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.

Who knows, Paul could have written his pronouns tongue in cheek for a dare

A pertinent example wrt women's spaces is that of rape support services.

Rape survivors want and need a.male free space for obvious reasons. These services were set up for the most part by and for women - the history of the movement is stirring.

If transwomen need these sevices then this would be a perfect use of some of Stonewalls enormous resources.

Instead a woman is told she can't have a single sex space and that she is a bigot for asking.

If transwomen need these sevices then this would be a perfect use of some of Stonewalls enormous resources.

Exactly.

And I do not understand on any level why this is women's job to sort before they can claim back services of their own. Why would that be?

More like 99.8 % of people are men or women. Even the other 0.2% are chromosomally one or the other.

What sense of womanhood?
If you mean you have one then please do explain it. As for (pharaphrasing) biological woman feel differently from other biological woman, then I guess this is in fact personality. What else could it be and how would we ever find out if we feel the same as other biological women?

Trans people will I'm sure fit in with other trans people, theres no shortage of the type at the moment. But assuming they didnt fit in with each other, I'm not convinced that women (cunty type) should just move over and be used as shields. This is not my job, I am not everyone's mother, I dont even want this role, I have enough to do already without taking on the mantel of saviour, shield, supervisor. (Wank fodder)

I have asked many times for someone to describe gender or show me how to find it, because I have no idea what or where it is.seemingly no one else knows either, because not one poster has ever described it in better than stereotype.
It's not just a physical attribute like being too small to high jump, too slow to run 100mt in a respectable time, it's a penis. I do not want that penis in my daughters changing room, toilet, prison, hospital ward , sport, etc.

But what if someone does have that conflict? And what if someone finds an individual sense of belonging in a societal group that they are barred from, simply because of a physical attribute?

If this argument were valid, why wouldn't it be applied more widely.
To race for example? Or disability?
Why should physical attributes stand in the way of people's sense of belonging there?

Yet I'm sure you'd find it abhorrent if people wanted to identify as black in spite of their physical attributes.
So why is this different?

The truth is that physical attributes are important to belong in certain groups.
They are defining features of those groups. If you don't have them, you need to construct your own groups or forge an adjunct connection with those groups instead of overriding the criteria for your own needs.

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.

As others have pointed out, it's really not women's job to create an alternative for men who are trying to colonise their space.

But the main problem is, these men actively fight against it. They don't want it.

There are countless incidents of an alternative space being provided, eg the accessible toilet, which are deemed unacceptable.

The reason for this is that it's not about the space. It's about the women in the space.

If all the women left and went to a different space, the original space would no longer be appealing, and the second space would become the target. It's the presence of the women in the space that is fundamental to the desire to inhabit it.

Women are the resource. They are the tools being utilised. Not the four walls and ceiling.

My understanding:

A. Gender: society's expectations of a person due to their sex. (girls wear pink and are friendly and caring)

B. Gender identity: personality. (I like the colour green, I am a misanthropist and although empathic, quite lazy)

C. Gender incongruence: Not wanting to do the things that society says I should do because of what sex I am. An incongruence between A and B. (I like the wrong colours, clothes, hairstyles, I am not caring/friendly/girly enough)

Feminists say: That's fine, like what you like, sex has no bearing on personality. Also, if we could do something about male violence, that would be good.

Genderists say: If you have C then your sex is wrong and you must try to change it. Also anyone of the opposite sex must accept you, and make allowances for you.

This latter suggestion is okay until one notes that we are dealing with two sexes, one of which has almost all the propensity and most of the ability for violence and sexual violence, and the other sex has almost all of the vulnerability, including the risk of pregnancy.

For this reason, as well as cultural, religious and reasons of propriety, the female sex has fought to make and keep spaces for their privacy, dignity and safety where they can, say, get changed, receive medical care, attend to bodily functions, etc, in a space free from the males sex. Legally, this is described in the Equality Act.

Now, some people are suggesting members of the members of the less physically powerful and more vulnerable sex are to accept members of the more powerful and more risk-taking and more inclined to violence sex in the spaces reserved for the former sex, because some numbers of the latter sex has C - gender incongruence. (Or at least, says they have C.)

I do have sympathy for those with C. I think A should be questioned and challenged. I think B is about as meaningful as horoscopes and saying the French are hot-headed and passionate.

Most of all, I think women need and are entitled to single sex spaces and rights.

If all the women left and went to a different space, the original space would no longer be appealing, and the second space would become the target. It's the presence of the women in the space that is fundamental to the desire to inhabit it.

Yes, we've seen this happen several times.

In the case many of us know about (if you don't, look for threads by IAmSarah), women who need single sex rape support have been denied it even though there was alternative provision appropriate for TW.
Where's the spirit of cooperation and kindness there?

Pretty much every single poster here has at some point said we should create spaces for trans people. It's always been shot down by trans people. They do not want a separate space. Some days I can see why, some days I think just get on with it you fools, plenty of days I think, if stonewall wanted to, they could proclaim it as law, pay for all the new spaces, and earn our good graces too.
But validation is the underlying theme, and as my pp, I'm not wanting to be their validation, nor does my daughter.
My energy btw is put towards women, I have never rejected a trans man and I dont know any trans women so it's not been tested yet.
I do my small bit FOR women, not against anyone.

Lastly about empathy, are you on another forum exhorting the men to have empathy? If not why not?

India Willoughby's tweets of a few weekends ago laughing with a few other TW that in an airport one of the large women's toilets has been re designated gender neutral (men's naturally has been left for men) with a sign on the door saying that a single sex facility is available at gate X (quite a walk away).

The TW were giggling that they had all intentionally walked all the way to use the single sex one because it's about identity and not tolerating female people having any existing boundaries they cannot own and smash.

The fact they had accessible provision, and that they were depriving female people of any access at all? It's a joke to them, a target to enjoy achieving.

There is zero good will. Zero reciprocation. The words 'inclusion' and 'kindness' and 'intersectionality' are used only to manipulate people: they reflect no actual values being held at all. This is male people pissing on territory; it isn't even that they don't realise or care about the impact on females: the impact on females is an actual upside enjoyed aspect to some.

Empathy isn't finite apparently, unless a certain class of male is expected to empathise with women. Then, assuming there is any, they'll do the opposite of what it tells them to.

I think it's the validation they need and 'fuck you' they enjoy.

It's all about violating the boundaries of women, denying women (biological women) the chance to say 'no'.

If it wasn't, they'd be very happy with a third space.

But they're not.

I thought this was an easier way to make my responses without seriously clogging up the thread.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

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.

I think everyone has a right to an opinion, but I would agree with you not a right for that opinion to materialise.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

I feel it disadvantages the world I live in, and so you many, many other woman. This is harmful to them.

@PearlClutch

do we respect her boundary, or do we respect the male's wishes more than her boundary?

First of all just wanted to say I found the first part of your reply very compelling. It’s something I dwell a lot on, for sure. The above however – it isn’t necessarily the male’s wish, but the wish of the other women being asked the question. Over all, however, of course I see your point.

Rape survivors want and need a.male free space for obvious reasons. These services were set up for the most part by and for women - the history of the movement is stirring.If transwomen need these sevices then this would be a perfect use of some of Stonewalls enormous resources. Instead a woman is told she can't have a single sex space and that she is a bigot for asking.

I don’t think it’s the wish of many trans women to encroach on those spaces. As I said before, I think it’s a line taken by the most extreme, with the loudest voices. I was asked before, ‘well why don’t those with the softer voices speak up?' – but surely we all know how media works, it’s harrowing at the very least, especially in this climate, and can do real damage to someone’s well being to engage in it. You have the extremes of both ends of the spectrum shouting down everyone in the middle – and the middle is where the solutions often lie, or if not solutions, then at least the ability to understand one another.

@FlirtsWithRhinos

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.

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.

By ‘we’ I meant everyone – men and women or however else you identity. But I don’t believe the resources those groups alone have are enough to change very large and physical infrastructure.

@NewPotatoSalad

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. "Be Kind" has worn very thin indeed.

You say ‘women have enough to be getting on with’ as though it isn’t an extremely large proportion of women who don’t also want to put efforts into trans right as well. The work to do does not have to limited, not for all. “Be Kind” as the touted phrase is has worn thin, indeed, but shouldn’t be used to flick away the opinion of a large proportion of women because they have a difference of opinion.

@Conflictedunicorn

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?

I don’t think it is a woman’s job, but many women want it to be their job. Part of my reasoning, for example, is that I know many trans women also feel deeply under threat from male violence – they have profound vulnerabilities too. I’m not weighing up who are the most vulnerable group – we could go back and forth forever – but it is still forms part of my opinion.

And I – and many many others like me – are tired of being told that we simple ‘don’t understand’ or ‘can’t understand’. (I know you didn’t say this, but it’s been said time and time again on here). I understand, we (the woman who share my opinion) understand – we just do not agree. It’s dismissive and contemptuous to be told that your difference of opinion is, in effect, due to lesser intelligence and inability to comprehend. I’m not trying to change another woman’s mind, I am concerned what to do at that impasse – it’s divisive and destructive to women as a whole.

@Terfydactyl

What sense of womanhood?
If you mean you have one then please do explain it. As for (pharaphrasing) biological woman feel differently from other biological woman, then I guess this is in fact personality.

The ‘it’s personality’ argument sounds like something potentially great for the future – it’s potentially a vein of thinking that allows many people to grow up and live comfortably in their own skin, and also perhaps why the identification of being ‘non-binary’ is on the increase. But practically, a society which largely asks us to operate in a binary way cannot switch from one thing to another without wading through the chasm between – so what is it to be done in that chasm in between? How does one get from end to the other in the least combative and divided way?

@TheKeatingFive
If this argument were valid, why wouldn't it be applied more widely.
To race for example? Or disability?
Why should physical attributes stand in the way of people's sense of belonging there?

I find this a straw man argument. We don’t have an influx of people identifying as another race or with a disability. Moreover, we, largely, don’t have segregations for race that apply to day to day existence – eg. segregated bathrooms, sports, changing rooms etc – so even if someone did identify with a race other than their own, their daily life would not be no severely impacted.

Pretty much every single poster here has at some point said we should create spaces for trans people. It's always been shot down by trans people.

Of course, there are some good, decent trans people who do want their own spaces. There's a petition by Fionne Orlander and Miranda Yardley ... probably a year or two old now, don't know what happened to it. These people get treated appallingly by the so-called 'trans community' and their 'allies' - called 'truscum' ... Yardley was (spectacularly unsuccessfully) taken to court by a 'Cis woman' (as I'm sure that individual identifies).
Some of the PPs may be nice and well meaning but I can only assume they don't know about some of this history and so are simplistic and naive.

The thing about validation is that there is no genuine validation to be had here.

People can't change sex. Biological fact.

In certain situations sex matters, much more than any conceit of gender identity (indefinable, in the head). We can't pretend otherwise.

So there isn't validation to give (beyond actual lies) and it's starting to come across as a game now. How far can we push them?

The fact they had accessible provision, and that they were depriving female people of any access at all? It's a joke to them, a target to enjoy achieving.

Exactly. It's a dominance display.

Which makes a mockery of the notion that these people are 'gender nonconforming'. Their male gender couldn't be more typical.

Quite.

And absolutely rooted in sex based thinking, seeing two groups.

Male people, who own all the resources, all the spaces, make all the decisions, and the female people who are subordinate to them and will get what male people deign to permit them to have.

I find this a straw man argument. We don’t have an influx of people identifying as another race or with a disability

They do exist.

Rachel Dolezal for one. Where was the understanding, acceptance, kindness, tolerance, intersectionality for her?

Instead she was torn to shreds.

There is also a long acknowledged disorder where people want to identify as disabled, sometimes using wheelchairs they don't need, even wanting to amputate healthy limbs. That's treated like a mental health disorder. Would you support these peoples bid for the Paralympics? At the expense of genuinely disabled peolple? If not, why not?

Its not a question of numbers. These people do exist, so why should their lack of 'physical attributes' hold them back from the groups they want to be a part of? Logical consistency would require you to answer that question.

Moreover, we, largely, don’t have segregations for race that apply to day to day existence

We have lots of affirmative action schemes, positive discrimination appointments, places, opportunities that apply to people of specific races.

Why shouldn't someone 'identify' into consideration for those if they want to, if physical attributes matter less than wanting to belong?

Maybe just stating 'I believe in trans ideology' in your email signature is a better way of showing allyship rather than stating pronouns?

There was a time when I too was passionate about how we met the needs of TQ+ people (which, lets face it, in fact means male people because those are the needs that need to be met by women asking please would you very kindly not exclude us and prevent access/harm our rights on your way).

However if you listen and read around, you will always find the misogyny and sex based entitlement there, even in the voices of the TW writers and speakers who sound most reasonable. Willoughby has given some interviews in which they said some quite reasonable, sensible things. Hayton regularly does. However follow them on Twitter, read the discussions here - Hayton has politely engaged in several threads in sustained conversation - and you will always find the sex based entitlement and misogyny that tells you the root of it. That resources belong to male people, who will be the judge of what female people may and may not have, feel, they will carefully evaluate, judge and then give their finding as to whether women's needs and voices are justified and permissible, and there is in truth no doubt at all about who has the power and who will do as they are told. And it's sex based.

Women have had a good long bash for going on a decade about negotiating, being reasonable, being the bigger person and other very female socialised stuff, trying to find win win solutions, trying to explain their problems in the hope that if they could just find the right words and explain enough that the TQ+ political lobby would understand because they're good people who just haven't had enough information yet...

Anyone who's read around the relationships board should be recognising the dynamic by this point. It has not worked. It has merely been seen as a weakness on the part of female people that male people have exploited in furthering this agenda, and I'm sorry but this is the reality of it. This is a massive women's rights issue on multiple fronts based in the belief that sex is a power hierarchy and that gender choices in no way change that .

I find this a straw man argument. We don’t have an influx of people identifying as another race or with a disability

You forgot age.

It's there. It's been there from the start. The age one in particular is now creeping forward into the light.

I’m not trying to change another woman’s mind, I am concerned what to do at that impasse

maybe ask your self why (some) women’s ‘no’ signals the start of a negotiation for you. A position to move them away from

why not start with (some) men’s ‘I want’ and start to move them ?

I don’t think it is a woman’s job, but many women want it to be their job. Part of my reasoning, for example, is that I know many trans women also feel deeply under threat from male violence – they have profound vulnerabilities too.

Well your solution is clear then. This group, which undoubtedly includes women, trans people and men as well, need to get together and start fundraising and raising political awareness of the need for third spaces separate to female only spaces. Trans women will have what (you believe) they need. Women who want their women-only resources extended to include trans women will have what they want, and Women who want to be supported with female- only resources will have what they need.

The latter certainly won't try to stand in your way. In fact, while you won't be their primary focus they will most likely support you as best they can because your aims will help them achieve their aims.

I really don't understand why you feel your aim has to be met by stopping women who want and need single sex resources from having them, nor why you feel it's the job of people who don't agree with you to sort it out for you.