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’s really good news! I bumped into an old friend at the pub recently who mentioned it. I think the issues are getting noticed.

and I can't tell you how much I enjoyed @antifascist running to MNHQ when the mummies were mean to him

fight the power @antifascist !

Agree, though can't help hoping SW is finally exposed for who they are, for all to see.

What we need is a debate to solve the issues. We seem to, finally , be able to discuss this with less fear.

That is to be celebrated!

women are statistically safer with a transwoman who is a stranger in a changing room or a bathroom than they are in their own home with a male

So if they do come to harm from a male stranger in a changing room that's okay then? Collateral damage?

Why should any increase in the danger posed to women in public be supported? Why would any woman champion that? My mind boggles at that thought.

women are statistically safer with a transwoman who is a stranger in a changing room or a bathroom than they are in their own home with a male

But they're statistically safer if no natal males are in private spaces with them.

Why is the bar "actually you're more likely to be attacked by a male you know".

Shouldn't the bar be "let's not remove the existing safeguards that reduce the likelihood of women being attacked".

Why is the bar "actually you're more likely to be attacked by a male you know".

Shouldn't the bar be "let's not remove the existing safeguards that reduce the likelihood of women being attacked".

because to some of the posters here, what men want and aligning themselves with what their peers currently regard as ‘good’ is more important than women’s safety

tell me I’m wrong @Didimum , @aseriesofstillimages

@Didimum

The fact is women are statistically safer with a transwoman who is a stranger in a changing room or a bathroom than they are in their own home with a male-identifying partner or family member.

I'm sure that's true (at least where "male-identifying means actually, you know, male...unless you have evidence that trans men commit domestic abuse at the same rate as natal males?).

But it's not really the point, is it? Sadly women are statistically safer with any male who is a stranger in a changing room or a bathroom than they are in their own home with a male-identifying partner or family member.

So by your logic, we shouldn't bother with sex segregation for safety at all, because statistically, women are more at risk from known males than strange ones. (1)

Unless you happen to have evidence that trans women are statistically less likely to abuse women than other males? (3)

(1) Note of course that underlying this logic is the rather disturbing belief that since female people already suffer high rates of abuse and asault and rarely feel 100% safe anyway, adding a bit more abuse, assault and fear on top doesn't really change anything and is a reasonable cost for trans women to feel validated (2). Furthermore, that although statistically the average woman is more at risk at home, at an individual level the majority (sadly a much smaller majority than it should be, but still the majority) of women are not in fact at risk at home, so for them the public risk that you wish to increase is the more significant. The fact that the cost is all paid by female people and the benefit all accrued to male is apparently not a significant concern, the blanket term of "women" for both obscuring the fact that one specific group of "women" is the winner here and a different, also specific group the loser, and I'm sure its just a happy coincidence that the winners here are male yet again.

(2) I say validated rather than safe deliberately because there are many ways trans women could be made safer without appropriating female resources, so the significant factor in the demand that safety requires the right to be "in with the other women" is not in fact their need for safety (a reasonable need indeed) but their need for validation as women.

(3) A genuine question, does anyone know if trans women less likely to commit domestic abuse than other males? I know the incidence of domestic abuse against trans people is higher (sadly IIRC those AFAB at birth suffer more than those AMAB, but I think AMAB rates are still higher than the general male population) but not whether transitioning affects perpetration.

women are statistically safer with a transwoman who is a stranger in a changing room or a bathroom than they are in their own home with a male

Do you have any source for those statistics? As far as I know, no-one's collecting data in a sex and gender disaggregated form?

The closest I've seen is that women are far, far more likely to be assaulted in mixed sex changing rooms vs. single sex. Although still likely less likely to be assaulted there than at home - bit misleading to use that though, you're hardly comparing like with like (I spend much more time in my home than in a changing room for a start)

Massive whataboutery.
Yes, DV is terrible, and you'll see a lot about it on this board. It should also be obvious to anyone with a grain of empathy that many of the women who've suffered abuse at the hands of men they thought they could trust will be particularly in need of single sex spaces outside of the home in order to feel safe. Where's the compassion for them?

Has there been any research other than the Swedish study on the rates of violence within male population disaggregated by gender identity?

Not that I am aware of.

@aseriesofstillimages it still seems to me that 'living as the opposite sex' means conforming to stereotypes not congruent to your actual sex, if anything I think it demonstrates what nonsense gender (in the modern sense) is.

I like to think both Willner and Billy did what they did because they wanted to pursue a life they loved in music which would have been closed to them as women. I'm more certain of this with Billy, iirc she was refused entry into a school band because she was female.

There's a lot less information on Willner but it's nice there's some recognition, she should be better known. But as a, lately dubbed, transman I'm not surprised she's still a bit niche. TMAM are they, eh?

Anyway, I'll remember their names.

I was just thinking about the massive issues we are facing now that crimes are recorded according to gender identity instead of sex.

Will Karen White's sexual assaults while incarcerated in a women's prison be recorded as female crimes?

Exactly!

It's like the false argument around "gender neutral" toilets.

Only a couple of weeks ago a TRA threw "Do you have separate sex toilets in your house? Because I don't" - to which I replied "No. Do you allow random people to walk in off the street and use your lavatory? Because I don't"

They think these false equivalencies are such a "gotcha" - and they aren't. They just serve to show how desperate they are for valid argument.

Genuine question, do you know the history of sex segregated facilities such as toilets and changing rooms in the UK? When and why were they introduced? Assuming that at some point in time there were many circumstances in which they were only male facilities, which women were not allowed to use - did women campaign for their own separate facilities, or to be allowed to use the existing ones?

The previous article I posted didn’t cut the mustard, what do you make of this one?
aeon.co/essays/do-analytic-and-continental-philosophy-agree-what-woman-is

They campaigned for their own (via the Ladies' Sanitary Association and the Union of Women’s Liberal and Radical Associations) - and men tried to stop them achieving their aim.

When the first women's toilet facilities were opened men did their best to sabotage them - even driving hansom cabs into them.

Men wanted to keep women out of public life, and stop them going far from the home.

The previous article I posted didn’t cut the mustard, what do you make of this one?

What do you think though?

Can you give us a brief summary of what constitutes gender based on what you've read there?

Its not a question of chucking out articles, but being able to articulate our own beliefs clearly. If this article is in line with your own understanding of gender you should be able to capture that in your own words. Can you do that?

The previous article I posted didn’t cut the mustard, what do you make of this one?

It's a lot of words to ultimately arrive at a confused conclusion. What do you think is particularly compelling? Do you think women should be defined as a subordinate class? Do you understand how the intellectual philosophers in the academy offer very little in terms of actually improving the oppression of female people, which is grounded in sex stereotypes and expectations around our sexed bodies?

Its not a question of chucking out articles, but being able to articulate our own beliefs clearly. If this article is in line with your own understanding of gender you should be able to capture that in your own words. Can you do that?

This.

Oh man, that Aoen article

3100 words on continental and analytic philosophy, all to try to avoid saying that a woman is an adult human female. What do you think is the author’s term for such a class of people if not ‘woman’?

and the conclusion being essentially ‘it doesn’t matter because everyone should try to help all marginalised people’

totally unrealistic, written by someone with no interest in achieving anything. The way you make stuff happen is by having tightly defined goals

have managed to offer a coherent case for why people should prioritise gender identity ideology over sex, or what gender identity means when unmoored from sex and knowing what sex people are and all the stereotype baggage that comes with that.

Still to be answered.

Also, what are the names we give to adult and child members of the female sex class, if not "women" or "girls" (because that involves some males)? Do you not think this important group needs a name, and to organise to challenge their own oppression?

Frankly anyone who finds that Aeon article convincing needs to work on their self esteem

it’s bollocks. The reason it makes no sense is that it’s total bollocks, not because the writer is smarter than you, or you’re not educated enough to understand it

The other thing to note is that most of @aseriesofstillimages points are based on people completely passing as the opposite sex through being able to disguise themselves. They are a tiny minority. It's sophistry to then use the fact that a minuscule number of people can deceive their peers into believing the opposite sex to claim that the more meaningful approach is just to accept that males can be women simply by saying they are. As I pointed out a couple of days ago, this is the leap of faith that gender identity ideology proponents take.

I find the 'here's an article' approach a bit odd to begin with and it's a technique often used when the 'what constitutes gender' question is posed.

Surely if you believe in gender beyond a social construct you would be able to say why? Without recourse to article. Surely you'd be able to define what gender is reasonably clearly/concisely yourself if that is what you genuinely believe?

How can you believe in something that you can't frame in your own words?