Line Manager just "come out" as Non-binary

[SpinningTooFastWantToGetOff]

My line-manager emailed everyone in the office last week to say she was non-binary and we should use they/them pro-nouns.
Today I inadvertently called her she in an email to a colleague in another office, but line-manager was copied in, plus her line-manager. Are you keeping up?
My line-manager responded to the email and added at the bottom a reminder about her pro-nouns.
I do not believe in the gender identity ideology and so object to being told to speak in an unnatural and incorrect way, but what I am incandescent about is being called out in front of 2 other colleagues.
Am I over reacting?

Because people do things inadvertently, which is what the op stated had happened.

I've been talking about requests, reminders, and respect.

And what about respect for people who don't believe in gender identity ideology not to repeatedly be reminded that they should deny their own perception of reality in order to prop up someone else's fragile sense of self?

Because people do things inadvertently, which is what the op stated had happened.

Do they inadvertently pronouns their way into women's sports, prisons, rape crisis centres, homeless shelters, hospital wards, domestic abuse shelters, communal changing areas, awards, shortlists - and inadvertently pronoun their way into providing intimate care to women asking for single sex provision, too?

This stuff is just all so confusing, isn't it!

That'll be the hyperbole.
This is an echo chamber.
I'm off.
OP, I hope you find that the company you work for is equally respectful to your beliefs and everyone else's, and I also hope your manager gets sacked, not for the gender thing, but for what seems to be an appalling management style. If not, wish you luck in finding a better place to work.

She wasn't talking to you or about you in that post though. I know you're desperate to make your point here, but maybe try again later
Sorry but eckhart was in fact talking to me, the prefix banana made that clear.
Also are you assuming eckharts pronouns there?

And again please my pronouns are I, me and mine. Not you're

I went away and researched all this solely to prove that the arguments to the contrary were rubbish.

They were not rubbish. They were absolutely correct. This is the biggest single threat to women's rights in my own mother's lifetime - her words, not mine - let alone my own. If you think you have good arguments against the above, I'd love to hear them. Because to date, nobody has been able to make a single one that doesn't boil down to: women don't matter. Sports? No male advantage. The physical reality doesn't matter. Our ideology says so. All women's shortlists should remain female? OMG you're so bigoted! What about the women born with penises?!

This ^^

wellbehavedwomen apologies for cross-posting with your brilliant post.

This is an echo chamber.
I'm off.

So you don't have an answer to my simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

That'll be the hyperbole

@Eckhart please tell me what is factually inaccurate about any of my post? Which part is not wholly supported by data?

Believe me, I would never be so pleased to be wrong in my life, if you can rebut a single, solitary point with facts.

Goady, old crone. I've answered loads of questions, I'm not averse to it.

I've answered loads of questions

But not mine.

I didn't say it was factually inaccurate. I said it was hyperbolic here.
Echo chamber. Off.

If we are at a point in history where the bare facts are hyperbolic, perhaps you need to sit down and have a little think?

Just an idea.

Will do.

And that's all anyone can ask.

I did. Started off where you are, in fact. Look where I ended up. ;)

Maybe when I grow up I could be just like you!

Sorry but eckhart was in fact talking to me, the prefix banana made that clear

That post was made before you said anything about pronouns.

Echo chamber.
If this becomes an echo chamber, it's because people like you are unwilling to engage and answer questions. It's not because we are unwilling to discuss.

That post was made before you said anything about pronouns
I said yesterday what my pronouns are.

You know, you're yet to make an argument here at all. Your gibes don't evidence anything but immaturity - ironically, given.

Either you have a solidly founded rebuttal, to explain why women should defer to a belief system which fundamentally harms their interests, and increases their oppression, or you don't. And I'm afraid it looks to me rather as if you are so used to your own echo chamber that you're used to your claims being taken as gospel.

So here's the thing. Gender identity beliefs don't make you a minority, or oppressed. They make you a super special snowflake, in fact. Women are, on the contrary, actually oppressed. Plenty of data to hand, which hasn't been massaged, manipulated or invented, to prove it.

Again: This is not a minority. It's a belief system. One not everyone shares.

Some believe that everyone has an innate gender identity, which may not match their sex (if they believe in sex at all, of course) or an absence thereof. They believe that this belief should remove all rights others have which contradict it.

Others believe that women are oppressed because of their sex, and gender is how they are oppressed. Therefore elevating gender to some supreme importance in this way is to entrench women's oppression, and support it. It is misogynist.

Those are directly colliding beliefs, and to insist only yours has merit or value is discriminatory. Especially as the feminist belief tends to be held by women, and the argument is that genderism contributes to their oppression. So it's not just seeking to enforce a belief system in a manner that discriminates against a protected group - it's demanding that that protected group support you in enforcing it.

Now, are you going to continue to make petty swipes, in which case we'll have to assume that you have no actual arguments? Or are you going to leave, as you've repeatedly said you would, despite those repeated posts proving a rather shaky grip on material reality? Or are you going to genuinely try to explain why your belief system is in any way based on fact, and in any way something that can be reconciled with the needs, rights and protection of women as a biological sex class? Personally, I'd welcome the last. But the choice is, of course, your own.

Did I Banana?

Stonewall Primary School curriculum guidance.

Stonewall Primary School curriculum guidance.

(apologies for duplicate post, Im not sure what happened)

Goady again, old crone.

Well behaved, thanks for the essay. The fact that you respond to all my immature jibes would indicate that we're probably on roughly the same level, there, despite your clearly elevated view of yourself.

My 'belief system' or viewpoint, as I'd prefer it, is that if someone asks me to refer to them in a particular way, then I'll try to respect that, and hope that if I make mistakes, they will respect the fact that language change is hard to make. Mutual respect. The op has not been sacked, reprimanded, reported, disciplined, frowned upon, talked about, negatively viewed etc, as far as we know. She has been reminded. I had to remind a few people a few times when I changed my own name by deed poll. I even got it wrong myself once or twice.
All the talk on this thread about compelled language and the politics of gender is hyperbolic in the op's situation. If she'd got threatened with the sack, I'd be dead against that.

So. There's your petty swipe, your re-iteration of my point, as requested, and now, I go. I think I've done all of the options you offered me rather than choosing just one.

A judge told Maria McLachlan to refer to her attacker as she. That’s as close to compelled expression of something you don’t believe as you can get.

I'm sorry you feel so got at. That must be really uncomfortable. But your own intellectual insecurities are your issues to deal with, I'm afraid, and petulant swipes at people here doesn't assist your cause. It just makes you look yet more foolish.

There is something called 'a chilling effect'. When people can't act as they want or say what they feel for fear of consequence. If you don't recognise that women have been fired simply for expressing these views on their own time, and have had no recourse, and you don't recognise why and how this could scare others, then I'm afraid yes, you are hard of thinking.

If you have any factually based arguments to make, then do share them. So far, your statements have either been provably untrue, or based on feelings. One side's feelings - the other side's apparently not mattering at all.