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)

Not after yesterday, certainly 😳

Especially if any emphasis is in your head. Which when we say things in the written form, it often is.

This is why I abuse bold text so much in my posts.

True; my focus is usually on the men driving this, and I tend to think of the women claiming not to be women as reflecting that same misogyny.

I have no idea who is accusing someone and I don't care who of having "a fragile sense of womanhood" and "fearing erasure and annihilation". I am not trawling 400+ posts to check who.

I am going to take issue with the implication that any woman "fearing erasure and annihilation" is being unreasonable. We have seen women erased from winners' lists in professional sport, as men take podium places in women's events. We have seen Stonewall state as an aim the removal of "sex" from the Equality Act protected characteristics, which would erase women in equality law. We have seen a male take the top job in Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and tell rape victims to "reframe their trauma", whilst Brighton's rape centre refuse to offer female-only counselling. Lesbian groups have had to go underground to stay male-free. Straight women married to transitioners risk losing the spousal exit clause under the new Labour govt. Nurses and patients alike are gaslit by captured NHS trusts that there are no men present as intact males waltz into their spaces.

Female spaces are being erased. Lesbians are being annihilated. Straight women are being told that they are now in lesbian marriages, erasing the truth of the straight marriages they consented to. Rape victims are having their mental health and support services annihilated. Women's sporting and business achievements (remember Pips Bunce on that woman in business list?) are being erased. Women's existence in law as a sex class that needs and deserves protection because of our reproductive capacity is being erased.

Anyone who thinks that women "fearing erasure and annihilation" are mentally unwell or unreasonable really needs to give their head a wobble.

I have no idea what a "sense of womanhood" so I have no idea how or even if it can be fragile.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Are you having a laugh? The word I is not ambiguous. Other people's apparent confusion and lack of understanding of that simple word should not mean I have to accompany it with me personally or speaking of myself alone. Compelled speech is not free speech. Tautology is a waste.

If people need to have it explained to them that I does not mean you, that's bad and mad.🤯

No worries Too Big. Personally I'd find it a little tedious to keep being misunderstood.

And by personally, I mean almost everyone.

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.

I wrote what I meant. If several people choose to misinterpret what I said because they believe everything is about them, their thoughts, their feelings, their imaginings and opinions that's on them. I will not be compelled into indulging their flights of fancy. by explaining what the word I means before I use it.

Personally means personally, not almost everyone. It's that type of "words mean whatever I want them to mean even if it's the opposite of what they actually mean" that causes misunderstanding. It can even be dangerous.

Not really it means that lots of people aren't buying it.

I am going to take issue with the implication that any woman "fearing erasure and annihilation" is being unreasonable. We have seen women erased from winners' lists in professional sport, as men take podium places in women's events. We have seen Stonewall state as an aim the removal of "sex" from the Equality Act protected characteristics, which would erase women in equality law. We have seen a male take the top job in Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and tell rape victims to "reframe their trauma", whilst Brighton's rape centre refuse to offer female-only counselling. Lesbian groups have had to go underground to stay male-free. Straight women married to transitioners risk losing the spousal exit clause under the new Labour govt. Nurses and patients alike are gaslit by captured NHS trusts that there are no men present as intact males waltz into their spaces.

Female spaces are being erased. Lesbians are being annihilated. Straight women are being told that they are now in lesbian marriages, erasing the truth of the straight marriages they consented to. Rape victims are having their mental health and support services annihilated. Women's sporting and business achievements (remember Pips Bunce on that woman in business list?) are being erased. Women's existence in law as a sex class that needs and deserves protection because of our reproductive capacity is being erased.

Well said. It's especially odd that self declared "GC" people don't see that or think it's something to make backhanded comments about.

Couldn't agree more. In a group someone said to me 'because you're cis-female' and I said 'sorry I'm what?' And they repeated it. I said 'I don't know what that means. You've called me something that I'm not used to being called. I'm a female and always have been and you've labelled me something completely different.' They then called me a bigot and said I had offended them by not agreeing with the term cis.

They then called me a bigot and said I had offended them by not agreeing with the term cis.

It doesn't surprise me at all. This is how these people operate, by shaming and abuse.

@Ereshkigalangcleg yes it was actually an awful experience. I received little support from others at the time as it was at a work social. I had had a few to drink, my boss spoke to me about it the next day. I didn't get in trouble but they said we have to be careful how we speak to others as feelings around this issue are sensitive. I was told that although I had a right to defend how I want to be labelled too, I was not a minority group that is being targeted with hate so I needed to understand the other perspective.

Women have been "targeted with hate" since time immemorial.

This ⬆️
What a horrid experience, Mummyrolling2014.

These men and their supporters not only see "woman" as a concept, a dressup, but want women to be a subset - implicitly an inferior subset - of our own sex.

When declaring that all employees must designate their pronouns it becomes an issue. What if one prefers not to?

It would be so tempting to say "My pronouns are Fuck/Off or (if one could) I/Quit".

Class hasn't come up much in the discussion, but pronoun badges feel to me like, how to wear a badge saying I went to a posh school without wearing a badge saying I went to a post school.

Luxury beliefs, indeed.

These men and their supporters not only see "woman" as a concept, a dressup, but want women to be a subset - implicitly an inferior subset - of our own sex.

Yes.

100%.

Since when were men with feelings more vulnerable than women?

Come know Arabella we all know that according to the laws of Genderist CSJ, men who demand we call them women are oppressed by women - the actual vagina havers...why even as we speak Caitlin Jenner is being oppressed by evil cis-overlord Malal Yousafzai...🙄

Interesting. Can you elucidate?