Just been told to remove my pronouns from my Teams profile

[Horrace]

I'm weak 🤣
My manager just phoned me to say there has been some serious complaints made about me that he must urgently address.
I panicked.
In the Pronouns section of my Teams profile, I have

'Take a Wild Guess'

Its been there for a few years. Its finally been noticed and I've been told to take it down because it's made someone or more than one possibly, FEARFUL of me.

Because its one thing for a group of people to arbitrarily decide they are part of a group you belong to and they do not, and that you must include them in your group despite disadvantage to yourself. However, to then expect that group to adopt a prefix to their group name, in order to establish your (often unwanted) 'membership' of that group as simply different from, but otherwise equal to, theirs, adds insult to injury.

I don't think there are, but this link is helpful for a general overview, but at the end of the day, they are all male, and they will have similar offending patterns.

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/.

I have left mine blank because anything sarcastic would come across as unprofessional and I’m not prepared to weaken my argument IF I get pulled into a conversation on this topic. But sometimes I long to say “isn’t it obvious?!”

What is the relevance of age on accessing the safeguarding risk for male access into female single sex provisions that they should not be accessing?

For publicly accessed single sex provisions, there is not usually an age segregation except for family rooms maybe. If you are interested in the sex crime rates by age of prisoners in the UK, maybe put in an FOI and ask specifically for male prisoner numbers with transgender identities with sex offences by age group.

@ShawnaMacallisterIt should be ridiculed, because it is ridiculous. And yes, I do work in a profession that is big on “diversity and inclusion”, which has gone too far into bonkers territory. Most people just keep quiet and inwardly roll their eyes as it’s not worth risking your livelihood over, but I wish more people would stand up to it. Nobody really cares what someone’s “preferred pronouns” are. If I’m talking to someone I’d be using “you” or their name, not she/he/they. And if I’m talking about them when they’re not there then I’ll be using whatever pronouns I want, which will be the pronouns of their biological sex.

Exactly. I do think that older male transitioners almost always have autogynephilia, so there probably is an increased risk from them as opposed to teen boys, but male offending patterns still hold up at any age, and no male should be in female single-sex spaces.

As someone with a gender neutral name, this has never once bothered me.

In correspondence I am often assumed to be male and it's not a big deal.

The definition of "woman" means an adult human who was born female - would you be able to explain why this is offensive?

It's actually been shown to be beneficial, which just shows you how sexist things still are.

Could not agree more. In a few years people will be looking back at this weird time and marvelling at the stupidity and weakness of those who enabled this nonsense of self-identified genders, forcing others to deny the evidence of their own eyes and pretend that someone was of the opposite to their own sex, or had no sex at all. Let's get back to reality. We can no more change sex than we can stop the earth orbiting the sun.

For anyone who wants to know what should be considered for evaluating risk of this sub group of males to show that they have a risk level not less than any other male in the UK of committing sex crime, have a read through the statistics for males who have transgender identities who commit sex crimes in the UK

Firstly, This was a question answered earlier this year:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298.

Question from Rebecca Paul (MP Reigate): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023-2024, published on 28 November 2024, how many of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female were convicted of a sexual offence.

Answer from Sir Richard Dakin (MP Scunthorpe): 23 December 2024
Of the 245 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as male (i.e. those who now identify as women, non-binary or gender-fluid) on 31 March 2024, 151 were convicted of a sexual offence. This includes both contact and non-contact sexual offences. Offence data was not available for 1 individual.

Of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female on 31 March 2024, the number convicted of a sexual offence is five or fewer. We do not provide exact data for such small sample sizes as it risks identification of individuals. This approach is in line with our standards on data disclosure.

To put this into perspective with what we already knew from FOI information. I posted the information to a regular poster from FWR on another thread, who did not acknowledge the information at all, so it seems sticking the info here is appropriate:

Here is data from the MoJ

Here is an FOI request from 30 April 2024

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/populationoftransgenderoffend/response/2641337/attach/html/7/FOI%20240322022%20Annex%20A.xlsx.html

Up to the 31st March 2023, the MoJ stated that of the 88 male transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.

The breakdown was
48 rapes,
0 attempted rapes,
10 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
13 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
0 indecent assault or gross indecency
6 sexual activity with a child under 16
0 other
77 listed here.... BUT there is a total of 88 in the total so there is 11 crimes not noted.

Possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child has not been recorded in this FOI.

However, there is are further discrepancies in the data of the following when you look at TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE.

1 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
3 rapes
2 sexual activity with a child under 16
3 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,

This equals 9 additional... however the sum for TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE is 99.

Therefore 2 more sex crimes have been hidden from this data.

There were 203 males who were declared as transgender in the prison at the time.

There were 24 NB who were not segregated into male and female. What is key here, is that THIS IS NON-GRC HOLDERS. And we all know that males holding GRCs have increased and they are excluded from this data. NO female people with transgender identities were sentenced to a principal sexual offence. There were 41 female people with transgender identities in UK prisons at that time.

As a comparison, I have stats that say as of April 2019 that the general male MoJ data for male sex offenders was just 16.8% of the male prison population.
And there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders.
I will leave you to do your own sums. But... even using the figure of 88/203 is 43.3%. (And that doesn't include making or possessing indecent photographs of a child remember.)

By the way this exercise was done in 2021. And I checked this data myself from the data source and it was correct at the time. So, it will give some back ground to the above.

The ones that say that in the March/April 2021 data collection period, the MoJ stated that of the 97 transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.

The breakdown was
40 rapes,
8 attempted rapes,
31 possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child,
32 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
20 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
10 indecent assault or gross indecency
9 sexual activity with a child under 16
27 other

The 97 sex offender transgender prisons collected 177 sentences between them.

And that according to that FOI 197 prisoners are transgender.

This is why NO SUB GROUP OF MALE PEOPLE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM RISK ASSESSMENT. This group of male people still retain the same male pattern of committing sex and violent crime, at ANY STAGE OF TRANSITION.

Do you have any evidence for that belief?

I was hoping you'd come along with the facts. I can never find all the links when I need them, and it's pretty clear-cut when it's all laid out like that.

Maybe this will be interesting too (particularly the final paragraph which I bolded)

PROFESSOR ALICE SULLIVAN'S LETTER TO THE JUDICIAL OFFICE REGARDING KEMP'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CRIME RATE FOR MALE PEOPLE WITH TRANSGENDER IDENTITIES

https://x.com/ProfAliceS/status/2000532626243756399?s=20

I have written to the Judicial Office for Scotland in relation to errors in the interpretation of evidence in the Sandie Peggie case.

To: Judicial Office for Scotland

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in relation to the Judgment in the case of Peggie vs Fife Health Board and Upton.

While some of these points have already been discussed in the public domain, the judgment suggests a preference for a ‘skilled witness’ regarding research evidence. As a professor of sociology at UCL with many years of experience in the field of social statistics, I trust that I meet the criteria to be considered as a skilled witness.

Paragraph 1047 suggests some confusion on the part of Judge Kemp regarding the following publication: Dhejne, C., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Johansson, A.L., Långström, N. and Landén, M., 2011. Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. PloS one, 6(2), p.e16885.

The judgment notes: ‘The following was stated “Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this, however was only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.” ‘

However, this is sentence is irrelevant to the point at hand. The judge appears to have either misinterpreted the evidence or missed the point.

The paper states ‘regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6;95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males’. In other words, the paper finds that ‘male-to-females’ retained a male pattern of criminal convictions.

The judge’s misinterpretation of Dhjene et al, combined with his dismissal of Ministry of Justice data on the grounds that clicking on hyperlinks would have been required to gain access to the relevant documents, underpinned his conclusion in paragraph 1049 ‘In our view, having read all of the documents, there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth’.

This conclusion is based in error. In addition, it misunderstands the burden of proof. It is well-established that males are far more likely to commit violent and sexual crime than females. In order to argue that this does not apply to a subset of males, one would need strong positive evidence of this point.

I would add some further evidence. The most recent data from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS, 2025) further supports the view that males who identify as transwomen retain a male pattern of offending. Only around 4% of the prison population in England and Wales is female. The transgender prison population in 2025 (0.4% of prisoners) included over four times as many biological males (276) as females (63). If transwomen were counted as women, they would constitute 7.3% of women prisoners.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours faithfully,

Professor Alice Sullivan, UCL

Whoever is ‘fearful’ of that probably screams when a cupboard door closes. Absolutely pathetic resilience to a joke.

Search for my name and 'reigate' and you will find this post and you can easily copy and paste it all.

But you'd be expected to share it when it's relevant?

The nature of our language and culture mean that it's entirely day-to-day and routine that pronouns are relevant.

If a lunch order was being taken you'd be expected to share dietary requirements. If, for some strange reason, we ordinarily included that information in the way we addressed each other ("Hi Gluten-free Jenny and Vegan Pete!") then you'd put it in your email signature.

If Russia invades we are fucked.

It's performative "weak little woman" fear, or maybe just plain old cry-bullying.

Because it's everyone for themselves, not because of pronouns.

‘My pronouns are private’

They're not relevant unless you're talking about someone with others when they are not there, in which case they have no business telling you what language you are and are not able to use, and since they aren't there, they can't be offended.

You can't make people choose the language you want them to, especially when it is incorrect and goes against their own beliefs about the world. Not everyone is on the gender train.

I won't call a man a woman ever because I've seen what a slippery slope that has turned out to be.

I wonder if they have the same problems over there 🤔

It wasn't a joke. She did it to ridicule, mock and be antagonistic - words she has stated herself.

There is no room for that behaviour, or 'jokes', on professional profiles. That's what your Facebook page is for.

Here is another way to look at the prisoner stats and it follows what Prof Alice Sullivan wrote in her letter that I posted above.

Regarding the % of male prisoners in UK with transgender identities. The figures that are in Hansard for the year ending 31 March 2024 had the figure that 151 of the 243 male prisoners in the UK prisons had at least one sex offence on their record.

The ratio changed from 43.3% (88/203) having at least one sex offence to their name at 31 March 2023 to 151/243 to 62.1% as at 31 March 2024.

The increase of the overall number of male prisoners with transgender identities in the UK prisons between 2023 and 2024 was only 42 yet the increase in the sex offenders was 63.

In 2019, there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders. I haven’t looked up the stats since. But I wouldn’t expect this will be different. Last time I looked at the raw stats for female sex offences, they had remained stable numbers for a decade or more despite population growth.

For male people with transgender identities to have the same rate of committing sex offences, there would be 8 (3.3% of 243) prisoners with trans identities in the UK prison population with sex offences.

8

Not 151.

And if someone tries to suggest that the majority of these male prisoners have declared that they are women to gain access to the female prisons, I doubt this is true.

Considering the sex crime numbers for that prison population jumped from 88 to 151 male prisoners with a sex offence that declared they were women in a year (31 March 2024 to 31 March 2024) AFTER the publishing of the guidance in early February 2023, I seriously doubt these new prisoners are making declarations for the benefit of getting into the female prison.