Can someone please help me out with pronouns

[Lollygaggles]

So how do I stand in terms of the current legislation, if I refer to a person by the pronouns of their birth, rather than their preferred pronouns?

Would it be compelled speech to be forced to collude with a belief that I do not accept? Also, how does my freedom not to be discriminated against because of my beliefs ( ie that people can't change sex) play out against the protections of Gender Reassignment and the trans person's rights as a legal member of the opposite sex ( though not a biological one.)

Would I be acting in a discriminatory way under the EA by referring to a person as their birth sex, when they have transitioned?

I want to be able to articulate my position very clearly, with reference to the law, but I don't actually know where we are as the law stands on competing rights.

Can anyone help me unpick it please?

Talking thanks for that post. That's fantastic. Again!

Agree as well. It articulates all the harms that stem from "politeness".

It's something a lot of us realise instinctively, why is hedge so determined to tell me that accurate sexing is an extreme position? Because if I don't bow down to the pretence then the whole thing falls down.

Thank you Flo and other denizens of FWR for your kind words.

We have to keep articulating this. There is so much harm being done under the faux cover of “but what does it cost you to be kind/polite”. The harm being done in other countries, like Canada, is even greater - there is a chilling interview* between Meghan Murphy and a former prisoner which testifies to the immense harm and abuse being perpetrated against vulnerable women in Canadian prisons, forced to Iive alongside predatory, dangerous men.

When these men abuse and even rape the women they are incarcerated with, nothing is done. The men just get transferred to another women’s prison where they repeat their MO with a fresh batch of victims. Or the women get moved instead, or put into solitary. Because for many people it’s still much easier to punish the female victims of sex crimes than it is to punish the male perpetrators, as we saw in Cyprus and we constantly see here too.

One of the end effects is to completely transform the living conditions for all the women there, not just the ones being harassed or assaulted, because of the far greater degree of security needed when housing male prisoners than female ones.

This is where “preferred pronouns” take us. Once we acquiesce in the lie that this male person is actually female, we have opened the door to ever greater and more harmful abuses of male power and privilege over women and girls, and ever increasing impingements on our rights, boundaries and females.

I don’t have a link to it but am hoping R0 or someone else does!

We have to keep articulating this. There is so much harm being done under the faux cover of “but what does it cost you to be kind/polite”. The harm being done in other countries, like Canada, is even greater - there is a chilling interview between Meghan Murphy and a former prisoner which testifies to the immense harm and abuse being perpetrated against vulnerable women in Canadian prisons, forced to Iive alongside predatory, dangerous men.*

This ^^
Vulnerable female prisoners & women working in the prison service are put at risk when violent convicted men are treated as if they are the opposite sex.

Regardless of hormone treatments, genital surgery or aquisition of a GRC the policy framework for managing male prisoners should be based on the risk patterns of their sex & within the male estate.

Regardless of hormone treatments, genital surgery or aquisition of a GRC the policy framework for managing male prisoners should be based on the risk patterns of their sex & within the male estate.

Difficult to understand how anybody can think prisoners can be easily switched between the male and female estate on the basis of their self proclaimed gender identity when only 5% of prisoners are women.

If you go with Stonewall's assumption that 1% of the population is trans, and assume that trans people are equally represented across prison and non prison populations, that means transferring 1% x 95% to female prisons, so increasing the female prison population by almost a fifth.

Obviously those calculations are nonsense because Stonewall include everyone under the trans umbrella and never explain who is in the 1%, but it's the logical conclusion of what organisations like Stonewall propose.

On a daily level in Canada I get emails from women who I know to be born female, with obviously female names, who sign off “Emily, accounts clerk, she/her”. Yes, Emily, I know you’re a woman, I saw you at 8 months pregnant before your mat leave. This is becoming increasingly common, but I have yet to see a single born-male think he needs to let people know his pro-nouns. But we’re so indoctrinated in being “nice girls” that we feel we need to signal this to all and sundry.

I also saw on Facebook the other day, again from a woman I know, a long list of terms we may and may not use for her. She’s okaying “she/her/Queen/bruh/captain” but declined “he/his/King”. Then there’s a list of compliments she’s approved or disapproved of us using about her. She’s okay with “feminine compliments” such as pretty and beautiful, but has left it up to us whether we can use the “masculine compliment” ‘handsome’. (Baffled about this - my mum was always referred to as a handsome woman as her bone structure was not delicate but she was attractive. My ex-lover was 6”3 and built like aqua man, but I thought he was beautiful as well as handsome).

This woman, with the long list on Facebook of terms we can use, is a 40-something professional. Just batshit to me that people are so up their own bums they think this is important/viable. The present in Canada could be your future in the UK.

It would be difficult to argue that you are not discriminatory towards trans people if you persistently refuse to respect their identities, for example.

But the very definition of being trans is that your biological sex and gender identity don’t match, so to respect someone’s trans status you have to acknowledge their biological sex.

Using pronouns of the opposite sex is not respecting their being trans, it is erasing their being trans.

It's difficult to argue that you're not discriminatory towards women when you're trying to erase us as a discrete legal category.

So what you are saying is that refusing to use sex based pronouns erases someone whose gender identity does not match their sex? In other words Making pronouns refer to the gender of a person not the sex.

But you are quite happy to erase people who do not have a gender identify and would therefore be erased because there would no longer be a pronoun that could be used for those people ?

Tad mean I think

I saw that one too, Rita, and couldn't resist a snarky reply. The wording of the thing irritated, for a start - something along the lines of "which of these do you use?" I use every one on that list, depending on who I'm talking to, with the exception of the unpronounceable 'mx'.

It is a bit depressing that some people think compliments have to be appropriate to sex. And it's horribly depressing that some people think they have the right to dictate how other people experience them aesthetically.

As for beautiful, whatever happened to beauty being in the eye of the beholder? Whether I describe someone as beautiful is dependent on how I experience their looks. Their opinion on the appropriate gendering of compliments is irrelevant.

We know that X is male, but X wants everyone to believe that they are female so we must go along with this so as not to upset them"

‘Not to upset’ is trivialising a serious condition. If someone has an irreversible gender identity then it is more about being a compassionate or even just civilised society that seeks not to make that person’s situation worse.

‘Go along with this...’ only to a certain extent. No one can make you believe it and you don’t have to associate with whoever you want outside work. But going along with it to the extent of pronouns yes we are expected to. (Yes yes pronouns are r etc etc I know).

it is more about being a compassionate or even just civilised society that seeks not to make that person’s situation worse.

Which brings us to the conflict of interest. Using gender-based pronouns erases sex. Using sex-based pronouns upsets trans people. Who deserves the most compassion? Women or trans people?

Using pronouns of the opposite sex is not respecting their being trans, it is erasing their being trans

Trans logic v actual logic 😉

If someone has an irreversible gender identity - that is a bloody enormous 'if'.

I know what they mean by gender identity even if most of them lack the wit to articulate it in a coherent and non-offensive way. So I'm prepared to accept for the sake of argument that there is some facet or quality of one's internal experience that could, if you wanted to use deliberately obfuscating language, be called gender identity. It is not an innate and unborn something, however. It develops over time within a sexed and gendered context. It is not immutable, unchanging, or irreversible.

It helps to keep in mind that we are processes, not fixed points.

A compassionate, civilised society shouldn't be expecting women and girls to undress in front of boys and men or face shame and bullying if they don't want to. Field's argument only works if you think trans people are the only people deserving kindness, compassion, etc and that they should be centered at all times.

Also, being expected to lie constantly is bad for people's mental health, which is not a trivial consideration, especially when they're being told they must do so to protect the mental health of others.

I'm sure the whole thread is on tenterhooks for that peer reviewed meta-study you've got lined up for us that shows 'irreversable gender identity' is an actual medical condition @Fieldofgreycorn

It's a damn sight more compassionate to work for better mental health support for people who have a serious disconnect because they are not and never can be the opposite sex. They will spend their lives fighting the obvious , and themselves in the process. Not good

I don't go along with a fat person who tries to get me to say they are slim
I don't go along with an anorexic who tries to get me to say they are fat
I don't go along with a person whose statistics is poor who wants to be seen as an expert
I never brought my child up to believe she could be anything she wanted to be
I could go on

Field's argument only works if you think trans people are the only people deserving kindness, compassion, etc and that they should be centered at all times.

FFS Kittens, the brave & stunning are the only ones who matter - didn't you get the memo?

"Be kind" and "It doesn't cost you anything" and all the other appeals to female socialisation are not arguments - they are just a more politely couched request to submit.

So that'll be a big no from me.

What about someone like Pip Bunce.

Are they not really trans because they change gender identity on a whim and express this via the medium of a pink dress or dark suit? They don't have a persistent need to be seen as female but apparently get celebrated as a businesswoman despite clearly being a man.

I don't understand why anyone would take that seriously.

I might take it more seriously if we had a proper definition of 'trans', testing.

But that's unlikely, given the cis/trans binary isn't real.

Using pronouns of the opposite sex is not respecting their being trans, it is erasing their being trans

Trans logic v actual logic 😉

I'm not even being facetious Pert! I honestly don't get how you can accept someone for being something by pretending they are not that thing. It is denial, not acceptance.

If we hadn’t started using female pronouns for males, we probably wouldn’t be in a place now where males are competing/winning in female sports and where males are being sent to a female prison. Or with charming males being called women/she/her. It’s just all so illogical.

Erasing a person could mean killing them
it could mean blanking them, refusing to talk to them , pushing them out of society
At a class level, ie erasing trans or woman as a class , would mean refusing to consider what special issues they might face distinct from other groups

Now clearly calling transperson by sex consistent pronouns isn't killing them or excluding from society.

Which means that talk of erasure is referring to them at a class level

However calling transwomen women, using female pronouns actually erases woman as a class level without providing a class for transwomen
In other words
It at the same time erases the transwoman as a class that might have special requirements or face special discrimination

So the people trying to erase transwomen and women are transwomen

But going along with it to the extent of pronouns yes we are expected to. (Yes yes pronouns are r etc etc I know).

You know, Field? And yet you still assert that we are expected to go along with it?

So what do you know? That pronouns are in fact Rohypnol, but you don’t care about the damage and danger to women as a result?

Or you know the argument exists but you choose to dismiss it, because... because why?

If the former, then you may as well wear a great big misogynist MRA hat.

If the latter then you really need to present some kind of counter- argument to it. A reasoned, rational one, rather than #bekind. Otherwise you might as well still be wearing that great big misogynist MRA hat.

Over to you.

I understood where you were coming from jelly