Tinkerbell syndrome, pronoun badges and trans existence

[Alltheprettyseahorses]

Inspired by some posts in a now-full thread:

Someone in the workplace who is trans is literally existing as trans in public. Yet we are told that disagreeing with accessories like pronoun badges means we don't want transpeople to exist in public.

So - must trans necessarily involve others and is it so fragile an identity that it will disappear like Tinkerbell if not constantly affirmed by everyone around the transperson? Is not noticing the badge transphobic? As most people, including those with specific protected characteristics and including most transpeople to be honest, don't wear badges announcing their identity, does this mean they don't exist in public?

I would argue the sole purpose of pronoun badges is to involve others in the validation of a specific type of trans identity whether they consent to this or not and even if they don't understand they have been allocated as having a supporting role in someone else's main-character life. But speaking on a personal level, I have my own priorities and interests - I find it an imposition to be subjected to the macroaggression of being expected to change my natural language processes for someone who will never be part of my concerns.

(I don't normally start threads so if I don't come back I'm not shaving my hairy feet, I've probably forgotten or something)

Totally agree.

Just so self absorbed. Cannot imagine having the brass neck to demand others adjust how they speak to fit in with me. Main character energy there.

If a minor adjustment/accommodation on my part were to help another person navigate a complicated world, I'd prefer to say yes than no.

And if the minor adjustment was not to confuse or upset vulnerable people - which would be the case in a healthcare setting - does that go both ways?

I would argue the sole purpose of pronoun badges is to involve others in the validation of a specific type of trans identity whether they consent to this or not and even if they don't understand they have been allocated as having a supporting role in someone else's main-character life.

Agree.

That's nice. You must be a very kind person.

Not everyone is able to make even minor adjustments in verbal communication due to a host of reasons... ill health, distress, cognitive impairment, neurodiveraory, trauma or perhaps when English is not your first language.

And some of us aren't prepared to pick our way through linguistic landmines.

Health care is not the place for pronouns.

I'm not particularly kind but as a general rule I think it's better to look towards inclusion rather than exclusion.

I regard myself a GC lite. Totally on board with biological reality and the need for single-sex spaces where needed.
I totally draw the line at manufactured arguments to target real live people who are just getting by. (I read the other thread too.)

To be honest, unless the pronouns on a badge are written in large type the chances of me noticing and being able to read them are pretty minimal as I am short sighted and don't wear my glasses all the time. I would imagine the same would apply to many people. Unless the person wearing a badge corrects people who don't use the preferred pronouns the only person who benefits is the badge wearer, who presumably likes the feeling of asserting their individuality. If I were asked to use preferred pronouns in the situation outlined in the other post I'd comply for the sake of a quiet life. But if they didn't wear the badge on my next visit I'd be confused - would it mean they no longer wanted the new pronouns?

Interesting take away from the other thread.

I see a pronoun badge as minorly eye rolling, and also maybe useful in some contexts. So in the case of the previous thread, if its important to someone and they are a doctors receptionist, then they might choose to wear the badge rather than tell people 500 times a day.

I certainly don't think a pronoun badge is an invite for someone to be aggressive and rude. If they bother you, ignore them?

Why would they need to keep telling people? The only pronoun people would use when talking to them would be 'you'.

I don't think it's been suggested that a pronoun badge is an invitation to be aggressive or rude, seems like a straw man.

I struggle with fatigue. As I have found it, this is way more than just, 'feeling tired'. It affects me mentally with word finding, especially in stressful situations. I can't always follow a conversation if there is excess stimuli, eg background noise.

It's worse when I'm stressed.

Being confronted with pronoun badges when I'm in a vulnerable state such as a healthcare appointment adds to my mental load, making it more difficult for me to engage with and understand what's being said and increasing my exhaustion afterwards.

It doesn't feel very kind or inclusive, especially when I'm the patient (I would feel differently if I was working in healthcare and a patient was wearing one).

Patients should come first.

Also agree, it's an invitation to submit.

FTN

But it's not a 'manufactured argument' which is 'targeting people who are just trying to get by'.

For all the reasons discussed here and on the other thread.

If it doesn't bother you, that's great.

Some people find it difficult, for a variety of reasons, and don't want their engagement with healthcare to be made more difficult by special requests of them from the staff that are supposed to be caring for them!

That’s quite the re-frame, conveniently not mentioning the swearing, harassment, abuse and doxxing of a trans person who did nothing wrong.

They directed the person who complained about their pronoun badge (KJK) to the proper channel to make a formal complaint.

That person (KJK) is the one who chose to make a big unedifying fuss, and call for trans people not to be employed.

KJK actually does think trans people should not be employed, or housed etc. she’s said so, lots of times, on record.

What part of transphobia is so hard to understand here?

KJK was (and is) transphobic. Get over it.

Showing pronouns on badges arguably makes it easier for second language English speakers, and those who struggle to remember or use pronouns. The contention that wearing a pronoun badge makes healthcare less accessible doesn’t bear up under scrutiny, at all. It’s just a trope of the transphobic fringe.

Really. So imagine 2 receptionists, trans one goes to get paperwork, another one asks if you are OK- you say - "I'm being dealt with, she's just gone to get paperwork".
Puts the second receptionist in an awkward position as they might feel the need to "correct". Puts the original receptionist in an awkward position if they overhear. A whole heap of awks avoided by a badge, that may very well be a polite request rather than a demand.

I mean equally, the patient could avoid pronouns and then there is no "compelled speech" involved.

@AstonScrapingsNameChange are you quite sure you read the other thread?

I don't think it's been suggested that a pronoun badge is an invitation to be aggressive or rude, seems like a straw man.

There are really a lot of posts on that thread supporting & excusing KJK, agreeing with her, saying they don’t blame her, and that she was driven to it by the behaviour of other trans people and allies.

At that NHS practice all the staff will be wearing pronoun badges now whether trans or not.
That really gets my goat because it's so mind numbingly pointless.

At the end of the day, if you look like a woman people are going to call you "she" and if you look like a man people will call you "he".

If you have an internal gender identity that completely contradicts reality, people are going to misgender you regardless of a badge, but you'll never know because people tend not to use "he/she" to your face. So these badges really are just political signalling which is really inappropriate in the workplace.

This.

It’s very common to use a personal pronoun in the presence of that person, when referring to them in speech to a third party.

Denying this ever happens is another handy trope of the transphobic fringe. Oft trotted out, even though it’s patently untrue.

What if people find it difficult for hateful reasons?
What if they are hatemongers who just want to bully someone with a badge?

"your colleague is looking after me' 'someone is looking after me' 'I'm being attended to' or, if they use their name badges, 'Tinkerbell is looking after me'

no pronouns needed in normal speech

That could happen if the patient has poor eyesight, or just hasn't noticed the badge. When people wear name badges I often don't read them, so people like me might not notice the pronouns.

An elderly person who has never come across the pronoun nonsense might see the badge and think 'why is that woman wearing a badge saying he/him?' and still use sex-based pronouns for her.

Someone who is very stressed about their health might be focusing on that rather than on the opposite-sex pronoun that the person is displaying on their badge and just use natural speech which would mean using those for the sex of the person.

This, all the way.

KJK’s behaviour was so unambiguously transphobic, bullying someone just doing their job whilst being trans.

Sad to see yet another thread dragging it all over again to see if there’s a way to make it trans people’s fault.

This is equally true for medical professionals who have names that may be difficult for patients to pronounce, remember, and use consistently.

Do you think Drs with complicated or unusual names should hide them, or not use them?

There is nothing 'kind' about requiring to control someone else through enforcing their language and attempting to coerce them into enabling what may be to their perceptions and beliefs, a fiction.

It may appear to some who are gender atheists, that this is not a request for 'kindness' but a demand that another person signals their compliance and subordination. It is a rapid way to state power hierarchy.

And as pps mention, it is also ableist, and intolerant of other people's equality, their right to their own beliefs and freedoms of language and perception. The power is not equal: someone who hesitates or does not comply has marked themselves out as a heretic and may be identified as a target for criticism or worse due to this intolerance.

Because it always comes with the 'you would do this for me if you were kind', it is also related to the 'cry bullying' description that arose in one of the recent court cases, I believe explained by the judge. There is an element of coercion involved, relying on 'protect and take care of me', which appeals strongly to nice people with poor boundaries.

I have absolutely no problem with people choosing whatever language they wish for themselves. I expect them to extend me the exact same courtesy.

Using pronouns in that way was always regarded as very discourteous - in the olden days, referring to a third party as 'she' or 'he' would get a sharp reproof along the lines of 'who's 'she'? the cat's mother?'

When did that change - or is it just that we have to ignore normal manners to placate ego?