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)

Yep,life is short,parsnips to peel etc.

I worded things perfectly clearly. Where I wrote I, I meant I. Me. TooBigForMyBoots.

How much clearer do I need to be? How do I need to refer to myself so several posters can understand what I am saying?

You minimised women's feelings in a dismissive, sneering way.

Several posters agreed with this description of your posts and commented thereto.

How much clearer do you need to be? Well, if that reaction to your posts wasn't what you intended or meant then you need to be a lot clearer in your delivery don't you?

I think posters understand perfectly what you are saying, you don't like that they do and their reaction to it and are trying to backtrack and justify your comments.

TooBigForMyBoots

A lot can be lost in translation. Especially if any emphasis is in your head. Which when we say things in the written form, it often is.

if you are literally only referring to yourself and you think it might be ambiguous, maybe say for me personally, or speaking of myself alone.

It might feel like overkill. But if it makes everything clearer to people reading, then it can't be a bad thing

Fairs. Although having listened to my kids I think "a bit of a knob" is a mild insult compared to "insecure pick me". I think loads of people are a "bit of a knob", it's really no biggie. Certainly don't avoid interacting with people on that basis.

He was sacked for being an arsehole and using ridiculous terms on his signature instead of none.

It doesn't help get concerns taken seriously if you stick up for people who acted like an arsehole and are clearly in the wrong.

See I read that as a direct comment about KJK going "mama bear" and having a tantrum because of a badge.

I always find your posts very clear....it is a bit weird on here sometimes that people seem to find communication styles difficult that aren't a problem anywhere else on the site

That several posters agreed with something doesn't make it true. In the past several posters have made loads of comments about me that weren't true. The fact they made them isn't enough to make them true.

My delivery couldn't be clearer. That people are unable to read my clear and concise posts without thinking it's all about them is not a problem with my delivery, it's a problem with their reading comprehension or beliefs.

I have not backtracked or needed to justify any of my posts. The need for clarity came from those who can't or choose not to understand basic English pronouns.

I means I. Not "you", not "we", not "them". And pointing that out is not displaying an attitude problem. It's making a factual statement.

So the implication was that it was KJK who has a fragile "sense of womanhood", and "fears erasure and annihilation"?

The implication was still there, whether it was directed at KJK or the women posting on the thread.

That several posters agreed with something doesn't make it true

No, but it is true regardless.

This. I don't think several posters on this thread are capable of making a reasoned point without insulting other women.

I have not backtracked or needed to justify any of my posts. The need for clarity came from those who can't or choose not to understand basic English pronouns.

And again, some posters cannot help themselves. Disliking pronoun demands does not mean that a person can't understand pronouns.

Completely transparent, as I said. Despite all the unconvincing bluster.

I answered the questions you asked, you don't want or like the answers, are determined that you are in the right there is no point in continuing this exchange with you.

In my opinion you are trying to backtrack and justify the comments you made, most notably your re-working of the comment about womanhood.

Posters on here understand basic English perfectly well you seem to have a problem with that.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree there, given that Boots and I are both women

I thought you were talking about the posters on this thread, because I'm not a liar or a moron. [Obviously this post is completely about me and couldn't be understood to be insulting anyone else]

So you read the word I and made a massive jump to assume I was talking about KJK? Other posters read the word I and made the massive jump to assume I was talking about them?

No. Yis* are just making shit up? Why?

Yis, colloquial plural of you* for clarity.

Sorry, just a wrong assumption

You are entitled to your opinion. It's an opinion. It's yours. It doesn't make it true. "I think a thought therefore its true" is not reality, no matter how many agree with you.🤷‍♀️

Some posters on here don't understand the word I, they think it means "them" or KJK. Those posters either don't understand basic English or they're being disingenuous and making shit up.

LOL is all I have to say to that little exchange.

Okay a couple of questions for you @TooBigForMyBoots - You don't have a fragile sense of womanhood, who does? What was the point of the comment?

Drink!

That's not a sensible plan for your evening @Mmmnotsure

That several posters agreed with something doesn't make it true.

No, but if several people are interpreting your posts in a certain way, which you say is not what you meant, then it's likely that you weren't expressing yourself very clearly.

My delivery couldn't be clearer. That people are unable to read my clear and concise posts without thinking it's all about them is not a problem with my delivery, it's a problem with their reading comprehension or beliefs.

The people posting here are not unintelligent and we don't normally have a problem understanding each other. If several people had misunderstood my posts, which I believed to be clearly worded, I'd go back and have a look at my posts and have a good think about why that might be.

This has happened to me, and I've gone back to my posts and realised why the misunderstanding has occurred. It's not always obvious, because you might have to put aside your own preconceptions and think about how someone else, with different beliefs, might perceive what you've written.

Why are you unwilling to even think about why your posts have been misunderstood, or consider that it might be to do with the way you have expressed yourself? What makes you so convinced that all the others on this thread are wrong and you are right?