Do pronouns feel alien to anyone else?

[janeseymour78]

By this, I mean I have friends who are 100% pro pronouns as a show of support and we've had our debates, and then there are others who say it is unhealthy to reinforce stereotypes, eg. By using them on work signatures

For me though, adding she/her pronouns to everything and even having being asked what they are verbally, she/her feels alien to me in a visceral way. I'm curious about this because I have several friends who don't share that feeling at all.

Im GC and I don't believe people are binary. I have elements of feminity and masculinity that whatever else that form who I am. I know I'm a woman, I have endometriosis so I'm painfully aware, as well as all the other reasons women are made aware of their sex.

It comes down to adding 'she/her' to everything would not feel right to me, as though it didn't reflect me. It would like I was falsely reinforcing my womanhood when I don't live my life that way or feel that way. Am I making sense? Do others feel this way?

You are imposing it, and you are no different than a homophobe imposing a homophobic definition of marriage based on the "biology reality of reproduction".

Marriage is a religious construct, not biological reality. So no.

It makes zero sense to me. If a work colleague starts using them, they instantly go down in my estimation, and I question their intelligence. It’s pointless virtue signalling.

Julia
She/her

You could also add:

Two eyes
One nose
One belly button
etc etc

and other bits of blindingly obvious information for all it adds to that person’s ability to do their job.

Well too bad, the world at large already accepts trans people's identities. Maybe it's you who needs to adjust.You're using sexism here, to try to play into my female socialisation to get me to conform and be a 'nice girl' - if everyone else is OK with this, then I should be too. You're just proving my point that your ideas of 'man' and 'woman' equate with sexist stereotypes, as do all the others of your ilk who post on here. You underestimate women and their capacities for logical thought, I'm afraid, because you are a sexist.

> You can't see that a woman can behave/dress/exist in any manner and still be woman

I do, actually. I don't see how that conflicts with trans women being women.

Not all trans women wear dresses. Trans women's identity is not in any way contingent on wearing dresses, or on any stereotypes.

It's all a matter of identity, nothing else.

> That's why when a man has breast implants

Most trans women have no "breast implants", but rather grow breasts in response to hormones, just like the beasts in non-trans women.

Moreover, are you saying breasts are a "stereotype" ?

I couldn’t disagree more.

TW can’t suffer from misogyny because by definition, misogyny is directed at females. TW are not female - because if they were, they wouldn’t be TW.

The words "man" and "woman" are a social construct, not biological reality.

The words man and woman are the names which have been given to adult human beings of each of the two sexes. Male- man. Female-woman.

As I said, it couldn't care less whether you think misogynistic treatment directed at trans women "doesn't count" because trans women were born with the "wrong" genitals to "qualify".

It doesn't change the fact trans women face the same abusive treatment.

And the word "marriage" was the name which had been given to a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of making babies.

Same argument, same bigotry, just a different target.

Of course it counts as abuse. It's just something different to misogyny.

Moreover, are you saying breasts are a "stereotype" ?
They are a superficial physical feature. A man who develops breasts, with whatever method, is not a woman. To suggest so is an insult to women everywhere, the oppression that women face and have always faced for all time in every country of the world. The sheer gall shown by anyone claiming that a man can be a woman by 'identifying' with a bunch of sexist stereotypes only reveals the male privilege and misogyny underlying any such claim.

And the word "marriage" was the name which had been given to a union

Yes, it's based in religion. Not biological reality, like having names for adult female people and adult male people.

Is calling a male rabbit a buck a "construct", or is it just the name for a male rabbit?

Can a male rabbit be a doe? If not, why?

Where did I say that abuse “doesn’t count”? I’m clarifying the correct use of the word “misogyny”.

Clarity of language is very important.

I note that you don't manage to respond to the issue of why it is important to write a definition of 'woman' into law.

And as PP said, I'll refer to a transman as a he to be polite, but anyone who gets pregnant is a biological female. That's how mammalian biology works.

@SeldomHere
This argument doesn’t stand up because you’re not comparing like with like.

Also, @SeldomHere I see you use the term 'cis women.'

If you're going to be lecturing me on my use of pronouns, can you desist from using a term for me that I find downright bloody annoying. I reject the term 'cis'. I am a woman. That's it.

Not all trans women wear dresses. Trans women's identity is not in any way contingent on wearing dresses, or on any stereotypes.

It's all a matter of identity, nothing else.
Exactly. And identity is not relevant. I don't have anything in common with a tw that I don't also have in common with a man. You are basically saying that gender identity is entirely in someone's head - so what relevance does that have to anyone else?

On this thread you have called us bigots and assholes and cis (which afaik is against mn guidelines) while everyone has been civil to you. You can't bully women into accepting tw as women. It's just not going to happen. That doesn't mean we lack respect or want to destroy anyone. It just means that we recognise sex as being more relevant to our lives.

I've never heard such sophistry as this "social categories of man and woman" balls.

If social conventions have evolved to meet the needs of/address the perceived problems posed by a certain sex, we can say with certainty that those conventions may not suit each member of that sex, and that members of that sex might prefer to opt out of some or all of them.

E.g. women's clothes in different societies will generally be designed (in varying proportions depending on the culture and the stage of life) for some mix of practicality for women's activities (less relevant in our technologically advanced age but still seen in maternity and nursing clothes), perceived need for modesty/protection from men, and also enhancing sexual attraction (e.g. corsets creating hourglass figure to help attract a husband). Some women might not like some features of women's clothes in their culture - fine.

It is nonsense to say that those conventions constitute a "social category" which the opposite sex can opt into. For one thing, a social category depends on being recognised by other people.

Some want the "social category" because it relates to the opposite sex, not because it just so happens by coincidence to meet all the requirements of their unworldly inner souls.

I'd also be interested to know which aspects of the "social category" of women TW are keen on participating in - childcare? Housework? Or just being addressed with a woman's name and wearing the clothes? How is this a social category, other than in the mind of the individual? Am I supposed to consider myself to be in the same category?

Ooh, have we had an answer yet about what it means to have a 'woman' identity? How do I know if I have a woman identity, a man identity or neither?

Just popping in to point out, again, that just because the words we use to describe phenomena in the world are a social construct (in that the word 'cat', 'neko', 'chat', 'Katze') this does not mean that the thing itself (cats) are a social construct. Cats themselves are a biological species that do not depend on human thought and discourse for their existence, whereas the word 'cat' is a linguistic convention that does require human thought for its existence.

But it's a basic error to mistake the label, the word, for the thing itself and to infer that because the label is a social construct the thing is also a social construct. The words 'sex', 'male' and 'female' are social constructs, but this does not mean the underlying reality (biological sex, which is an evolved property to facilitate reproduction ) is also a social construct. We could label the reproductive sexes anything we like, but this doesn't change the fact that in reality there are still two reproductive sex roles which we call male and female.

It's also a very strange argument. If you go down the path that sex/gender is a social construct, and so we can identify as anything we like (which appears to suggest that social constructs aren't real, and are entirely down to our whims) then why does this argument ONLY apply to gender? I don't particularly give a shit about my 'gender' but I would very much like to shave a few years off my age. Why can't I self identify as 21 years old? Why can't I self identify as ANYTHING else? If sex/gender is a social construct then so is every other social concept...age, race, ethnicity, class, etc. And I don't see gender enthusiasts advocating for us to identify as anything we like, so why is that?

You are the only one who talks about stereotypes, despite me telling you repeatedly that it's got nothing to do with that.

But I get it, it's a convenient line, so you're not willing to ever give it up.

Otherwise you'd have to confront the fact you're just attacking people for breaking away from the rigid gender norms imposed on them based on their "sex".

Can you desist from saying "transwomen" instead of "trans women", and from policing whether trans women are referred to as women?

Otherwise you'd have to confront the fact you're just attacking people for breaking away from the rigid gender norms imposed on them based on their "sex".

Nobody is attacking anyone.
What we are saying. (Well me anyway. Not going to speak for everyone) is that breaking away from those 'gender norms' doesn't make you the opposite sex. Or I opposite gender. It makes you a man who likes x or a woman who likes y.

My own ds2 is pretty 'gnc'. He's still a boy because as he so subtly words it "I have a dick and male chromosomes". He's breaking away from gender norms whilst still being a boy.