Is it "unlawful" to deliberately misgender someone?

[Davros]

I have recently asked an organisation its position on Self ID and, as well as many other paragraphs of text I'll have to wade through, they have included this and I am unsure if it is accurate. Can anyone elucidate? Thanks:

The Equality and Human Rights Commission says in its guidance that, in providing goods or services, to deliberately address individuals as being of a gender other than their self-identified one is unlawful.

It's one thing I love about this place, the flipping of the default human from male to female.

I do the same, it's interesting when the person hasn't said they are a man but you slowly get a "bit off" feeling. I don't know the sex of the HR person but they definitely hated women.

I got the impression more that they didn’t like GC ideology (didn’t they mention having trans friends or was that someone else?).

What is 'GC ideology'?

Not adding anything useful to the discussion but I cannot wait to wake up from this nightmare. If I never hear that stupid word again it will be too soon. The reign of T terror has gone on for far to long.

Transpeople are entitled to their choice of pronouns in court - even from their victims.

I looked at the Equal Treatment Bench Book some time back. The guidelines weren't especially clear but I think they were to get court officers to use the desired pronouns and had been misinterpreted to apply to witness who instead are supposed to be telling the truth as they see it.

This is (partially) relevant:

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

What is 'GC ideology'?

You definitely know what I mean unless I’m mistaking you for another user that regularly posts in the feminism section.

What is 'GC ideology'?

It means we dislike gender stereotypes and argue about them being enforced.

That's my guess, but I'm sure someone will be along to tell us what we think soon enough.

My own workplace is consistently mis-gendering me and loads of my colleagues because our HR system automatically designates you to be a Mr until you go into the system and change it. It's such a hassle to do so that loads of us haven't bothered. This means that my payslips come our addressed to Mr Zomblie every month.

Honestly, I don't care.

It means we dislike gender stereotypes and argue about them being enforced.

So someone who doesn't like 'GC ideology' could be accurately described as a misogynist who wants to rigidly enforce gender stereotypes?

Fuck knows! Words can mean anything these days!

Nah in all seriousness that does seem to be the core of being 'gender critical' - to be critical of the gendered roles enforced on us by society based only on our sex.

So I suppose your interpretation is correct.

I also feel that is the point at which feminism and genderism part ways. There are similarities upto that point. Genderism says we should be able to switch gender roles whereas feminism says scrap the idea of gender roles altogether. IMO of course.

So someone who doesn't like 'GC ideology' could be accurately described as a misogynist who wants to rigidly enforce gender stereotypes?

Well, more a sexist as gender stereotypes apply equally to men as well. But really your description seems to me more like what GC ideologists might say about people who don’t agree with them rather than an irrefutable fact - e.g. are liberal feminists really considered misogynistic by most people?

I don't know, OP. But I find it horrifying that refusal to cram someone into a sex-stereotype box could be illegal. It would be illegal to refuse to play the gender game, illegal to refuse to force others into sex role stereotypes. It would make the practice of feminist analysis illegal.

Interesting, isn't it Tyro. A useful by product of the analysis of trans ideology is how it appears to have ignited feminism in general.

The thread about what other issues it has alerted women to is a prime example.

And, as many have noted, once you see it, you can't un-see it.

I hope, and suspect, that the issue of pronouns will gradually be getting more public coverage. It's very important.

And, as with most of this, women describing why being able to accurately identify men as men, both theoretically, and in real life instantly exposes the need for feminism in the first place.

Once you just even dip your toes in the wealth of info about why sex segregation is necessary, it's a real eye opener.

I was really wondering what you meant when you said someone 'didn’t like GC ideology' Rabid. Do you agree that this person is someone who likes sexist stereotypes and wants to rigidly enforce them? Do you think that it is appropriate for someone who works as an Equality and Diversity Officer for a large NGO to hold such extreme views?

I'm probably not the brightest bunny (in any box) but given that it's entirely possible in English to use neuter pronouns, I would be more interested if the outcome of all this frippery is to try to create a legal framework where somebody who was using "they" to address someone, finds themselves at the end of a legal compunction to use "he" or "she" at the behest of the person involved ? Which seems a tad too much What's my name ?

I would have thought that at some points, courts will refuse to be arbiters of language as it is used, since it is (a) outside their remit (b) outside their expertise, and (c) an impossible task, since language in England is defined by usage not statute.

Incidentally, why aren't these pronoun activists turning their considerable brainpower to the wording of statutes in general ? Plenty of "hes" in there to get all woked up over.

If we were in a position where we were told we HAD to use the trans gender persons preferred (on that day at least) pronouns, could we not instead simply use their chosen name (on that day) repeatedly instead? Yes it would sound stupid, but for me at least my brain would not be trying to process that I'm being asked to say words I don't believe are correct. In usual circumstances lying is considered wrong, but here we are being compelled to lie.

That would be a perfectly reasonable solution ginghamstarfish. What would be the betting that in no time at all scrupulous use of someone's name would be interpreted as some kind of attack?

That's a useful point, SerendipityJane.

In English law the word 'he' refers to people of both sexes.

This pisses me off, because it makes women invisible and men the default. But it could be thrown at males protesting the use of 'he' in relation to themselves.

Neuter pronouns are tricky though. I can't call a human being 'it'. It's dehumanising and terrible manners and as a child I was taught never to do it.

I'm hoping that at some point we get around to discussing the problems of the first person singular, but no one seems to give a shit that this one often finds it distressing to have to self-define as I.

This is how is works according to the Interpretation Act 1978:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6

Interesting to note that over 40 years ago the rot of conflating sex with gender was starting to set in in government circles.

I can't call a human being 'it'

You don't. You say "'they', 'their' and 'that person', or use their forename." surely ?

I wonder how discussions like this are going in France and Italy which are unlucky enough to have languages with masculine and feminine baked in ? And gawdalone only knows about German with it's 3 genders

The guidelines weren't especially clear but I think they were to get court officers to use the desired pronouns and had been misinterpreted to apply to witness who instead are supposed to be telling the truth as they see it.

That's the bit I really couldn't get my head around; being compelled by a judge to lie when giving evidence under oath because your self-evidently male attacker insists on female pronouns.

I wonder how discussions like this are going in France and Italy which are unlucky enough to have languages with masculine and feminine baked in ?

The Academie Française is still catching up (this could take some time) but apparently, there is now a gender neutral pronoun in French - iel.

It's pronounced "yell".

... all woked up over..

Nice one, SJ

What is 'GC ideology'?
Biology.

Much as 'gravitational ideology' is physics, and 'numerical ideology' is maths, and 'nonfictional ideology' is fact.

You don't. You say "'they', 'their' and 'that person', or use their forename." surely ?

Depends.

Forenames are always fine, but I find it very difficult to use 'they' of a specific individual whose sex is known and relevant. Can cope with it to refer to a hypothetical person whose sex is irrelevant, though I'd prefer one of the many variations on 'she or he', because 'they' indicates multiple persons.

We do need a sex-neutral pronoun in English, but repurposing a plural to refer to single individuals is far from ideal.

Interesting link, nauticant.

words importing the masculine gender include the feminine and vice versa.

There we go then. Under English law misgendering isn't actually possible.

We could follow the Finns:

finland.fi/han/article/

After all, English is a magpie of a language.

Woman objects to being called 'he'; is told "You're being oversensitive; 'he' refers to both women and men." Nothing changes.

Man objects to being called 'he'; is backed up by judges; women are criminalised for calling him 'he'.

This is what structural sexism looks like.