I am embracing virtue signalling pronouns in emails

[MsFogi]

I have realised I have made too many assumptions about gender over the years. I had always assumed that Paul (name changed of course) in my company was a man simply on the basis of his appearance (well over 6 foot, well built, big beard, low voice that only someone with an Adam's apple and whose balls have dropped could have). Imagine my relief to find that I have not been misgendering him for over a decade because he has helpfully added his pronouns to his email auto signature - they are he/him/his. There is no company diktat to add pronouns on emails so clearly this is important to Paul or maybe he has been misgendered recently.

So, I thought I would ensure that Paul was not offended on a Teams meeting this afternoon and kicked off the meeting by asking everyone to note that Paul's pronouns are he/him/his and that given that he has stated these that everyone please be sensitive to ensuring that they use them. No one said anything so I think they all took it on board, no one misgendered Paul and I like to think that his move to include his pronouns at work has been embraced in my meeting. Maybe as a result others that attended the meeting will add theirs to their auto signatures too.

That all makes a lot of sense. Only sometimes I fear the trans community that shout the loudest on media platforms do not represent the true wishes and needs of the larger trans majority. Much like any media platform becomes an echo chamber for those with the most extreme voices. The trans women I know of in ‘real life’ do not wish to be named as true women, they wish to be only trans women - a subset from women, in a world that orders that you define yourself in order to participate in the very basics of day to day life. I am concerned their well-being, as the true majority and as decent human beings, is being damaged. Because where do they go? In practical society which segregated us consciously and unconsciously, where do they go that is compassionate to their need to live their life in acceptance and peace? What space do we create for them if they are not welcomed into the categories we practically have.

I would like to add here that while I am mostly trans inclusive, I am hugely conflicted on the subject of sports and prisons. That’s not really relevant to the above, but I would like to appear here with a sense of openness. Or perhaps it is relevant, in the spirit of realising very few people are 100% either one thing or another.

What I say is that if the signifiers of gender can only be identified by an individual is that the concept of gender is then of no use as q social category. This means we should revert to protecting spaces for females, the signifiers of which are very clear as are the oppressive sequelae. I also say that your assumption that someone who asks how do I find my gender has no conflict in finding where they belong is odd. It is built on the idea that people need to belong, which I believe is a falsehood. People may find a sense of belonging in a group they are excluded from but to then expect that group to include them neglects to consider the influences of power and the actual impact of including them. Reducing the issue to simply one of a physical attribute shows your lack of understanding. Females share a body type, that is all. However society then makes assumptions based on that body type and oppresses based on that body type. These assumptions are never made about obviously male bodied people. So although the category starts by being just about body type, it has many more impacts.

@Didimum more than 90% of people are either men or women though. I agree that we need to compassionately create spaces for TW (who are a subset of men not a subset of women). But where sex segregation is relevant the compassionate spaces for them should be with the other men.

@PearlClutch

Are we to abandon all boundaries, or criteria, on the basis that some people will be very sad if they aren't allowed to join a particular group?

But to call it ‘sad’ is trivialising their experience. It is overwhelmingly often a deeply painful, long-term conflict. Something that, of course, is not comparable to the struggle of women’s rights, but deserves empathy in its own right. We need not abandon ALL boundaries, but look to what boundaries are flexible in the name of not causing pain to someone who does not deserve pain - I feel this is what the true majority of trans women want.

This seems like an argument to make sure than sex segregation is really necessary before ever doing it, not to let me into those spaces we've agreed to keep segregated. It doesn't matter how deep or long term the man's conflict is, he should never be in women's spaces. Women also have conflicts and emotions and these also need respecting.

@Didimum so which boundaries are flexible, do you think?

It appears that for you the hard ones are prisons and sports, for me it's the hospitals and the changing rooms as well, for some women it's the toilets. Yet others are primarily concerned by crimes against the language.

Who will get to decide which of these should be hard and which ones will be designated flexible?

I am hugely conflicted on the subject of sports and prisons.

Using these as an example though @Didimum, why do you find them a big internal conflict if you believe that we shouldn't cause pain to those who don't deserve it?

Girls and women in strength, power and speed based sports cannot compete fairly (or safely in the case of contact sports) against natal men. Why is the pain of women losing scholarships, losing games, being harmed when playing etc less important than the pain of trans women who want to compete against them?

Girls and women in prison are already vulnerable to abuse and likely to underreport assaults. They are statistically more likely to have been victims of abuse in their pre-prison life. Why is the pain of multiple women being unsettled, disturbed, triggered or frightened by the presence of someone with a penis less important than the emotional pain of someone with a penis who would like to be in the female prison population?

Girls and women should not be expected to hold all the compassion for others, especially not at the expense of their own health and wellbeing.

Can you see how it is difficult to understand you asking people to be compassionate despite saying you're conflicted about sports and prisons? Where is the compassion for all the girls and women affected?

I don't want anyone to be unhappy. Noone deserves pain. If there are moderate voices in the trans community then where are they? Too cowed by the tras to speak up? I hope for some moderation in this country and then everyone can find their space. My nature is to be kind but I think we need something more utilitarian.

I fear for transpeople, LGB and women in the states, I fear the excesses there are building to something nasty.

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them. Of course women also have conflicts and emotions, but empathy is not a finite pie, and nor is the alliance in rights for others.

No men in any of the spaces that are important for the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls.

"#Be Kind" really does not work with me any more. We tried that. We gave an inch, they took a mile.

It's all very well, telling women to "Be Kind" to men. But No. I'm not hearing or reading any reciprocal call for men to "Be Kind" to women, and to respect women;s boundaries. So No.

What are these 'flexible' boundaries? Are they the preferences and well being of women, by any chance?

Why do I have to put my comfort, safety, dignity, privacy, choices, second to those of a male?

Boundaries are boundaries. By definition, they are limits. If they're seen as 'flexible' then they're not really boundaries, they're a negotiation. Women can say 'no' and it is not the start of negotiations.

Yes, I understand that a male may feel a deeply painful conflict at not having his wants and needs and desires met by women's acquiescing.

I'm afraid that's not my problem. I'm not a support human here to validate the feelings of someone just because they is having a deeply painful conflict.

I'm here for the women who fought for the right to leave the house, fought to overcome the 'urinary leash', fought for equity, fought for the safety, privacy and dignity and the rights of women to say 'no'. The women whose lives are deeply and often painfully circumscribed by their female biology, the reproductive burden, the pain of dv, sexual assault, abuse, harassment, sexism. My daughter's right to privacy and male-free spaces.

That's my focus.

I fear the trans community that shout the loudest on media platforms do not represent the true wishes and needs of the larger trans majority. Much like any media platform becomes an echo chamber for those with the most extreme voices. The trans women I know of in ‘real life’ do not wish to be named as true women, they wish to be only trans women - a subset from women, in a world that orders that you define yourself in order to participate in the very basics of day to day life.

You may very well be right, but these loudest voices are the ones that have the ear of politicians, of the media, of educators and of our social institutions and they are actively pushing to reshape society around their ideas. The women (female type, AFAB) who have tried to stop it and found their voices and objections are being at best ignored and at worst demonised.

So if the larger trans majority do not agree with what is being done in their name then they need to speak up and stop it!

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them. Of course women also have conflicts and emotions, but empathy is not a finite pie, and nor is the alliance in rights for others.

Who is this 'we' who need to create the relevant spaces for TW? I certainly support those trans people who are trying to do this. Why aren't organisations such as Stonewall engaged in this rather than so much of their energy being put into demolishing women's spaces and services?

Are you suggesting third spaces? There is a lot of support for those. But TRAs don't want those. Plus it is not women's jobs to create create them.

@PearlClutch

Boundaries are boundaries. By definition, they are limits. If they're seen as 'flexible' then they're not really boundaries, they're a negotiation. Women can say 'no' and it is not the start of negotiations.

But what is the solution when the boundaries of 100 women to one space are not shared? What woman do we listen to? The majority or the strongest boundary, and why?

P.S so tired and off to bed. A lot to think on.

Both of those options could be explored and debated. The strongest IMO btw. Either way, no man, Inc TW, have any right to an opinion.

But what is the solution when the boundaries of 100 women to one space are not shared? What woman do we listen to? The majority or the strongest boundary, and why?

We listen to a number of things, one being common sense. It's more dangerous for women and it's a violation of most women's privacy and dignity.

It doesn't disadvantage other women for males to stay out, they might want to virtue signal that they want to be inclusive but it doesn't actually hurt them not to be. It should be on a veto basis where women who don't give consent to males in their spaces are respected, which if you read the Equality Act is the logic the single sex exemptions are based on.

The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them

Because I'm more interested in women's and girls' rights. They have their own lobby groups, women have their own stuff to do. It's not my issue.

If we have 100 women, at very least 20 of them will be survivors of sexual assault/rape. Very least, probably far more. A large chunk will have experienced CSA. Another chunk will have experience of DV. PTSD is fairly common, as is an involuntary wariness, caution or fear of being in a vulnerable situation with men. How many out of 100 are going to have a trauma response to sharing a space with a male? Seeing a male body, however that male may identify?

Do we think of them? Or of the women who may be Muslim or Jewish, whose faith may preclude them touching or sharing space with unfamiliar males?

So I think it's highly likely the majority will be saying no.

But anyway, we're not talking about numbers, we're using a hypothetical 'one woman'.

Do we listen to the majority, or the one who says no? When we're talking bodily consent and boundaries, no always trumps yes. If one woman says she would have a trauma response to sharing a space with a male, do we respect her boundary, or do we respect the male's wishes more than her boundary?

Why do the males wishes matter more than her distress? Or even, why does a male's distress matter more than her distress?

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them.

Who are "we"?

You seem to be saying that women (female type, AFAB) can only say no to those who want to encrouch on their already existing resources if they take it on themselves to put alternatives in place.

It's akin to saying I can only evict a squatter from my home if I find them existing accommodation first.

No. Someone's unilateral expectation that they should be entitled to what is mine does not impose upon me an obligation to either accomodate them or find them an alternative.

Trans and LGBT± charities and groups raise huge amounts of money and have public sympathy. Those are the resources should be put into the creation of spaces instead of that energy being put into demanding that women's resources are appropriated for trans women.

Let men, and women who are supportive of transwomen, do their own crowdfunding to accommodate transwomen, if it's so important to them. Let men, and their female supporters, fund transwomen's requirements.

Women have enough to be getting on with, at the moment, on funding the stream of very worthy court and tribunal cases, seeking judicial and employment law clarification on where women's rights actually exist, at the moment.

"Be Kind" has worn very thin indeed.

You seem to be saying that women (female type, AFAB) can only say no to those who want to encrouch on their already existing resources if they take it on themselves to put alternatives in place

It's akin to saying I can only evict a squatter from my home if I find them existing accommodation first.

This is so important for people to understand.

The squatter analogy is such a great one - I'll be using that myself to try to articulate my thoughts on this topic too.

Sorry to leave this hanging, various RL things interceded. I will be back though - so many questions….

You seem to be saying that women (female type, AFAB) can only say no to those who want to encrouch on their already existing resources if they take it on themselves to put alternatives in place

It's akin to saying I can only evict a squatter from my home if I find them existing accommodation first.

Well said!

We have exactly this, when men claim women's toilets, women's shelters, women's services, women's hospital wards, women's sports, women's everything, now belong to men. And TERFs need to go and set up their own stuff!!!

Talk about colonialism. Talk about irony.

Men come to women's resources and take our stuff. Even though it is ours, we created it and we maintained it for years. Now, women's self-built resources are men's to take.

No.

My concern is that the relevant space for those people cannot exist unless we actively create it. The energy seems to be put into the rejection of TW, rather than the creation of a space for them. Of course women also have conflicts and emotions, but empathy is not a finite pie, and nor is the alliance in rights for others.

@didimum, why is it women’s job to ge flexible and create spaces for TW? Why not get men to be flexible and create spaces for them? Why should women compromise and be kind? What benefit does this bring to women?