pronouns - can you help me understand their importance?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

My grasp of grammar is rudimentary - so this may be a fundamental misunderstanding...(and here comes the)...but...

if the purpose of a pronoun is to replace a person's name or descriptor in a conversation when the person is not there then why is it important?

The person to whom gender is important is absent and not part of the conversation, so, why are specific pronouns relevant? The person will never really know whether their preferred pronouns are used, respected, forgotten or dismissed.

I really have tried to understand, and have drawn a blank.

@LaetitiaASD

deny biological reality in your interactions with me, is what I meant

Worked well first time

Vice well, that's you, not me. I don't mind being misgendered at all because I have no personal sense of gender.

Your example is one where the person being discussed is present.

What I wondering is why the language matters when the person is not there? Why should they care? Why is it "problematic" to slip up when a person isn't present ?

TBH, I need the visual stimulus of having this trans woman in front of me to remember to use she/her. Without the visual incongruence of what I see as a male middle aged person dressed in clothing which is not traditional for someone like that then I just forget.

I'm not convinced that comes from a place of hate. I'm just talking to someone else abut the task/message/issue that person is involved in, and not specially about that person at all in that moment.

I am beginning to suspect that is where the problem lies - that this person does not understand that they are in not the forefront of everyone's minds all of the time.

PP have said about this being a tool of control - and that does feel like a fit.

It's certainly causing a nuisance in my office.

@LaetitiaASD

Agreed.

But not only that, when I use pronouns I am referring to what matters to me and what I believe matters to society - biological sex and reality. So not only are trans extremists asking me to lie (that I pretend to see someone as a woman when I see a man), they're asking me to use pronouns based on gender when I've always used them for sex.

It is all about narcissism and relying on the validation you get from others

"Old school transsexuals" - full surgery - seem to take a different view - they seems to tend towards the view that trans women are men, and that whilst it is nice to have the validation of being referred to as "she", they're not relying on validation nor do they expect others to deny the reality that they are men if they don;t want to,

Well, like other trans peole, I have occasionally found myself being referred to as 'it' in e-mails, or on one occasion shouted by a receptionist to a hotel owner when they thought I was out of earshot. When I last looked, I wasnt an inanimate object.

I'm an 'old school transsexual'. Please dont think for a moment that the Debbie Haytons of this world represent the views of other than a tiny fraction of trans people. They don't.

Coercive control involves a real fear of telling other people the truth about a man when he isn't around.

Coercive controllers make you think that lying for him even when he isn't there is normal and expected and telling the truth is egregious mistreatment of him. Women subject to coercive control often prefer to think of it as her choice, just being a kind person who protects her hard done by man, rather than think about his reaction and his supporters' reactions if she decided not to lie to everyone in her life about him. He doesn't feel the same obligation to lie to protect her from judgement, in fact he often tells tales about her that present her in a bad light if she steps out of line.

Well, imagine being referred to as body parts by 'The Lancet' and many other supposedly secular, mainstream publication. At the behest, and in the interests of furthering male entitlement. women across the globe are being side swiped by this misogynistic ideological reach being imposed from the top down. In an authoritarian manner and in the guise of 'rights'.

Goodness, we even have to watch males in drag calling each other 'bitch' in some grotesque parody. Imagine white people in blackface calling each other the 'n' word, being pushed as mainstream entertainment. Not to mention misogynistic slurs women encounter on a daily basis.

I have never come across anyone being called 'it'. Only a character in 'Silence of the Lambs'. And the 'it' being referred to was a woman.

Now, someone may refer to one of my cats as 'it'. I even put them right on that. I have a 'he' and I have a 'she'.

I believe people have a "real" gender and would only use any other pronoun if it was is the law. That said I don't want to offend people so would where possible avoid any conversations or people who have a problem with this.
More and more I feel that views such as mine are viewed "incorrect" - the sad thing is I think the majority think like me.

@RobinMoiraWhite Well, like other trans peole, I have occasionally found myself being referred to as 'it' in e-mails, or on one occasion shouted by a receptionist to a hotel owner when they thought I was out of earshot. When I last looked, I wasnt an inanimate object.

I'm an 'old school transsexual'. Please dont think for a moment that the Debbie Haytons of this world represent the views of other than a tiny fraction of trans people. They don't.

Forgive me for having zero sympathy re: paragraph one. I'd like to think that I'd never refer to a trans person as "it", but please know that if I ever meet someone and they are trying to impose an insane misogynistic, homophobic and nonsensical stonewall approved ideology on me then my respect for them is as low as the person who refers to you as it.

Thanks for the info re: the numbers of decent trans people - I won;t waste my time standing up for the ones who respect sex based rights if there are hardly any of them anyway.

BitMuch that is very helpful, thank you.

You have made a penny drop - that is EXACTLY how I feel about this pronoun business at my work. Someone else has imposed a rule to control my behaviour and attempt to control my thoughts - I hadn't thought of it as coercive control, but I do recognise what you are saying.

I'm an 'old school transsexual'. Please dont think for a moment that the Debbie Haytons of this world represent the views of other than a tiny fraction of trans people. They don't.

Debbie Hayton does try to understand the concerns that women have around gender, and Debbie does recognise the potential and proven dangers to women when men identify themselves as women.

You have now made it clear that most trans people don't think women's rights and safety are important. Most women did suspect this I am sure, hence the battle for years to retain their single sex rights. And you have confirmed this fact for them. Any of those who were sitting on the fence can certainly free themselves of the need to be inclusive /kind now, if they had been struggling with that idea before, and get on with protecting their own rights.

Someone who listens and writes about how women and girls are afraid, at risk and excluded by behaviour like men using women's toilets and then continues to use women's toilets like Hayton does makes me feel very cold.

I don't think the bar for acceptable male behaviour should be lowered at all from what we expect from other men. I know plenty of men who don't use women's toilets, don't want to control my language or monitor Mumsnet and I don't think they should be praised for any of that.

Grayson Perry says that the thrill is from people being aware he is a man when he dresses as 'Claire', he found it very boring when people didn't look twice at him. I'm not going to praise Perry for choosing to go into primary schools wearing clothes he says he wears for fetish reasons just because he doesn't request female pronouns during it. imgflip.com/i/4rbfnm

@TimOTey

I'm an 'old school transsexual'. Please dont think for a moment that the Debbie Haytons of this world represent the views of other than a tiny fraction of trans people. They don't.

Debbie Hayton does try to understand the concerns that women have around gender, and Debbie does recognise the potential and proven dangers to women when men identify themselves as women.

You have now made it clear that most trans people don't think women's rights and safety are important. Most women did suspect this I am sure, hence the battle for years to retain their single sex rights. And you have confirmed this fact for them. Any of those who were sitting on the fence can certainly free themselves of the need to be inclusive /kind now, if they had been struggling with that idea before, and get on with protecting their own rights.

Where to begin? I have strong suspicion about Debbie Hayton's motives and dont really think that they extend much beyond her own interests.

As far as women's rights are concerned, you conflate YOUR view of how they are best advanced with active positive steps that make a eal difference. When I was a manager in industry I appointed a number of female collegues to roles never held by women before. In my legal work I ran a number of cases which argued for the protection of women in discrimination cases under what are now the harassment provisions of the Equality Act but had to be amended in to the Sex Discrimination Act after a campaign of which I was part - section 4A, do look it up.

My view, and you are, of course, entitled to disagree with me, is that there are many ways to advance the rights of disadvantaged groups but stamping down on other disadvantaged groups - like trans people - isnt the way and just gives those who dont believe in individual rights a warm glow.

No doubt we will follow our separate paths but I know mine lets me sleep easily.

We would probably be viewed as transphobic in my business. We have worked hard to build the business and can't afford to have a pile on or anything as a result of offending a transperson but I am firmly GC. As a result, we use names or they at all times.

So "the customer in reception would like to speak to you", "Mrs x is on the phone asking if they can have y", "this customer would like to know if it is possible for them to do z" and so on.

Not ideal but no hassle so far and we have had a couple of customers who are trans.

Where to begin? I have strong suspicion about Debbie Hayton's motives and dont really think that they extend much beyond her own interests.

I agree. I also feel much the same about you.

As far as women's rights are concerned, you conflate YOUR view of how they are best advanced with active positive steps that make a eal difference. When I was a manager in industry I appointed a number of female collegues to roles never held by women before. In my legal work I ran a number of cases which argued for the protection of women in discrimination cases under what are now the harassment provisions of the Equality Act but had to be amended in to the Sex Discrimination Act after a campaign of which I was part - section 4A, do look it up.

Don't need to look it up thanks. It's one thing advancing women's rights. It's another thing to conflate them with mens rights so they no longer have any meaning. Sound familiar to you?

My view, and you are, of course, entitled to disagree with me, is that there are many ways to advance the rights of disadvantaged groups but stamping down on other disadvantaged groups - like trans people - isnt the way and just gives those who dont believe in individual rights a warm glow.

It's a shame you don't consider women's rights when stamping down on them with trans rights.

No doubt we will follow our separate paths but I know mine lets me sleep easily.

Mine does too. And you're right. We certainly are not on the same path. And likely never will be.

stamping down on other disadvantaged groups - like trans people

Serious question. In what way are trans people disadvantaged?

It's a way of sorting out who is willing to lie about reality in order to make their lives easier.

We often use a person’s pronouns in group discussions.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission have guidance that a states deliberate misgendering is harassment.

If however you believe that trans people should have exactly the same rights as all humans have (no discrimination for being trans) and the same rights as all of their particular sex have (no discrimination for their sex),

That’s rights for gender non nonconforming people. It’s not relevant to transsexual people. Or transgender depending on how that is defined.

AND the right to campaign for and have third spaces for everyone who is uncomfortable in the single sex provision designed for them

That may be relevant to people who want mixed sex provision or non-binary. It’s not relevant to transsexual people who transition their sex and need recognition and protection as that sex. Which they currently do have under the GRA.

then I don't think you can be called transphobic.

Harassing a transsexual person is definitely transphobic.

It's perfectly possible to use someone's pronouns in their presence - you could easily be talking about them to someone else, with them there. And they usually denote a person''s gender so they matter in that sense, unless you absolutely don't care how someone refers to you. I wouldn't want to be referred to as 'he', even in my absence, and certainly not in my presence.
I get why you might not like people asking you to use particular pronouns, but don't understand why you've drawn a blank on this.

@Fieldofgreycorn

We often use a person’s pronouns in group discussions.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission have guidance that a states deliberate misgendering is harassment.

If however you believe that trans people should have exactly the same rights as all humans have (no discrimination for being trans) and the same rights as all of their particular sex have (no discrimination for their sex),

That’s rights for gender non nonconforming people. It’s not relevant to transsexual people. Or transgender depending on how that is defined.

AND the right to campaign for and have third spaces for everyone who is uncomfortable in the single sex provision designed for them

That may be relevant to people who want mixed sex provision or non-binary. It’s not relevant to transsexual people who transition their sex and need recognition and protection as that sex. Which they currently do have under the GRA.

then I don't think you can be called transphobic.

Harassing a transsexual person is definitely transphobic.

I don't feel you've actually addressed anything in your response.

#nodebate because #noargument

It is my opinion that everyone has rights based on their biological sex, ie whether they are a man or a woman, and simply for being human,

It is my opinion that trans people have those rights already - and more, and there should probably be a roll back let alone stopping the insane path we're on.

The only rights trans people shouldn't have are the right to use opposite sex spaces based on gender identity or transition, which means nothing according to biological reality or the vast majority of people, and the right to force others to play along with their delusion.

Why should gender identity be of relevance to the law and society? Full stop, why?

If it should be, why should it be of more relevance to the law and society than sex?

People have a right to the pronouns of their sex. That's the right all people have. People don't have a right to be referred to as the sex they don't have.People also have a right to describe what they see with their own eyes as accurately as possible.

And if forced (because that’s the way it’s heading), we can all play along and say ‘she’.

It doesn’t mean for a minute that we believe you’re a ‘she’.

I've skimmed the thread. I use preferred pronouns based on gender not sex. I've thought about it and heard others discussing it and to me there is no way round it for the reason that it makes a difference. It does alter the way you think. The 18 year old undiagnosed autistic girl I know who has transitioned to live as a man now uses male honorifics and requesrs male pronouns and I have absolutely no wish to hurt or upset her or her parents so I use male pronouns because the little they have told me suggests that's what they want. I hate everything about that situation but I don't hate her. I love her and I have no wish to upset her and no responsibility for her.

It feels nice here to be able to say that she's a girl but of course using male pronouns makes it more likely over time that I will think of her as a man. That's why it's being asked for. Language matters and it's political. If I could think of her as a trans woman, which would be perfectly reasonable from a linguistic point of view - she's a woman who has transitioned - I would never move towards thinking of her as a man.

Feminists know this stuff matters, that being referred to as chicks, bints and dollybirds had an impact on how people think of women and act towards them. I feel huge mental resistance to being asked to deny reality to say an 18 year old woman has become a man but I comply and I understand totally why so many articles and cases involve people such as Maya Forstater and Professor Stock assuring all comers that they use preferred pronouns. This is one that I can resist only by not requesting pronouns myself, I can't hurt others for the sake of it.

@UnsuitableHat

It's perfectly possible to use someone's pronouns in their presence - you could easily be talking about them to someone else, with them there. And they usually denote a person''s gender so they matter in that sense, unless you absolutely don't care how someone refers to you. I wouldn't want to be referred to as 'he', even in my absence, and certainly not in my presence. I get why you might not like people asking you to use particular pronouns, but don't understand why you've drawn a blank on this.

It is rude to refer to someone as he/her in their presence - you should use their name. And pronouns donate the persons sex as they have always done. This is forcing a change of language on people based on a harmful belief system most people do not adhere to.

I have worked alongside people of all beliefs and none but I can't recall any previous situation where I've been expected to endorse these beliefs. I'm also fairly confident that anyone who tried to impose their belief system on their colleagues would have had a rocket up their arse from their manager. Until now.

I think there's a confusion sometimes of what pronouns actually mean in a grammatical sense. Like someone might wear a badge saying "she/her" and get upset by someone saying "thanks sir" or similar - it's a "misgendering" but not strictly a failure to use preferred pronouns. The pronouns are being used as a general signifier of desired identity rather than for specific use in contexts where you use pronouns.