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)

You aren't defending "freedom of expression" if you insist everyone must use sex based pronouns. The opposite, in fact

Nobody defending freedom of expression is insisting on anything.
Freedom of expression means nobody gets to police what others do.
The freedom extends to everyone, including those who don't believe gender is an actual thing*
*Feel free to explain it to me if you like?

@CassieMaddox
Extreme is banning people from using preferred pronouns because "they are compelling speech",
Extreme and not happening

banning pronpun badges
Banning them in law : Extreme and not happening.
An employer saying they're not appropriate in their workplace : not extreme.

If people refer to you by the wrong pronouns because you are wearing a badge telling them to and they have been told that it is ‘inclusive’ then they have been coerced. That is not freedom of expression.

You're comparing the wearing of pronoun badges with crucifixes and headscarves, so you accept that pronoun badges are also religious symbols.

There is a difference though.

If I see someone wearing a crucifix or another religious symbol, I will probably make an assumption about their religion, but that's all. That person following a particular religion doesn't affect me.

If I see a woman wearing a badge saying 'he/him', I will assume that that woman wants me to pretend that she is a man. If this is in my workplace I will wonder if I will be in trouble if I don't comply. If it's in my doctor's surgery, I'll wonder what the sex of the doctor will be if have requested a female doctor. I will also worry about being accused of transphobia if I forget that the woman wants people to pretend she's a man.

Other religions don't make similar demands on non-adherents.

Humans, like other mammals, can’t change sex. How is it ‘extreme’ to believe a simple biological fact?

Pronoun badges can be a bit useful, in one way. They warn you that the wearer expects you to obey the rules of genderism.

Not totally useful, in that you can’t tell if the wearer is a true believer, or if they simply obey because they don’t want to be penalised. But at least you have been warned.

You aren't defending "freedom of expression" if you insist everyone must use sex based pronouns. The opposite, in fact

That is not what we are insisting. We are insisting that nobody should be obliged to use opposite sex pronouns when referring to another person. That is freedom of expression.

However, I suspect you, as with so many in thrall to this pernicious ideology, are using words according to what you want them to mean, rather than according to their actual meaning. 'Using pronouns'. The person using the pronouns is the person speaking, not the person defining how they wish to be referred to.

'My pronouns' can only be the pronouns I use to refer to myself; I, me, my, mine. Trans ideology has redefined 'my pronouns' to mean the pronouns I use to refer to the person claiming ownership of those pronouns. Hmmm, now let me think, what other words does trans ideology redefine?

OK. So you also are not in the "pronoun badges should be banned" camp?
I'm kind of wishing there was a voting option

There was a comment earlier in the thread that wearing a pronoun badge means that the person doesn't then have too keep telling people that they're trans. But why do other people need to know this?

Exactly, I don't have any interest in people's internal self image, unless they are a personal friend or family member.

All you need to know about it is there is an extreme at one end that says sex is paramount and an extreme at the other that says gender is paramount. I think the extreme sex based position is as ridiculous as the extreme gender based position.

In English, third person pronouns referring to people have always been based on their sex.

Sometime in the last decade or so, a few people decided that everyone should be able to state their 'preferred pronouns' and either request or demand that other people use those pronouns when referring to them, whether they are present or not.

It's not 'extreme' to continue to use pronouns in English in the same way as they have always been used. The 'extreme' position is that a fad that started a few years ago (in America?), amongst a few adherents of a new quasi religious movement, should be adopted by the whole of society.

😂
Maybe not in the UK. Plenty of people globally have been persecuted/harmed/killed for not adhering to their countries religion. We are very lucky here.

Yes. I do see gender as akin to religion. As a person of no religion (and also no gender) I'm very used to nodding and smiling at religious peoples beliefs. We don't call those fantasies or delusions as that would be offensive.

Only if my badge says 'Female'

Sex-based pronouns are the norm. That is the starting point. Using language which implies that a man is a woman is more or less a lie. But let's call it freedom of expression for the sake of argument. If we are talking about a work context, as I said in my first post, I think employees could be allowed to ask, and everyone allowed to refuse. But all rights, including freedom of expression, are subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing the use of wrong sex pronouns to refer to a person is a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression in many work contexts.

Some people, especially in social situations, are prepared to make the special accommodation of using wrong-sex pronouns. That's up to them.

What you keep saying is that we ought to use preferred pronouns because it's "polite" or "adult". That is like saying we ought to call a priest "Father" or refer to North as South because some people want us to.

How many people continually share their religious beliefs with you? It never happens to me 🤷🏻‍♀️

Pronoun badges are an attempt at policing what others do, so no, I'm certainly not in favour.

Not allowing the use of wrong sex pronouns to refer to a person is a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression in many work contexts.

My employer thinks it acceptable to force people to use wrong-sex pronouns about a person if that person requests it. I'm justifiably nervous and currently job-hunting. I consider their conduct to be forced speech but I also don't fancy having to move house and otherwise evade TRA harassment so I'm disinclined to attempt any kind of legal challenge.

My sympathies.

We are very lucky here.

Yes, and let's keep it that way, by not forcing non-adherents of the genderist religion/cult to comply with pronoun demands which they don't agree with or believe in.

I'm very used to nodding and smiling at religious peoples beliefs. We don't call those fantasies or delusions as that would be offensive.

I'm also polite about religious people's beliefs, but there are plenty of atheists who are quite offensive about religion and religious people, and they do sometimes call those beliefs fantasies and delusions. They don't seem to get as much flak (in the UK) as people who criticise genderism though.

Have you never had the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door?

Quite a lot, but its because of my academic background in evolutionary biology. Certain people feel duty bound to "convert" me when they find that out, it is tediously predictable.

If I see a woman wearing a badge saying 'he/him', I will assume that that woman wants me to pretend that she is a man. If this is in my workplace I will wonder if I will be in trouble if I don't comply. If it's in my doctor's surgery, I'll wonder what the sex of the doctor will be if have requested a female doctor. I will also worry about being accused of transphobia if I forget that the woman wants people to pretend she's a man.

Agree @OldCrone

they do sometimes call those beliefs fantasies and delusions

They are! We keep getting bunches of people going to war over what some invisible man in the sky allegedly said 4000 years ago. Yeah, I'll stand by the term "delusion" for that.

What I rightly don't get to do is say the above at work. Likewise, the CoE congregant at the next desk doesn't get to tell me that I'm going to hell for my disbelief in any kind of god.

No. That isn't what I keep saying. I say that's why I use them. What I "keep saying" is its up to other people whether or not they use them, and I don't think we should ban their use as that's overly authoritarian.

I also think people who don't want to use them picking fights with people who use opposite sex pronouns is extremely rude and unnecessary.

Exactly!
Yet people seem to think it's fine to call trans people's beliefs delusions and fantasies, when it's the same thing.
Pot, kettle etc.