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.

[TheKeatingFive]

Sorry I don't mean to suggest that there's anything wrong with posting articles, but if you're going to do that, surely you should be able to express what it is about the article you agree with?

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

From the article:

Bodies do not come presorted by chromosomes or genitalia alone; we could sort them by belly-button type, after all. Their sorting by sex, then, reflects human purposes and interests – those having to do with human procreation. Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

Procreation isn't solely a "human" construction, though, is it? Read any book on evolutionary biology

[TheKeatingFive]

Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

I mean, that's just total bollocks isn't it? What about the entire animal kingdom?

[TastefulRainbowUnicorn]

Procreation isn't solely a "human" construction, though, is it?

Yes, I hate to single out any particular sentence or point made on that article but wow, that was egregious.

But then maybe if they acknowledge that nonhumans also care about biological sex the whole edifice of Butler’s thinking collapses? As summarised there, it does. But it can’t be that stupid, can it?

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

As if sorting by belly-button type was equally as meaningful a category as sorting by biological sex 🙄

I have to say, if you sorted by genitalia you'd have a high degree of accuracy in terms of two discrete groups of humans with particular needs, and sorting by chromosomes even more so. Leaving the arguments about DSDs aside, they are both much more meaningful categories than either belly-button types or "gender identity".

[BernardBlacksWineIcelolly]

Yes, the especially weird thing is that the Butlerians don’t want to do away with sorting and segregation altogether in many cases, they just want to use totally meaningless and nonsensical categories as the basis

the whole thing is downright weird. Like it was dreamed up by someone who’d never actually operated in the real world

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

don’t want to do away with sorting and segregation altogether in many cases, they just want to use totally meaningless and nonsensical categories as the basis

I think they get a subversive thrill out of this. It's a power trip.

[Helleofabore]

@RichardBarrister

And transwomen have become the scapegoat of unfounded ‘stranger danger’ - a tiny minority disproportionately affected by assault and violence themselves

Didimum conveniently skips over the fact that while approx 80% of violent attacks on women are by someone they know, that leaves 20% of attacks being carried out strangers, in a public place.

I’d say womens worries of stranger danger are absolutely founded. Any measures that prevent the club bouncer from removing the creepy guy hanging out in the womens toilets or the security guard from checking out why the old man has followed a 10 yr old into the ladies increase that danger. There is no appearance requirement relating to a particular gender identity. If a man claims a female gender identity we may have no way of verifying that so if we let one male born person in we must let them all in.

I would be interested to see Didimums evidence that tw are at risk if violence - the data I’ve seen does not back that up.

Thanks Dick. I was mighty bemused by a poster telling women that they are quite safe and to not worry about any male outside their home effectively. Because we shouldn’t ever be worried about those crimes against females outside the home.

Some truly fucked up logic there.

[Lovelyricepudding]

Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

I suspect wokedom would have something to say if their local cannabis dealer tried to explain that male and female was a human construction... 😂

[LK1972]

@FlirtsWithRhinos

@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.

Beautifully argued, thank you!

[Artichokeleaves]

@Ereshkigalangcleg

From the article:

Bodies do not come presorted by chromosomes or genitalia alone; we could sort them by belly-button type, after all. Their sorting by sex, then, reflects human purposes and interests – those having to do with human procreation. Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

Procreation isn't solely a "human" construction, though, is it? Read any book on evolutionary biology

Quite.

This sort of disappearing up own bottom deconstruction of the world ends up just reading like the obsessions of someone with far, far too much time on their hands and not enough real stuff to think about. Which worries me, because historically when societies start to reach this point of silliness they tend to get a sharp boot back on track via some kind of major disaster like a war.

There is no reproducing species that sits around comparing belly buttons to work out sex, if they had they wouldn't have survived natural selection for long.

So much waffle that is solely being inflicted on others to try and wangle females out of boundaries that males find inconvenient - its wholly sex based thinking.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

So much waffle that is solely being inflicted on others to try and wangle females out of boundaries that males find inconvenient - its wholly sex based thinking.

Indeed!

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

So much waffle that is solely being inflicted on others to try and wangle females out of boundaries that males find inconvenient - its wholly sex based thinking.

The strategy is very clear. From 1972 (quoted upthread):

Certainly, whatever course we take as transvestites, transsexuals and drag queens, we must first destroy the trap wherein regular women set up standards by which they accept or reject us.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Yes! Thank you.

[Artichokeleaves]

Yup. We must first destroy females' ability to say no to males.

Well fuck that, to put it mildly. No, I'm not up for male supremacism. At all.

I'll now wait for the reproachful 'you behave as if you don't like people who treat you this way'.

No. I don't. And I'm inclusive in my dislike of people who behave in this way towards females, there are no exemptions made for sex, gender or bellybutton presentation, because I'm not a bloody masochist.

[TastefulRainbowUnicorn]

(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.

i don’t know if there are any statistics on it - there would be a lot of bureaucratic obstacles to collecting such data - but if you read the trans widows threads you won’t be in any doubt as to the answer.

Incidentally, the statistics that are purported to show that TW are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse count “misgendering” as abuse, and that’s what drives the claim. I think that labelling women as abusers for forgetting to lie about their husband’s sex is abusive in itself- unfortunately some institutions are colluding with this form of abuse.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Incidentally, the statistics that are purported to show that TW are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse count “misgendering” as abuse, and that’s what drives the claim. I think that labelling women as abusers for forgetting to lie about their husband’s sex is abusive in itself- unfortunately some institutions are colluding with this form of abuse.

This is a really important point. Practically all "trans people are most oppressed" statistics are based on a disingenuous interpretation of the facts.

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Incidentally, the statistics that are purported to show that TW are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse count “misgendering” as abuse, and that’s what drives the claim. I think that labelling women as abusers for forgetting to lie about their husband’s sex is abusive in itself- unfortunately some institutions are colluding with this form of abuse.

This is a really important point. Practically all "trans people are most oppressed" statistics are based on a disingenuous interpretation of the facts.

If some very senior people in Scotland had been able to pursue their policies, it would have been an actual crime, of course, alongside discussion over your dinner table.

[WeeBisom]

"Bodies do not come presorted by chromosomes or genitalia alone; we could sort them by belly-button type, after all. Their sorting by sex, then, reflects human purposes and interests – those having to do with human procreation. Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’."

I'm dismayed that there's such confusion about what it means for something to be a 'social construct'. I know I've posted about this a lot, but this article has annoyed me. The fact that humans are divided into two sexes is a biological, objective fact. We will continue to reproduce sexually no matter what. The division into male and female is NOT a human construction: that was decided by nature. The author has committed a very basic fallacy in the form of "the importance we place on the sex division is socially constructed (true), therefore the very division into male and female is socially constructed (false)." They are confusing the thing itself with the social structures and framework we have constructed around that thing. And note, this reasoning could apply to ANYTHING, but we don't see people keen to say that age, or disability, or species is a social construct.

The reason we place such significance on sex as opposed to belly button type is due to patriarchy trying to control female reproductive labour, but it is also due to the fact that women have special needs and status due to the fact they can reproduce. If you live in a remote tribe and resources are scarce, it makes far more sense to prioritise the females in the group as males are far less reproductively valuable. There is nothing inherently different about people with inner belly buttons versus those with outie belly buttons. A tribe could be entirely made up of inner belly buttons and do quite fine. A tribe made up of solely males wouldn't last very long.

And my final point is just to point out that this focus on social construction is a big red herring. So WHAT if sex is a social construct (even though it's not?) The unspoken premise appears to be that 'if something is a social construct it is amenable to being arbitrarily changed.' The idea is that because sex is a human invention it is somehow less real. So being a woman is something that you could choose. But this is a complete non sequitur. Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it any less real. Being a member of the royal family is a complete social construct, but I can't just identify myself as royal. Money is socially constructed but I can't identify as rich. Even if sex is a social construct, why does this mean that unambiguous males get to suddenly just decide they are women? We literally don't allow such flexibility for any other human convention!

I would like to thank posters for coming on here and sharing articles and engaging, and I would really like to hear your thoughts on these points.

[BenCoopersSupportWren]

We know where women are, overwhelmingly, most at risk - and that’s in their own homes with perpetrators already known to them.

The sheer hypocrisy of using this as part of an argument for transwomen in female spaces!

Where are those victims of DV supposed to go to work through their trauma without the triggering presence of male-bodied people when you and your ilk have made all DV and rape crisis shelters mixed sex?

[LK1972]

Also, this is true, although 'may' is sadly superfluous:

'If a man claims a female gender identity we may have no way of verifying that so if we let one male born person in we must let them all in. '

There is no verification allowed under current interpretation of GRA, apparently, so any bloke who fancies it CURRENTLY feels entitled to use our spaces.

Whilst TRAs and their handmaidens are suggesting we now don't know what some commonly understood terms mean, or that we suddenly can't tell men from women

Mind truly boggles that that's where we are, with no effective protection for our single-sex spaces.

This issue will possibly need primary legislation for full guarantees of UK women's entitlement to single-sex spaces, and other stuff that I'm sure (respectfully suggested) 'Women's Rights Act' could reasonably discuss, given the appalling rate of murders and widespread assault on women in this country, including by some police officers.

Or at the very least we need secondary legislation to both the Equality Act and GRA to clarify the terms and interaction, as the current state of legislation has resulted in some really egregious stuff.

A tangential observation - whatever you think about the Tories, they DO want to win elections, so do listen closely to public opinion. Unlike, seemingly, Labour.

[LK1972]

@BenCoopersSupportWren

We know where women are, overwhelmingly, most at risk - and that’s in their own homes with perpetrators already known to them.

The sheer hypocrisy of using this as part of an argument for transwomen in female spaces!

Where are those victims of DV supposed to go to work through their trauma without the triggering presence of male-bodied people when you and your ilk have made all DV and rape crisis shelters mixed sex?

Apparently we should go and set up new provision if we want single sex, as none of the stuff belongs to us any more, we don't get a fucking say.

The provision women set up to start with, and pay for in taxation, doesn't belong to us, and has to include men

[PearlClench]

DV is a hell of a thing, but the ways to support and help women to avoid and escape coercive relationships really has nothing to do with the issue of risk posed by strangers.

You're more likely to die in an RTA than an aeroplane - this does not mean we abandon all safety checks for air travel.

[VestofAbsurdity]

The first female toilets were burned to the ground by men @aseriesofstillimages.

Men who can't bear women to have anything that excludes them or allows women a degree of freedom and the ability to participate in society outside the home.

What you @aseriesofstillimages and @Didimum are promoting and fighting for is to deny a large number of women who need guaranteed single sex spaces and services in order for them to participate at the bare minimum in society.
What you are saying to those women is Nah, we don't want you in society you're not worthy of consideration, respect, safety or dignity, men are our priority, not you. Does that make you feel all warm, fuzzy and virtuous knowing that you are denying women the most basic of basic considerations to allow them to participate in society?

As for this:

Enjoy your echo chamber, because that’s all you have. I’m sorry that you’re fighting a losing battle.

Hardly, look at the surveys, look at how this issue is firmly on the political agenda, look at the massive tantrums being thrown by TRAs (if the GC view and arguments are losing why are TRAs kicking up such a fuss?), look at the row-back being done by one sporting association/body after another, the confirmation from the EHRC regarding single sex spaces and the rhetoric coming from Government to ensure that spaces and services will be single sex, the abandonment of Stonewall by numerous Government Departments (and if Liz Truss becomes PM it is highly likely that will become all Government Departments, the NHS and the Police) the Court cases and the attention they shine on this ideology for the public and the subsequent attitude of the public towards it, the wins in Court, the setting of precedents in Court, the YouGov survey which concluded that the more the public are aware of the Gender Ideology Agenda the less they support it, there was no way YouGov could spin or obfuscate that finding it was a clear as day.

If you @aseriesofstillimages and @Didimum think you have a middle way, compromise, or whatever you'd better step up and set out what that will be pdq because the direction of travel is not going the TRA way.

[LK1972]

@Emotionalsupportviper

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.

Thank you, this is important to know and remember.

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’( attributed to George Santayana)