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)

Funnily enough, I connected this thread with the one about the guy who was sacked for pronouns. (I'm paraphrasing, that may not be the exact title.)

It's interesting that your take away from my comment was that I must not have read the other thread.

No comment on how pronoun badges are not kind but actively difficult for people like me? Or does all the kindness and consideration only go one way?

The other thread is irrelevant. I'm here because I think the subject of this thread is worthy of discussion. I think it's imperative that when introducing a change to society (in this case, mandatory pronoun badges in a healthcare setting), we should examine all the possible impacts of that change.

I think it's interesting to examine the often claimed phenomenon that trans people will cease to exist if misgendered and that it is therefore 'literal violence'. This elevates simple mistakes at one end of the spectrum, and genuine unkindness at the other to a level beyond mere words. It is suggesting that it is somehow exponentially worse than any other kind of verbal mistake/ unkindness regarding any other group. I don't understand why that is.

To me, it suggests that the 'pronoun people' (not going to say trans people, as evidenced by this thread, not all trans people buy in to the importance of compelled pronouns) are somehow more delicate than all other humans, or that their feelings are more important. I don't believe this is the case, and nothing I've read here or elsewhere has convinced me of that. It just sounds like a falsehood concocted to prop up the 'most vulnerable group ever and that's why our rights matter more than women's' narrative.

Regarding the false analogy someone made of difficult names being like non standard pronouns, as PP have said, its not the same. I have never heard of someone getting angry / being disciplined over a genuine mistake when pronouncing a name.

This shows that you haven't understood my point about mental load. There is a big difference between a difficult word that is tricky to pronounce, and being asked to ignore the evidence of your own eyes (look up the psychological phenomenon 'the Stroop effect'). The latter places a much higher cognitive load on the reader. A load that I don't wish to be burdened with when accessing healthcare.

This isn't the other thread, @WinkyMcFlapFace. Hope that helps. It's not good MN etiquette to berate people on a different thread for not reading a thread they may not have any interest in.

People are at liberty to request use of special pronouns, I am at liberty to refuse or ignore.

A badge stating wrong sex or neo-pronouns is an instruction which the pronouns-havers have no right to issue.

At work, I don't believe that employers should encourage pronoun display. The pronouns-havers should be allowed to request special pronouns on an individual basis, but not insist. They can see themselves as they like, and so can everyone else. And if pronouns are allowed, then so should any other political or religious statement as long as it is WORIADS.

Where I am the client, customer or patient, the wishes of pronouns-haver are neither here nor there.

Yes, that sums up my position. I think this is how it will eventually be.

If you take actual GC points instead of your slightly exaggerated versions the inconsistency vanishes.

Most of the time we don't use someone pronouns when they are in front of us. Occasionally we do.

I don't think anyone has said seeing one pronoun badge will have dire consequences, but as a practice the more widespread it is the more negative outcomes there will be.

Gender ideology, in comparison, is built on towers of inconsistencies.

Saying "you aren't the main character in this story" is not DARVO.

Prounoun badges are a classic example of "main character syndrome".

*pronoun badges

Pronoun badges centre the care giver not the patient.

They signal "my needs come first."

Whilst I recognise that these sorts of professions, like my own, can be stressful and mental health is very important, at the end of the day the people for whom we are caring for are the priority.

Exactly.

Debatable really. I dont think all trans people think "they are the main character in a story". Some probably just don't want to bring it up multiple times a day.

We have no idea in the case of this receptionist how they handled being misgendered which is quite key to the badge. If its being used as a polite request to patients I don't see the issue. And I suspect that was the case given how the receptionist responded to KJK.

I don't think you understand what Darvo is either. Which is lucky for you.

Blimey, the upset over pronoun badges is another level.

I'm a woman, but have short hair and I wear slightly baggy clothes and generally am just a bit scruffy. It's just what's comfortable for me but it means that I get misgendered a lot because someone else thinks their 'truth' is that I'm a man. Little did I know that if they think I am a man they might refuse to call me a woman because they refuse to go against their beliefs and that my existence is part of a political campaign to get people to OBEY.

To be honest, I'd just like to use toilets in peace (lets not even get into that debate). Or go to the shop and not have an awkward interaction. Or have people shout after me in the street 'is that a mum or a dad!?' when I'm walking with my infant son. Leave me alone! I didn't put a badge on to anger you.

Aside from a few vocal activists, I can tell you, most people just want to exist in peace. If a badge with a pronoun on it means someone gets to exist in a bit more peace then that seems fine. If you want to ignore it, then you can do that as well.

It's unlikely you'll ever even meet a trans person, you'll probably meet or know a man though - and they're a lot more likely to do you harm. Unless an angry person throws their pronoun badge at you, that might hurt.

Compared to the 2million women who have been awfully subject to violence by men, pronoun badges seems kind of trivial.

So my (and other disabled people's) carefully explained problems with pronoun badges in a healthcare setting are trivial?

Got it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Incidentally, I've also been misgendered when out in public due to short hair and blokey clothes. Funnily enough, I still exist.

I very much understand what DARVO is, @CassieMaddox. I've discussed my experience of abusive relationships before on this board and how I feel that quite lot of trans "rights" rhetoric is personally reminiscent of the same kind of coercive control. For a "GC" woman, you certainly spend a lot of time dismissing the feelings of other women about abusive behaviour, don't you?

Why does it happen that any time some women try and discuss something we feel is important to us, someone pops up to tell us it's irrelevant because there are more pressing issues (than pointless women's issues) ?

It's just a sightly more sophisticated way of getting us to shut up and it's not going to work.

I personally think it's a pointless waste of resources to give money to the cats protection people when there are children that need help, but you know what? I don't have a go at the people helping cats because guess what? It's their choice and at least they're getting to put some good into the world. I don't harangue them about what they should care about.

I really dislike the way some posters try to elevate their own experiences to tell the rest of us what we should think, or shame us by telling us or concerns are trivial.

It's really unpleasant.

Edit for clarity, I was supporting your post! Not sure that was clear.

I'm saying this now, and then I won't be engaging with you again here, Cassie. You have very little to add to the conversation apart from attacking other women and minimising their concerns and feelings. I'm going to talk about pronouns and how "main character" they are. You can whinge on about KJK as much as you want.

I personally think it's a pointless waste of resources to give money to the cats protection people when there are children that need help, but you know what? I don't have a go at the people helping cats because guess what? It's their choice and at least they're getting to put some good into the world. I don't harangue them about what they should care about.

Quite. Also I might possibly discuss that type of thing on an AIBU thread, but I certainly wouldn't bang on about it in The Litter Tray.

lol. if people weren't worried about getting fired, attacked, targeted or threatened, for using the correct sex pronouns they wouldn't be scrabbling around trying to find ways to get round it, would they!

Trying not to use any pronouns at all is a direct result of not wanting to be compelled into unconsenting participation in trans ideology.

One is the logical result of the other.

Edit for clarity, I was supporting your post! Not sure that was clear.

It was clear, thank you!

Trying not to use any pronouns at all is a direct result of not wanting to be compelled into unconsenting participation in trans ideology.

We wanted to talk about trans issues, without compromising our beliefs. We get around it because we have to. Mostly, I'd rather not. It's an imposition on me. And frankly sometimes it's so ludicrous to call an obvious male by "she/her" pronouns that it's clearly a power trip on their part.

Worth pointing out that pronouns are forced as part of a culture of fear rather than out of free will.

People feel forced to use them or they will be the victim of consequences. This includes being reported by third parties.

Any of the wacko comments about the hypocrisy of GC people need to take this into consideration.

Honestly.

The reason so many people on here are compelled to use they instead of he, or she, is because they get instantly reported by TRAs if they don't.

And then TRAs blame them for it!

I think we crossposted, red.

It really is the height of cheek to blame women for using they 😁

I think, eventually there will have to be a carve out for conscientious objection to all elements of genderism. I also think it will basically eat itself as a concept, when otherkin and people with neopronouns start expecting their identity to be taken equally seriously. I think it will take a while though.

People are still stuck in the mentality that you can have a "sex change" and that takes effort and should be respected. It's very old fashioned.

The reason so many people on here are compelled to use they instead of he, or she, is because they get instantly reported by TRAs if they don't.

And then TRAs blame them for it!

Another example of DARVO.