentence is v important IMHO and useful for anyone whose employer demands they declare their pronouns "Finally, do not force other people to share their pronouns, it is a personal choice that should be respected"

Certainly, one assumes from inference of context here that we are referring to a potential crime and then the legal definition of biological sex would apply?

Because respect for reality matters, because clear language matters, because women's ability to define themselves and their rights matter.

I'm not sure why it's women who are being asked to 'live and let live' when at the same time TRAs have been the ones demanding access to our spaces and services.

The legal definition of sex (which confirms to the reality of sex) isn’t confined to criminal law.

No. Not a crime. Dr Upton has not been accused of any crime.

The tribunal is about Sandi Peggy, a nurse, being disciplined because she called Dr Upton a man when she found him in her changing rooms.

@Lex345 You've got it. The use of Dr Upton's preferred pronouns support a 'legal fiction' that a man was a woman in more ways than merely wearing clothing stereotypically associated with adult human females, while the use of accurate sex-based pronouns reveal the failure to respect those same persons' right to dignity and privacy. This example shows why 'preferred pronouns' are dangerous.

I wonder if a man repeatedly using women's facilities is a crime?
It was not by accident, he knew that another person identified him correctly as male and knew he was in the female facilities.
Or the crime is that the hospital did not warn him against his actions, which infringe women's rights?

Nothing about his actions or the hospital actions was deemed a crime. At the time at least

Its not a criminal case. Nurse Peggy was disciplined for calling a man in the woman's changing rooms a man. She then took a tribunal against nhs Fife.