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)

And it's absolute bollocks to say this doesn't happen.

This. It is, we know it is, they know it is, we know they know it is.

Yes. I think that's where most workplaces are.
I refused to use preferred pronouns regarding myself (that stupid "my name is.... and my pronouns are....) at a previous employer and it caused no issue. Because employers know after Forstater that it's not a good idea to force staff into an ideological conflict.

Just wish people could be polite in their refusal. Sometimes posters come across as thinking they are in some kind of war and its not fair on the people (like that receptionist) just trying to do their jobs.

And in the example Cassie insists on quoting, the practice manager said that in any case, they were all going to be wearing pronoun badges the following week.

Every person there!

but no, there's no attempt to impose any of this on anyone else 😁

Yes. I think that's where most workplaces are.

No they aren't. They need to publicly say to all their employees that their staff are entitled not to use opposite sex pronouns, because they recognise freedom of expression and belief. And their staff can wear badges if they want, but it confers zero obligation.

Exactly.

Not...

... well we're all going to wear them now

Careful @Datun you'll get another biscuit. How will you cope?

Maybe in solidarity to the fact one of their staff just got treated really aggressively for wearing the badge?
Maybe, just maybe, being aggressive and fighty for no reason causes people to do the opposite of what you want them to?

... well we're all going to wear them now

It's the petty childishness I've come to expect from trans rights activists and their supporters.

I did say I wasn't going to engage with certain posters though so mea culpa, it will end here.

LOL, here's this from the Pankhursts

Honestly.
If some member of the public came in and was aggressive to a receptionist for wearing a badge, swore at another member of staff and then was really hostile on yet another phone call, I'd want to show solidarity too.

What KJK did was bullying. And the practice is right to stand up to it.

I hate pronoun badges too, but I think it's disingenuous to portray them as only an instruction to speak in a particular way, on pain of social (or worse) punishment.

Most people are able to elicit unobjectionable-to-them pronouns from others just by their visible gender expression. If we ignore the non-binary nonsense, this is a practical problem essentially for non-passing trans people. The badge is saying 'I'm not just a man in a dress/a woman who's been working out'.

I don't know why they picked pronouns - why couldn't they achieve the same objective with really unsubtle name badges? If the man in a dress is called 'Mrs Susan Smith', I think we'll get the message.

(None of this negates that it's all very annoying because people can't change sex)

Well it's a step forward from horrific insults and claims I'm a facilitator of sex abuse, so I'll take it. Feel free to do that every time.

Datun

Exactly
This receptionist apparently has big boobs, even with a binder. So must get misgendered all the time. I think it was a practical solution too and they didn't deserve someone forcing them to justify themselves at work.

Good point! What not just have names?! This seems like a simple solution.

I don't know why they picked pronouns - why couldn't they achieve the same objective with really unsubtle name badges? If the man in a dress is called 'Mrs Susan Smith', I think we'll get the message.

Because telling people what your own name is is not the same as directing basic parts of people's speech to refer to you in the third person. It is about control. It's not disingenuous to point that out, and if you don't see the power trip element you are missing the point.

That's why they "picked pronouns".

People have said pronoun badges shouldn't be allowed in the NHS. That they are an ideological symbol of the genderist cult, etc etc.

Yes they are an ideological symbol of Gender Ideology, what else could they be?

So yes, that sounds to me like demanding people use sex based pronouns. Otherwise why get so het up about a flipping badge?

Or just using the correct pronouns in the correct way as per the English Language.

So I wonder if my suggestion to workplaces will work as a solution.

They need to publicly say to all their employees that their staff are entitled not to use opposite sex pronouns, because they recognise freedom of expression and belief. And their staff can wear badges if they want, but it confers zero obligation.

If not, please explain why not.

I'd expect a more mature attitude from a doctors' surgery.

Me too.

It's about dominance. A name doesn't dominate in the same way. Plenty of women have boys' names, and occasionally, vice versa.

Calling a man she is unequivocal.

You see it with a link posted up thread where a man went ballistic because they didn't call him ma'am. Even though they tried, and were clearly frightened by him

Another man hit someone with a claw hammer for 'misgendering' him. You have a transwoman going into restaurants filming himself when he gets called sir out of politeness, (will that be all, sir) asks for the manager, complaints bitterly, tries to get free food.

It's been used as a tool to dominate and control.

As a trans person said, (maybe on this thread, maybe the last one), most of the trans people they know do not wear pronoun badges. And think the pronoun police do them no favours.

They're not wrong.

Well, that brings us nicely back to the subject of the thread.

What makes this woman trans?

Being trans seems to be simply 'I have an idea in my head that I am the opposite sex'. Since what is happening is simply an idea in their head, why does anyone else need to know about it, let alone pretend to believe that the person has changed sex?

People aren't 'misgendering' when they recognise that this woman is a woman. They're just noticing reality.

This receptionist apparently has big boobs, even with a binder. So must get misgendered all the time. I think it was a practical solution too and they didn't deserve someone forcing them to justify themselves at work.

Oh no! Not misgendering!!

So to avoid that fate the receptionist wears a badge with pronouns on it but it's okay people don't have to take any notice of it, it's not compelling speech or thought or asking anyone to buy into the belief that this female wants you to think of them and address them as a male. Could that be any more contradictory and illogical?

And this is how we get to males who rape being referred to in Court as 'she', because that is their preferred pronoun but of course it's not insidious in any way at all.