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?

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.

Barra Kerr
Pronouns are Rohypnol
4th June 2019

(extract)
"There’s a lot of chat around about pronouns right now. Specifically, ‘preferred’ pronouns. By which is usually meant, the pronouns a person would prefer other people to use when they are the subject being discussed by those people.

‘This is how I want you to talk about me’.

Almost without exception, the people who request, or demand, others talk about them using specific pronouns, are asking for pronouns associated with the opposite sex to their own.

A simple politeness. A courtesy.

I’ve heard many people tell me they don’t mind doing this, as a courtesy, although it takes some effort to keep up the mental gymnastics of perceiving one sex, but consistently using pronouns for the other. That’s a personal choice, and I respect the reasons why some people make it.

I’ve also heard many people declaring that anyone who won’t comply (usually directed at a woman) is obnoxious, mean, hostile, and unpleasant. ‘Misgendering’ is hate speech. They say.

But I refuse to use female pronouns for anyone male. Because pronouns are like Rohypnol.

One of the biggest obstacles to halting the stampede over women’s rights is pronoun and preferred name ‘courtesy’. People severely underestimate the psychological impact to themselves, and to others, of compliance.

Pronouns are like Rohypnol to your brain’s defences.
You doubt this absurd claim I just made, obviously. You have the fortitude of mind to be uninfluenced by such trivia, and I have got this wrong. I understand. Bear with.

And try this quick experiment.

1. The cost of USING preferred pronouns yourself: Have you heard of the STROOP TEST? (continues)

They dull your defences. They change your inhibitions. They’re meant to. You’ve had a lifetime’s experience learning to be alert to ‘him’ and relax to ‘her’. For good reason. This instinctive response keeps you safe. It’s not even a conscious thing. It’s like your hairs standing on end. Your subconscious brain is helping you not get eaten by the sabre tooth tiger that your eyes haven’t noticed yet.

Incongruent pronouns also make your brain work much harder; not just when you are using them, but when you are receiving them as information. You are working constantly to keep that story straight in your head. Male or female? Which one, again? Concentrate harder. Ignore your instincts, ignore your reaction.

And that’s just you. You’re already aware of all the pertinent information, already alert, you know the score, no flies on you.

And you’re still affected emotionally and instinctively by incongruent pronouns, nouns, and names. Despite your efforts to be immune. You’re not immune to this effect. You can know perfectly the actual sex of a male person, and yet you will still react differently if someone calls them she instead of he.

So what then, is the impact on everyone who isn’t even aware yet, hasn’t fully comprehended yet what’s going on?

They change our perception, lower our defences, make us react differently, alter the reality in front of us. (continues)
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

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

I mean, let's be honest, what else is there if threats are off the table (would be deleted here if reported) other than "because I say so"?

I realize this is a few pages back, but I am curious how the government intends to differentiate which are women's names and which are men's names when determining if a man is a woman or a woman is a man by virtue of the name they use.

*I've been told by spero (a barrister) that a trans widow would be at risk of prosecution under hate crime legislation for using correct sex pronouns for her ex husband.

I don't think thats sound advice though. You shouldn't assume, and certainly not based on, of all things, clothing - you might accidentally out someone. Its all very complicated imo.*

I am not a criminal lawyer but before the decision in Miller v College of Policing I think it was certainly right to say there was a risk that the police would be involved if someone 'misgendered' another.

However, following the judgment on 14th February www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-judgment.pdf
I think the risks must have significantly reduced as the police were certainly given a clear message there about their over reaction.

however, we need to see what the UK Supreme Court is going to do with Harry Miller's continued challenge to the Hate Crime Operational Guidance as that is the key policy document which I think does still leave people at risk of prosecution for misgendering.

Or - if not prosecution, getting yourself recorded for a 'hate incident non crime' which may be disclosed to potential future employers.

You'd have to have a spectrum, Bewilderness.

Conventionally used exclusively for men at one end, conventionally used exclusively for women at the other, and traversing the wilds of unisex use in the middle. Obviously names are not fixed, and are capable of shifting across this middle zone in both directions.

I wonder, if you'd been given a currently-in-the-unisex-zone name at birth, and tried to change it to a different unisex name at transition, would they disqualify you?

Bewilderness: Pronouns cannot function as correction fluid for those who are dissatisfied with reality.

The actual neutral choice here is to accept pronouns can reflect gender as well as sex.

Except that isn't a neutral choice. It is forced compliance with genderism and the idea that pronouns are not neutral statements of fact, but impart information about identity. It is enforced compliance with the idea that I could call myself 'he', and that somehow nobody would notice my sex.

The equivalent is not disparaging somebody's religion every time you speak to them, but being forced to wear a veil - and let's not forget which sex is sometimes expected to wear a veil as a sign of courtesy, regardless of their beliefs or gender identity.

The neutral choice is to just use somebody's name, which, as others have said, shouldn't be a problem because it is rude to use third person pronouns in somebody's presence when speaking English.

And let's be clear, I cannot endorse or deny anybody's identity.

I can only disagree that human idenities can or should be categorised in gender boxes.

I wonder, if you'd been given a currently-in-the-unisex-zone name at birth, and tried to change it to a different unisex name at transition, would they disqualify you?

Do they intend to issue a list of government approved names for each 'gender'? What about names which have wholly or partly changed gender (or should that be sex?) over the years? Where would names like Cameron or Jamie fit in?

I work with someone who comes from a country where they do not have sex-based pronouns-I think they just have a general sort of 'they' pronoun. He founds the whole sex-based pronoun thing very strange and confusing!
He does use sex-based pronouns when talking about people but 90% of the time his default position is to use she/her (I’m not sure why!)-even for male colleagues he's known and worked with for years. He’s literally on a pronoun warpath! Thankfully we’ve all survived and our HR department has better things to worry about.

He does use sex-based pronouns when talking about people but 90% of the time his default position is to use she/her (I’m not sure why!)

If he's inclined to use only one third person singular pronoun why not she/her?

Wow, is it really so hard to not be a jerk ?

I think religion is dumb but if someone wants to be referred to as Father or Sister or whatever, I'll just call them what they want.

Even if you think the pronoun doesn't reflect the biological reality (though when someone has fully transitioned that reality may be more ambiguous than you seem willing to consider), can't you accept it as a social reality ?

Even if you think the pronoun doesn't reflect the biological reality (though when someone has fully transitioned that reality may be more ambiguous than you seem willing to consider), can't you accept it as a social reality
No and No in fact that's a most definite NO from me.

Since most of us having very little to do in lockdown let's hear it, then. In what way is the sex of transitioned people "ambiguous"? Have you discovered a new type of chromosome? Perhaps instead of x or y it can be referred to as "m" (short for "me")?

The lovely trainer who lectures us with alarming regularity on exactly what linguistic and social contortions are required in order for the workforce to evade biological reality has fuck all understanding of what living as a woman is actually like. My favourite part of the talk is where we are treated to the knowledge that being a transwoman is actually way harder than being a woman, as apparently this person is no longer safe to walk home from the pub alone in case they get attacked for wearing the womanly things. Well thank fuck women don’t need to worry about being attacked by blokes, eh. My walk home from the pub would never be the same again if I had to worry about that. Poor six foot flower.
Anyhoo. I’m more concerned about the trainer’s ex-wife, who has had to leave the company and her support network and move hours away, because of all the fawning idiots here telling her ex how brave and stunning etc etc. Still, as long as we do as we’re told and call the ex ‘she’, nothing can possibly go wrong.
At the outset of the re-programming session, the trainer is very clear that the desired outcome is that by the end of the session, the trainees will ‘believe’ that transition is literal reality, and will no longer inadvertently mis-gender or otherwise exhibit confusion over persons with male pattern baldness and penises who are female.

Actually, no, I can't accept the social reality of twaw, no. Because it's not, on the level of social reality, actually true. Social reality is not determined solely by the wishes of trans individuals.

The social reality is that people are treated differently based on their perceived biological sex. Yes, they are also treated differently based on perceived appropriateness of their gendered expression in relation to their sex.

On the level of social reality a trans person is not perceived as the opposite sex. What's being asked is that we alter our pronoun usage to distinguish between masculine-presenting attire and feminine-presenting attire. The answer is no. To do so would be to our detriment in myriad ways detailed in this board at great length already.

As an aside I get really pissed off at this idea that women don't contribute anything to the social construction of reality. It's a joint endeavour, y'know?

I think there's a great deal of people here who really have their head in the sands as to how it looks and feels to have someone do that to you

Ok I've not read much further than this yet. I want to say then so why is misogyny not a crime.
Every day I hear myself called various slurs simply because I'm female. Yet apparently that doesn't matter. My mental health takes a toll just because of these slurs but no one cares? Why does no one care about my mental health but SOME people require me to change my words.
Who then is more important?

Even if you think the pronoun doesn't reflect the biological reality (though when someone has fully transitioned that reality may be more ambiguous than you seem willing to consider), can't you accept it as a social reality ?

More ambiguous visually? Or more ambiguous because the hormones have changed their DNA? More ambiguous because of male brain/ female brain? More ambiguous because of vocal training and surgical feminization? More ambiguous because hormones and a set amount of time living as a transgender person means that person completely takes on the socialisation of their changed gender? If they are MTF they totally understand the biological reality of being a female with menstruation, discrimination and biological disadvantages?

I am very confused what actually you mean. If you mean visually, well.... maybe on a small screen.

Marphise - there is no such thing as “fully transitioned”. It’s not possible for humans to change sex. They can take hormones, have cosmetic surgery, have bits removed, but they can’t change sex.

Even if you think the pronoun doesn't reflect the biological reality (though when someone has fully transitioned that reality may be more ambiguous than you seem willing to consider), can't you accept it as a social reality ?

What social reality? That it's right for us all to live in a gender box? That we can all pretend that sexism doesn't exist because all we have to do is claim a different gender?

I think religion is dumb but if someone wants to be referred to as Father or Sister or whatever, I'll just call them what they want.

But nobody would force you to address a religious person in a particular way.

Can you codify belief into law? Will you mandate that people can transition from one sex to the other and must be treated accordingly? That children who fail to conform to sex role stereotypes are to be taught they were born in the wrong body & will be treated with drugs and surgery? How will you punish the non believers? The heretics.

though when someone has fully transitioned that reality may be more ambiguous than you seem willing to consider

Can you explain this a little more please. I am genuinely interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Fully transitioned means SRS right? Its massively transphobic (and being a jerk..) to even discuss SRS, let alone treat those who have had it any differently from Dave, the builder down the road who is a woman as he likes to wear a gstring every now and again

What about Pips ffs? We know when Pips demands to be she’d because of the pink lace and stockings (that I guarantee no female working for Credit Suisse is likely to be sporting) and because of the womanning trophy. But when Philip turns up to work in his suit, he’s still got his todger. It’s not a strap-on to be discarded at will. But woe betide anyone who really can’t be dealing with the pretence that the presence of pink fucking lace determines everyone else’s speech. And off to the gulag if you raise an eyebrow at being forced to obey the laced one’s wishes and pretend that reality doesn’t exist.
Wear what you want, love. I don’t care. But don’t expect me to contort reality just because you want to wear silk and wittier in a silly voice.

Anyhoo. I’m more concerned about the trainer’s ex-wife, who has had to leave the company and her support network and move hours away, because of all the fawning idiots here telling her ex how brave and stunning etc etc. Still, as long as we do as we’re told and call the ex ‘she’, nothing can possibly go wrong.

Trans Widows Voices is a vital resource for women with husbands/ex-husbands such as this trainer.
www.transwidowsvoices.org/

FiLiA article by Tinsel Angel

TRANS WIDOWS VOICES

(extract)
"A new website has been launched called Trans Widows Voices which aims to amplify the voices of trans widows.
The website offers an opportunity for trans widows to be able to tell their own stories in their own words. As well as this we hope that it will enable women affected to bring a feminist analysis to their experiences.

Anybody reading this will be very familiar with the stories of men who discover, often in middle age, the desire to “live as a woman”. Some leave their families to do so, some have wives who decide for various reasons to stay with them. The story that is told far less frequently is the story of the increasing number of wives and partners who find this turn of events unacceptable and who leave. Mainstream media narratives usually focus on the women who stay and support or even celebrate their husband’s transition. The accepted wisdom appears to be that that women and families should put the husband first rather than themselves.

The few organisations that support women with transitioning partners tend to be branches of Transgender support groups, so women often do not have confidence that the support given by these organisations is impartial and female centred. Such organisations celebrate the bravery of men who transition of and wives who stay.

We believe that leaving is just as brave. (continues)

The stories on the website are all anonymous because the women who have written them fear reprisals from their ex partners and their supporters if our identities are revealed.

Unlike many other websites, Trans Widows Voices does not censor women who feel that their husband had a sexual motivation for transition. This view is usually silenced, but is an experience reported by many trans widows. (continues)

There are currently six women’s stories on the website and we hope to add to this in the future as more women who share our experiences, become aware that they are not alone, and that their voices can and should be heard." (continues)
filia.org.uk/news/2020/4/26/trans-widows-voices

Wow, is it really so hard to not be a jerk ?

What steps have you taken? How is it working out for you?