The look at me of pronouns

[Ritascornershop]

Recently I’ve had two interactions that have startled me. One was with legal aid (I’m in Canada) where the young lawyer rang me and said “Hello this is Thomas from xx, my practice is x and my pronouns are he/him.” Just in case I thought someone with a male voice and whose name was Thomas might like me, when speaking to him, to refer to him in the third person as she/her. I laughed and pointed out that as I was speaking directly to him, his pronouns wouldn’t be relevant.

The other interaction was after I’d written my member of parliament’s office asking for an answer on something I couldn’t get a Ministry to answer me on. 3 months later I finally got a reply suggesting I contact that Ministry 🙄 and signing off “Benjamin Lastname, he/him, Useless Twat, Your MP’s office”.

I replied telling him it was useless information that should not have taken 3 months to cough up, and I didn’t care what his pronouns were and I wasn’t going to proffer mine as doing so for women tended to increase sexism in professional interactions.

Is this as rampant in the UK? It just seems so unprofessional and so “look at me!” I’ve no interest in how they hope people refer to them when they’re not there, I just want answers to my questions that they are qualified to provide.

We’ve had endless ‘discussions’ on a number of threads

Still highly disingenuous to suggest that I wasn't keen to have a debate, as if I don't want to.

[quote Helen8220]@Datun

Just because a belief is protected under the Equality Act does not mean that no one has the right to express disagreement with it. It doesn’t even mean that the person holding the belief has a right to express it in all circumstances, regardless of the impact on others.

The belief that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry (and many even more objectionable beliefs) are protected under the equality act, but that doesn’t mean I can’t challenge a colleague who chooses to express those views in the workplace[/quote]
Of course. You're perfectly free to 'challenge' people on the basis of their legally protected characteristics.

The point was, should you be an employer doing it to an employee, it would be considered illegal discrimination.

The belief that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry (and many even more objectionable beliefs) are protected under the equality act, but that doesn’t mean I can’t challenge a colleague who chooses to express those views in the workplace

You could both be guilty of harassment depending on the circumstances.

It is boringly attention seeking. Agreed OP

@Helen8220

I’m not sure where people got the impression that I go around my workplace haranguing people about their views. I made clear that I wouldn’t ask someone why they don’t state their pronouns in their email signature, or tell them that they should. But if someone chooses to tell me their reasons for not doing it, and I think those reasons are misconceived, what’s wrong with me responding with my own views? If a colleague told me they thought same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, or that they believed women are innately submissive, I would equally tell them that I disagree and why.

Hmmmmm.......you didn't say 'responding with my own views' though....did you @Helen8220 ?

This is what you said -

I wouldn’t pressure someone into stating their pronouns, although if they said they thought it was pointless/stupid/promoting an ideology I would challenge them on that and seek to have a discussion about it.

Discussing is fine, but they might not want to have that discussion with you. Disagreeing is also fine......but hold on, you said you would challenge them on that, which is a bit more confrontational than simply 'responding with my own views'.

I think you know full well that in this current climate, you would be able to get your HR to support you and that you would have the upperhand in this, because after all, you're just trying to be kind and inclusive (although I'm not sure how that extends to you giving yourself a license to police other colleague about their pronoun views). I do think HR would be silly to support you though, given the Maya Forstater ruling and it's influence on further cases. You could be challenged back as someone who is trying to bully colleagues into believing things they have a right not to believe in. Bully is the right word here because of the power dynamic in this situation caused by the current political climate, and because women are scared to lose their jobs because someone like you decides to pull them aside and have a little chat with them one day about their wrong-think. Some women who are more scared of confrontation or who are in a vulnerable position would be in anxious knots over that.

If you want to tell colleagues that not using someone's preferred pronouns is hurtful, you might have a leg to stand on (although there are good counter arguments to that), but trying to challenge someone on their personal views about how their frame their own identity (which is what you would be doing if you got into deeper conversation about this), is patronising and massively oversteps your authority.

Also, nice try with regards to trying to get us on-side with this -

or that they believed women are innately submissive

its influence on further cases*

Also, you still haven't answered my questions (as far as I'm aware), which were -

Why are you 'she/her'?

To be unsure of someone's sex, that means that you must feel you are at times able to correctly sex someone. How is it possible to be even be unsure of someone's sex, if sex is all on a spectrum? Wouldn't it then be infinite different shades, where it's not possible to distinguish one from the other? Where there are no binaries?

Are you so confident of your positions that you challenge someone on their views in front of their employment lawyer?

[quote Helen8220]@EarthSight
This is exactly the problem that women face. Would you be willing to have that little discussion with an employee in the presence of an employment lawyer?

I don’t understand your question - do you mean would I have the conversation with a person that I employ in the presence of an employment lawyer? I don’t employ anyone so it’s not really relevant.[/quote]
It's extremely relevant. Say you started to have this 'discussion' with a colleague who then took it very seriously, they could potentially go to HR and get legal representation to be present at further meetings which might have involve you (given you're the one who challenged them in the first place).

[quote Helen8220]@Feelingmardy

Shall we kick off a discussion Helen? Genuinely I would be interested to know how, when we live in a world where the atrocities to females (sex-based, nothing to do with identity) such as those currently occurring in Aghanistan, are so commonplace why you think we do not need sex-based protections. Do you not believe in any affirmative action for oppressed groups? How do you try and make sure that your position of privilege is not blinding you to the realities of other people's situations? Do you believe you can talk for all oppressed groups who have experiences which your privilege has protected you from?

You’re basically asking me to write an essay, which I’m afraid I don’t have time to do, sorry. I came here to put the other side of the pronoun argument, as no one else seemed to be, but your questions are straying very far from that.[/quote]
Many people disagree that this is straying. This is the context in which people are stating their pronouns and the.ideology which the practice supports. If you do decide to challenge someone who does not want to state their pronouns, it would be important to answer these kind of questions. Otherwise it will not be a discussion, it would be virtue signalling.

If a colleague told me they thought same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, or that they believed women are innately submissive, I would equally tell them that I disagree and why.

By genuflecting at the altar of gender ideology by encouraging pronoun pronouncements, you are signalling that you think women are inherently submissive. Because the whole house of cards is built on perpetuating gender stereotypes like this.

@OnlyTheLangOfTheTitberg

If a colleague told me they thought same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, or that they believed women are innately submissive, I would equally tell them that I disagree and why.

By genuflecting at the altar of gender ideology by encouraging pronoun pronouncements, you are signalling that you think women are inherently submissive. Because the whole house of cards is built on perpetuating gender stereotypes like this.

It's true. It's why nobody can define 'gender identity' - they know that the moment they start to explain it, the fact that it is all based on stereotypes will be brought into the open.

I mean, someone could disprove this assertion right now by providing an alternative explanation of 'gender identity' but they won't. I've been waiting for two years. Others on this board have been waiting a lot longer than two years.

'Choosing' pronouns according to one's 'gender identity' just goes along with stereotypes. Otherwise there would be no need for non-binary pronouns.

It’s really not a good idea to criticise somebody’s personal beliefs when implementing work place policy.

For comparison “It is company policy that employees shouldn’t signify their religion in their dress” might be discriminatory, but would be much more likely to be regarded as discriminatory if accompanied with a critique of religious belief.

It would be particularly bad to imply that a protected characteristic isn’t recognised.

Neutral and compliant with the law is the best strategy for an employer.

The idea that the use of ‘preferred ’ pronouns in a workspace can be divorced from a wider societal context is laughable

And yes I’d take any suggestion of a ‘discussion’ about it from someone senior ti né about it ti mean “nice job you have there, shame of something happened to it….”

‘Preferred’ implies an element of choice. Therefore it can change.

I would ‘prefer’ not to be 50 and clapped out. I would prefer not to have health issues. I would prefer not to be harangued by other staff members who are hell bent on dismantling sex based rights by making them irrelevant.

The idea that the use of ‘preferred ’ pronouns in a workspace can be divorced from a wider societal context is laughable
This. It isn't a neutral statement. Including pronouns in an email signature, for example, indicates a belief in genderism, and indicates support for the notion that theybies are literally non-women because they say they are.
Non-binary people reinforce the binary by "opting-out" of it. It's peak "not like the other girls".
If I was asked to include my religion or my clothing size on email signatures it would be inappropriate, however preferred pronouns are somehow OK to ask for?
And what does it say if I put "she/her"? Am I agreeing with being labelled "cis"? Am I in agreement with whatever stereotypes genderists attach to femaleness? Does "she/her" mean I agree I like shopping and getting my nails done? What if that's what a man using "she/her" means by it, but not what I mean by it?
And why is it overwhelmingly women who comply with these requests while men ignore them? Female socialisation, "being kind", or just more pressure on women to be compliant?

@EarthSight

Also, you still haven't answered my questions (as far as I'm aware), which were -

Why are you 'she/her'?

I have the primary sexual characteristics which generally result from xx chromosomes, and as a result was registered at birth as female, given a name which is typically associated with girls and women, and consistently referred to as ‘she’ or ‘her’, and told that I was a girl. Despite my parents being pretty feminist and anti- gender stereotypes, I inevitably observed and absorbed a huge amount of cultural and societal bias and many powerful expectations about what it means to be a girl or a woman. Over time this idea of myself as a ‘woman’ came to be deeply ingrained in my sense of self. I am not comfortable with (and do not conform to) all of the constituent norms that fed into that concept, but I do conform to a fair number. I am used to - and comfortable - being regarded by others as a woman, and referred to as she or her.

To be unsure of someone's sex, that means that you must feel you are at times able to correctly sex someone. How is it possible to be even be unsure of someone's sex, if sex is all on a spectrum? Wouldn't it then be infinite different shades, where it's not possible to distinguish one from the other? Where there are no binaries?

As many people on MN have observed many times, the vast majority of people have xx or XY chromosomes, and primary sexual characteristics that align with those chromosomes. Their sex is recorded at birth as male or female on the basis of their visible primary sexual characteristics. Most people go on to develop a range of secondary sexual characteristics that align with their primary sexual characteristics, and can often be observed even when a person is clothed. It is therefore possible in many cases to deduce from elements of a person’s appearance or presentation (eg voice) whether they are likely to have been recorded at birth as male or female.

Are you so confident of your positions that you challenge someone on their views in front of their employment lawyer?

Again, I would not raise the subject with someone at work, but if they raised it with me I would enter into a discussion, and if I disagreed with them, I would say so. I would have no problem having that discussion in front of anyone. I am a lawyer and many of the people I interact with on a daily basis are lawyers. We are generally all quite aware of what is and is not appropriate to say in the workplace.

Well if I said no thanks to a pronoun ritual I would not want to discuss it with you as no is the final answer.

TBscrupulouslyF to Helen8220, she did say she would only ‘challenge’ if the person volunteered a reason why they didn’t agree with using preferred pronouns, not if they simply said “no thank you” or similar. I don’t necessarily agree that said challenge would be appropriate, but I don’t think a pile-on on the false premise that she’d take anyone to task for not using such pronouns themselves full stop is appropriate either.

Despite my parents being pretty feminist and anti- gender stereotypes, I inevitably observed and absorbed a huge amount of cultural and societal bias and many powerful expectations about what it means to be a girl or a woman.

So if you were suddenly transported to a time or place where, say, women had no right to vote, own property, refuse marriage or go out in public without a man, would you then cease to be known by the pronoun 'she'? Because you hadn't absorbed that cultural and societal bias? Would you identify as something other than a woman in such a society?

We are generally all quite aware of what is and is not appropriate to say in the workplace.

Clearly that's not always the case, or law firms would never be taken to tribunals.

*Why are you 'she/her'?

I have the primary sexual characteristics which generally result from xx chromosomes, and as a result was registered at birth as female, given a name which is typically associated with girls and women, and consistently referred to as ‘she’ or ‘her’, and told that I was a girl. Despite my parents being pretty feminist and anti- gender stereotypes, I inevitably observed and absorbed a huge amount of cultural and societal bias and many powerful expectations about what it means to be a girl or a woman. Over time this idea of myself as a ‘woman’ came to be deeply ingrained in my sense of self. I am not comfortable with (and do not conform to) all of the constituent norms that fed into that concept, but I do conform to a fair number. I am used to - and comfortable - being regarded by others as a woman, and referred to as she or her.*

This is a very coherent reply. For me, though, this just introduces more challenge. I am used to being described as a woman, but I do not wish to imply that in 'preferring' the pronoun woman I also feel that the cultural and societal bias that you feel you have. For me, this is not an identity that fits. If stating a preferred pronoun is a pronouncement such as the one you feel you are making, I am not happy to make that pronouncement. Even if I mean it differently, I think people might well interpret it as you say. Perhaps those people who feel they have been unable to not absorb these stereotypes, or believe that have absorbed them in a way significant enough to identify with them, can state their pronouns and those of us who relate to them differently (perhaps see them as something which should be obliterated rather than lived with) can not be pressurized to 'state our preferred pronouns' given that is inevitably suggesting a relationship with those stereotypes which people who don't wish to state their pronouns don't have.

[quote Helen8220]@EarthSight

Also, you still haven't answered my questions (as far as I'm aware), which were -

Why are you 'she/her'?

I have the primary sexual characteristics which generally result from xx chromosomes, and as a result was registered at birth as female, given a name which is typically associated with girls and women, and consistently referred to as ‘she’ or ‘her’, and told that I was a girl. Despite my parents being pretty feminist and anti- gender stereotypes, I inevitably observed and absorbed a huge amount of cultural and societal bias and many powerful expectations about what it means to be a girl or a woman. Over time this idea of myself as a ‘woman’ came to be deeply ingrained in my sense of self. I am not comfortable with (and do not conform to) all of the constituent norms that fed into that concept, but I do conform to a fair number. I am used to - and comfortable - being regarded by others as a woman, and referred to as she or her.

To be unsure of someone's sex, that means that you must feel you are at times able to correctly sex someone. How is it possible to be even be unsure of someone's sex, if sex is all on a spectrum? Wouldn't it then be infinite different shades, where it's not possible to distinguish one from the other? Where there are no binaries?

As many people on MN have observed many times, the vast majority of people have xx or XY chromosomes, and primary sexual characteristics that align with those chromosomes. Their sex is recorded at birth as male or female on the basis of their visible primary sexual characteristics. Most people go on to develop a range of secondary sexual characteristics that align with their primary sexual characteristics, and can often be observed even when a person is clothed. It is therefore possible in many cases to deduce from elements of a person’s appearance or presentation (eg voice) whether they are likely to have been recorded at birth as male or female.

Are you so confident of your positions that you challenge someone on their views in front of their employment lawyer?

Again, I would not raise the subject with someone at work, but if they raised it with me I would enter into a discussion, and if I disagreed with them, I would say so. I would have no problem having that discussion in front of anyone. I am a lawyer and many of the people I interact with on a daily basis are lawyers. We are generally all quite aware of what is and is not appropriate to say in the workplace.[/quote]
You’re being disingenuous here with your use of many/most/a vast number of…etc.

Pretty much by the age of four or so, with a few exceptions, ALL children can tell if a person is male or female. In all my 50-odd years, I have NEVER been in any doubt as to a person’s sex - EVER. Yes, of course I am talking about “sex registered at birth” - there is no other sex. It’s absolutely extraordinary the lengths you go to to make it sound as if NOT being able to tell someone’s sex is actually quite commonplace. I don’t believe it is.

I’m talking about sex, not gender - I don’t believe in the latter. I don’t care how someone “presents” (loving all these new expressions, as if talking about something more important/elevated), people can wear whatever they like, BUT being able to tell someone’s sex is something we learn very quickly as small children. We observe, we absorb…we get it.

So please, please stop this tedious strand of your argument whereby “most” people can tell which sex another person is.

I chose a gender neutral name for my Dd for the reason that I didn't want her facing discrimination (or at least a small amount less) and it pisses me off she now has to clarify that she is she/her in professional communications.

Load of bullshit especially when it's something like "Emily-Rose" all long hair and lipstick telling us she's she/her. Of course you bloody are you woke twat

@astoundedgoat

Hmm. I’m pretty gender critical, but I don’t mind this. If I’m emailing back and forth with Alex McStranger, or Sandy, Chris etc OR an Asian name - for instance Harpreet is a male, Jaspreet is a female, but would you definitely have known that? Or an email from Wei or Xiang. Are you sure you know what gender they are? So sure that you are positive you won’t cause offence when you refer to “her” in a cc’d email?

You DON’T always know. Equally, does my fictional Xiang know whether the Sam she is referring to is a man or a woman?

So it might be slightly silly from a gender identity perspective (which is probably how many are using it), especially if your name is Manly McBrawny, but more broadly, it’s very useful. You might argue that you don’t NEED to know the sex or gender of the person on the other end of an email, but from a relationship-building perspective, it’s important.

I’m in favour.

Or you could just ask. Or refer to Xiang as just that in any following emails Or google Xiang to see if it's a traditional male name? Or just assume and be corrected, as has happened for aeons before this, with the same offence taken (I.e none, as people make mistakes) as 'you spelled my name wrong'?

Helen8220 it’s interesting how tentative you are in suggesting you are female:

I have the primary sexual characteristics which generally result from xx chromosomes
...was registered at birth as female
...this idea of myself as a ‘woman’ came to be deeply ingrained in my sense of self
...am used to - and comfortable - being regarded by others as a woman

but at no point do you commit yourself to “I am female” or “I am a woman”.

You are similarly tentative about other people, for example whether they are likely to have been recorded at birth as male or female not “whether they are male or female”.

Do you even accept that people can be a sex, or is it just about how other people perceive them?