Conversation with my mother

[BrilliantBetty]

My DM and I were discussing politics today. She mentioned that she had attended a local Labour party zoom meeting. At the beginning of the meeting they had had to go around each participant and give their name and preferred personal pronouns. Apparently it was for the sake of the meeting minutes.
She didn't mind.

My reaction was not so positive. I basically explained that I feel that this sort of routine he / she / they is potentially a slippery slope in to fully accepting self ID on every count including medical. And that I have a lot of questions and concerns about this situation becoming mainstream. With the worry that these good intentions could one day make a more dangerous or unfair environment for women.

She made some (pretty minor) comments that have made me feel horrible and as though I am being unkind to people who are struggling with their gender.

Is there any way to approach these conversations without being perceived as nasty if you don't happen to agree with self ID!? And bringing He / She / They in to every meeting. I am not very articulate this evening, this post probably makes no sense and I'm just rambling and feeling uneasy. I'm probably now going to be a bigot in my DM's eyes, forever.

Why don't you ask her if she believes that Eddie Izzard is now a woman

If someone is 'struggling with their gender', compulsory pronoun declaration draws attention to it, and may cause distress to people. Not everyone who struggles with their gender identity/expectations - for example, women trying to speak up in political meetings - demands different pronouns to that indicated by their sex. Most people 'struggling with their gender' need to know that it is OK to be a sensitive man who likes 'girl things', or to be a butch lesbian, or an assertive woman in STEM.

You could also make the point that this draws attention to one issue over so many others - everyone is being asked for their gender identity (because their sex is clear) and therefore to disclose whether they are in a 'disadvantaged' category or not. This means everyone knows about one kind of 'disadvantage' (and may treat people differently because of it), but not about anything else - including sexual orientation, physical or mental disability or illness, level of income, etc.

You could also ask her to look into recent articles about women finding it difficult to speak up in virtual work meetings (compounding the longstanding difficulty of women speaking up in public generally - time.com/4837536/do-women-really-talk-more/). If the minutes for the meetings she's participating in reflect preferred pronouns rather than sex, it is unusable data as far as this is concerned. If this local party wants to show that women are given a fair voice there, whether for their own sake or for funding/other opportunities down the line, those minutes should be accurate.

Maybe a bit off the point, but generally minutes are impersonal and refer to what the meeting agreed: “it was agreed that...”

“The proposal for .... was discussed”

If the minutes are full of he said/she said they are going to be confusing and very long. However maybe that is an accurate representation of an average Labour Party meeting 😁

I would want to know why someone's struggle with their gender needs to be public knowledge and the first thing you know about someone. Should we immediately declare our political and religious affiliations, too? We can all be kind and respectful to each other by focusing on each other's ideas and contributions as individuals, not our personal identities and identity politics.

I would want to know why someone's struggle with their gender needs to be public knowledge and the first thing you know about someone.

I’m assuming in this case it’s so that the secretary can write a long detailed description of what everyone said using pronouns. However usually the purpose of minutes is to summarise decisions and actions.

It would be interesting to analyse the last 12 months meetings and work out the % of references to men talking and women talking out of the total.

Then do it for meetings in the following 12 months. To see if this has any impact on the number of times women speak.

Obviously you'd need your mum's input to know if the references were actually to men or women.

You could also make the point that this draws attention to one issue over so many others - everyone is being asked for their gender identity because their sex is clear) and therefore to disclose whether they are in a 'disadvantaged' category or not

Good point, instead of railing about pronouns usage, just ignore that completely and carry on about your ingrown toenail/asthma/actual disability, and then go on to say you parent 3 children and are 46 years old with parents of your own who expect looking after. And carry on in that vein until they scream stop.
Would at least be funny.

How insidious. I'd suggest that in asking everyone to declare their pronouns they were doing a sort of test to see whose voice and opinions they need to listen to most.

He/Him - priority opinion-holder, trumped by She/Her ONLY if the She/Her in question has an unusually deep voice.
They/Them - opinions to be indulged. Lip service paid.
She/her accompanied by higher pitched voice. Sorry, can't hear you.

I wonder if she would recognise any truth in that?

1. Requiring everyone to declare PPs puts GNC + closeted trans people on the spot and can be stressful for them. Specifying a pronoun implies you are happy with that pronoun, which may not be how people feel at all, particularly if they are both gender non-conforming and gender-critical, or if they are trans but closeted. All of this can be very intimate and emotional, so PP sharing should never be required or insisted upon.

1. Research shows that when gender is emphasised in a particular setting, gender inequalities increase, harming all women. I'm not aware of any specific research into PPs, but we know this from studies in which researchers reminded women that they are women, and women then underperformed in tests. Reminding everyone of where they fit into the gender hierarchy reinforces that hierarchy. (Might the opportunity to reinforce their superior status explain why some men are so happy to share their PPs?) Routine, gratuitous PP sharing creates a negative environment for women, and should be avoided.

@AbsintheFriends

How insidious. I'd suggest that in asking everyone to declare their pronouns they were doing a sort of test to see whose voice and opinions they need to listen to most.

He/Him - priority opinion-holder, trumped by She/Her ONLY if the She/Her in question has an unusually deep voice.
They/Them - opinions to be indulged. Lip service paid.
She/her accompanied by higher pitched voice. Sorry, can't hear you.

I wonder if she would recognise any truth in that?

Your first sentence...That's exactly what it's about.

Perhaps you could ask her why she thinks some problems faced by a fraction of 1% of the population are getting priority over some problems faced by 50%?

I don't know what reason was given for doing this at the beginning of the meeting. Only that she had thought it was for the minutes. Perhaps they didn't offer much explanation.

I wonder if this is to be the standard set up from now on. Or if it's just Labour.

Presumably your mum knows you are not actually a bigot. You say her comments were minor. Surely you are overthinking this.

I'd say to her something like I've been thinking about why the pronoun thing annoyed me so much and I think part of it is how it forces trans people to out themselves, you'd never dream of going round the room asking people to declare their sexuality. Surely it is better to let people choose their own moment for when to announce something?