Pronoun badges for train staff and mis-gendering passengers

[CervixSampler]

Trans woman 'repeatedly misgendered' by Northern Rail worker at Piccadilly https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/trans-woman-hits-out-after-20829187

This article doesn't say if they have a GRC but they have legally changed their name. Lots of information in this with talk of white privilege, mental health being affected by mis-gendering but in light of the Maya ruling last week I'm wondering if staff can be forced to use pronouns that don't match what they see? To use Sir and he then the staff must have seen a male despite the facial surgery, acrylic nails, bra under their top land ponytail. I really struggle when things don't match as it were and my brain just can't compute it (awaiting ASD assessment) It's like a trans Stroop test. Just because I see a pony tail, long nails, and feminine facial features it doesn't mean that I will see a woman if other factors say male. Height, build, mannerisms, speech, voice, gait etc would all be interpreted as male and counter any feminine dressing and make up on the surface.

@Arbadacarba

That’s male privilege right there.

The station staff were male, so, no, it isn't about male privilege.

There might be another side to the story, of course, but we can only comment on the article as presented. Northern Rail haven't denied Eden's version of events.

Way to miss the point......

There might be another side to the story, of course, but we can only comment on the article as presented. Northern Rail haven't denied Eden's version of events

This

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Do tickets normally have your name on? I've always just been sent the tickets you get out the machines...

It may depend on how you book them - mine usually come with a ticket showing my name/address and then the tickets for the journey, seats etc.

Even if the name wasn't on the tickets, it shouldn't have been beyond the staff to ask for it - it's a pretty essential question when dealing with a customer complaint that might have to be passed on.

I don’t understand how or why train staff should be compelled to deny reality in order to submit to someone else’s beliefs.
They were not “misgendering”, they were correctly sexing.
The “Pronouns are Rohypnol” thread on here made some very good points about the dangers of compelled speech as the thin edge of a large wedge.

Way to miss the point......

How is it missing the point? How is taking the side of a transwoman in an altercation between two male station staff and a transwoman a consequence of 'male privilege'?

If I have missed the point, please explain how.

@Babdoc

I don’t understand how or why train staff should be compelled to deny reality in order to submit to someone else’s beliefs. They were not “misgendering”, they were correctly sexing. The “Pronouns are Rohypnol” thread on here made some very good points about the dangers of compelled speech as the thin edge of a large wedge.

Because this. This is why you are missing the point Arbadacabra.

Eden got on a train they weren’t entitled to use and when the station worker was telling them what to do (or any fine) Eden kicked off about being perceived as a man.

Eden is male, it would be instinct to say “sir” and Eden clearly wasn’t listening to the “your ticket is invalid” conversation and was insisting on pronouns while the station worker wasn’t listening to the pronoun conversation and was insisting on the “your ticket is invalid.” Poor communication from both.

Eden was in the wrong (and could be fined) about the ticket but who cares when they can shout “you misgendered me!” I get misgendered all the time because of a neutral sounding name and a Default Male assumption. I don’t throw a hissy fit about it because my sense of self isn’t dependent on outside validation.

This is why you are missing the point Arbadacabra

All that was asked was that they stopped calling Eden 'Sir' and referring to Eden as 'he'. They could have used Eden's name - that's not 'denying reality'. They could have used 'this customer' or again, 'Eden' when referring to Eden.

"“He said to me: ‘Yes, sir, you have to board that specific train'.

“I was literally standing in front of him with a ponytail, acrylic nails and a bra on - all the signs were there.”

To be fair, railway staff see all sorts of people in their working days and years, and are accustomed to seeing men in drag going to various events. I bet they didn't mean any offence at all -- after all, they used "sir" which is polite.

Eden could have just shrugged it off.

When my boyfriend called the very butch dyke security guard in our local Iceland "he", within her earshot, I apologised. She laughed and said "no worries --- it happens all the time". She does not care if anyone calls her by male pronouns. They are 100% wrong, but she isn't going to raise merry hell about it. Why bother?

Eden got on a train they weren’t entitled to use

This is speculation, but it's very easy to get caught out by Northern Rail's off-peak rule.

You can't get on a train before 9:30 am or between 4pm and 6:30pm (I think it's 6:30pm). That sounds easy enough, but the 4pm rule also applies to connecting services - so if you get on the 15:30 at Leeds, say, and it's a direct train getting you to your home station at 17:00 - fine. If you get on the 15:30 at Leeds but have to change onto the 16:20 at Bradford, say, that's not allowed. Many infrequent travellers get caught out by that one.

@NeedNewKnees I agree. 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' was hardly the important part of the conversation. My DS and I have been referred to as 'ladies' when he is male and I hate being called a lady but we just ignore it, it's not that important.

Eden also assumed the gender of or else chose to refer to the railway employees by sex themselves. "A woman scanned it and then passed me over to two men who were working at the ticket desk.

If the member of staff was being deliberately goady, that is wrong and bullying. But He said something along the lines of ‘man, woman, whatever! God, what’s the world coming to, eh?’ reads more like the staff member was confused and did not understand what Eden wanted from him. And why should he? Why would it occur to most people?

This is a prime example of the naval-gazing narcissism of the trans ideology:

“It’s just frustrating because when you’re trying so hard to be perceived as the gender that you are and trying to meet expectations of how people view you, it just completely undermines it all.

So this person is trying to undermine people’s perceptions and is frustrated that they cannot change them. Frustrated that they cannot change reality. Frustrated that when people see a male their expectations are that the person is male, regardless of what he wears. Frustrated that others don’t particularly care about what Eden thinks of Eden’s self.

“I just had facial surgery seven months ago, I've legally changed my name and I'm on hormones every day yet people still decide to ignore what they see in front of them.

Sorry, Eden, they are not ignoring what they see in front of them.

“It’s just unfair. It’s really, really unfair.”

Who ever said life was fair?

But He said something along the lines of ‘man, woman, whatever! God, what’s the world coming to, eh?’ reads more like the staff member was confused and did not understand what Eden wanted from him.

That interpretation is really stretching the bounds of credibility. This was a customer service situation - the remark was highly unprofessional if nothing else.

Taken at face value with what we know from the article this seems like a case of transphobia to me.

It does happen and it should be called out when it does.

And males demanding that we pretend they are women is not stretching the bounds of credibility?

Perhaps all passengers should be required to wear pronoun badges?

@Arbadacarba

Eden got on a train they weren’t entitled to use

This is speculation, but it's very easy to get caught out by Northern Rail's off-peak rule.

You can't get on a train before 9:30 am or between 4pm and 6:30pm (I think it's 6:30pm). That sounds easy enough, but the 4pm rule also applies to connecting services - so if you get on the 15:30 at Leeds, say, and it's a direct train getting you to your home station at 17:00 - fine. If you get on the 15:30 at Leeds but have to change onto the 16:20 at Bradford, say, that's not allowed. Many infrequent travellers get caught out by that one.

"Many infrequent travellers get caught out by that one."

Many ticket inspectors get caught out by men and women not being what they think they are.

These workers deal with thousands of different people, very very quickly, ever day. They make snap decisions!

@Arbadacarba

I wonder how they knew they were men

Presumably, they didn't correct Eden if/when she referred to them by male pronouns.

What if the staff just weren’t wearing their bra and acrylic nails that day? It’s very confusing.

These workers deal with thousands of different people, very very quickly, ever day. They make snap decisions!

Fine, but they were asked five times to stop addressing Eden as 'Sir'. If they came to the wrong decision and said it once, fair enough. But not five times. If they were ideologically opposed to using a female form of address then they could have asked for and used Eden's first name.

@Arbadacarba

That’s male privilege right there.

The station staff were male, so, no, it isn't about male privilege.

There might be another side to the story, of course, but we can only comment on the article as presented. Northern Rail haven't denied Eden's version of events.

The comment was “Why is everyone so willing to take Eden’s word for what happened? That’s male privilege right there.”.

Meaning that men tend to be taken at their word, while women perhaps are less so. I don’t think it relates to the incident, rather to the raft of people who are taking Eden’s complaint at face value. Not sure if it’s true, but that was what I took it to mean,

My experience of customer complaints is that very often, there has been a degree of grumpiness or rudeness on both sides. As someone else said, there’s one side’s version and the other side’s version, and then there’s the truth.

Did it happen though...

Meaning that men tend to be taken at their word, while women perhaps are less so. I don’t think it relates to the incident, rather to the raft of people who are taking Eden’s complaint at face value. Not sure if it’s true, but that was what I took it to mean

As I said before, we only have the wording of the article to go on - in which Northern Rail have not denied what happened - they've apologised for it. Of course I get that that may simply be a public relations decision on Northern Rail's behalf, but in a discussion of events as presented in an article, it isn't unreasonable to discuss the events at face value. Otherwise, we might just as well say 'It's probably all made up, so let's not entertain a discussion at all.'

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the article was about a natal woman who'd been repeatedly misgendered for whatever reason - do you think the absence of (perceived) 'male privilege' would mean everyone would say 'oh, that's all right then'?

Would a natal woman make a fuss and continuously correct a person missexing her if it wasn't relevant to the conversation? I know I wouldn't. I've not insisted that I not be called a lady even though I hate it.