Women's rights general conversations - Thread 7

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 6.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

I really don't miss the World of Work. It was bad enough before, but now, with added Pronoun Hell, I can't imagine...

So astounding I forgot the main (WR-relevant bit of the post). He wants gender neutral 'bathrooms' in the office because otherwise he has to choose between 'misgendering himself' or using the accessible loo.

At least he recognises the latter isn't ideal, but no thought whatsoever for the women in the office who might want a single-sex space (we have quite a few hijab-wearing staff who I suspect may not be delighted to share with a man, as well as no doubt some with invisible reasons).

It's easier to just not communicate with they/them.

Fortunately they is in another department that I have nothing to do with.

He sounds more up himself than a Klein bottle, Bint.

My blue haired young friend was explaining to me about Mx as a title. Kind of like Ms (obscuring marital status because none of your business / don't believe etc), but Mx makes it unclear if you are male or female it does however signify blue hair to 80% confidence level

I don't hate it. It would go nicely with my non-gender ism. ( gender is bollocks rather than my gender is non-gender )

My hair remains brown. Mainly because my hairline is in more danger than the white rhino and I daren't abuse what's left with bleach.

Probably just as well for you and they.

But it's something general that interests me - how much tolerance do people have for this kind of thing? I mean, you might comply in work if it's company policy, but many are going to avoid any social interaction of any kind because nobody's so fun and charming that it makes up for this kind of thing. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if you take yourself and your curated identity this seriously, you're probably quite tiresome/humourless in general to be around.

My problem with Mx (apart from pronunciation) is, what is the point of a title that tells you nothing? My preference is to just drop the whole title business entirely. Professional/qualification ones are OK within the relevant context, but otherwise they are just pointless flummery.

Thanks for the new thread!

I could go along with that, wouldn't miss(!) Miss, Mister, Mistress, Mhz and I don't care for Dr, Prof etc because eh no and I don't have any so I'm like a bit jelly

I can't even remember what thread it's on but our new frequent flyer made a comment about not looking at penises in changing rooms and I just thought 'ooh I bet you were a Wi Spa apologist'. I really hope it is MargeyIoFPie sockpuppeting because the idea that there's more than one is deeply depressing.

There is a section of the Man Rules that does indeed state that we should not look at another man's penis. Unless you want to gay sex him, obviously.

Far more likely to be straight up minimising and disregarding male crimes against women, than a citation of the Bro Code, tbf.

If there's a penis in the women's changing rooms not only will it be looked at you can be sure that the man attached to it wants it to be looked at. That looking at it is the point of having it out. Bad enough when the penis is flaccid but an erect one is harassment. It's flashing with "consent". The fact that anyone thinks it's okay is a disgrace.

It's the egg donation one, where our new prolific TRSOHer is doing so brilliantly that I could have filled 3049586 Bingo cards overnight. I think they are real - remember how many female women have Being Kind And Nurturing And Lovely And Especially To Male People as their most-precious part of their core identity.

In a related situation to @BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn, some of you may remember that work Thing I applied for a while ago. So, I got in, which I am very pleased about.

There will be a series of training sessions/workshops covering wide aspects of the Thing.

One session, naturally, is entirely about Q (from the wording of the title, I gather the Q is meant to be the umbrella term, the one letter to rule them all). It will be run by somebody who is heavily festooned with many pronouns, and whose credentials only mention QT. We have a choice whether to attend these sessions in-person or online, so I am wondering about doing that one online to avoid any chance of direct confrontation re: pronoun declarations and the like - to be clear for any Righteous, I don't give a monkey's if everybody else in the session wants to wave their pronouns around, I just don't want to myself and I don't want to discuss my lack of pronoun-display at all. Not to mention I could hide my eye-rolling by switching off my camera.

NB: There are no sessions about including other groups, which I find disappointing because the Thing is one that (say) disabled people, disadvantaged socio-economic people, those without fluent English, less educated people, older or younger age groups, etc, would benefit from particular training for us to do with them. And in fact was one of the reasons why I applied for the Thing in the first place 🙄 because I was already doing the Thing in small amounts aimed at such groups.

Congrats on getting the Thing!

And how annoying - might there be any possibility to raise (at the session or elsewhere) that they seem to have forgotten other groups that would benefit?

I think the remote or in person would depend on how much of a fight you're up for. At the moment I'm launching myself in increasingly fiercely, but I am already planning to leave in under 12 months, so wouldn't at all mind them paying me to go away. For a new thing you actually want to be doing then yes, online might be best so they can't see the eye roling.

Although I'd still find it almost impossible to resist dropping in knowing quite a few gay people who find Q offensive and why have they chosen that term?

Or perhaps rather than 'seem to have forgotten' it would be more tactful to assume they haven't forgotten and just ask when the sessions are for those groups because you're really keen to get involved with those...

OMG. Just reading the egg thread. I also note that AlphaGolfingPapa has posted again on the KJK thread after supposedly flouncing off the site a few days ago. Curiouser and curiouser.

I think we're addictive, like salted peanuts 😁 Fair play to the lad, at least he didn't name change.

I’ve not name-changed on MN so far, but understood that if you name-change for a thread that name stays the same throughout the thread?

Oh, and what does “YY” (or sometimes several multiples of Y) mean on MN? I’ve worked out most of the other commonly-used acronyms.

I think YY is agreement.

You can still change name within a thread, but it takes more effort than it used to. The default is now whatever you first posted under on the thread rather than whatever you most posted under on any thread, so it makes accidental name change fails less likely.

Tbh idk but ianal and naaalt iyswim. 😁

I always thought it was just 'yes, yes', to emphasise agreement.

Depending on what the sessions are like, I'll take this approach, subtle-like. "How do we adapt Thing in different ways to be Inclusive for all groups?" with wide earnest eyes. But not in the Q session, because my camera will be off so nobody will see my wide earnest eyes.

I would do the sessions remotely if I were you, kuc