How best to answer 'What are your preferred pronouns?' in an intervew

[NancyDrawed]

I have been out of the workforce for a very long time but finally have an in-person interview later this week.

The confirmation email is signed by a name followed by (he/him/his). I need to get a job. But I am trying to get my head around what I would say if I was directly asked what my preferred pronouns are.

On principle I would like to say 'I'm not a follower of that ideology so use whichever you see fit' or something along those lines, but is that likely to mean I have no chance of getting the job?

I am clearly female, so a small part of me would want to say he/him/his just to see the reaction!

It might not even come up at all, but I'd like to be prepared.

No, I have no definition of non binary be and it has no meaning in the way it seems to be used by those that use it.

I apologise for my previous post, I am not meaning to belittle you. It was a tea reaction to your post written in haste.

I don't know why you felt it relevant to say that the options I gave as an explanation for gender were reductive. Gender is reductive, that's rather my point. I was surprised that anyone could have interpreted my question as supporting that definition or somehow treating it as valuable or worthwhile.

"TWAW is so fundamental to them they can't use the word Woman, and yet they are starting to find they need it." is, when you think about it - really think - an utterly devastating thing to have to write and read. It's astonishing to me that this has happened, and so rapidly. It really is Orwellian.

This. Big fuss over nothing

Is transpeople's need to have language that they perceive as true to who they are also just a big fuss over nothing? If not...

What's the difference?

Well, what you’re describing Catiette is people wanting to be treated with a basic level of respect. I’m not sure I’d agree that’s a big fuss over nothing.

Exactly! I think it's a remarkable thing to call a big fuss over nothing either way. If you're suggesting I agree with it, I'm not sure what would make you think this from my above post - or indeed any of my posts in this thread or elsewhere. Apologies if I misunderstood, though.

Do you think coercing people to say things they don't believe and which perpetuate an quasi religious ideology they reject is a "basic level of respect", @ElleWoods15?

What confuses me is why the phrase "basic level of respect" (and various synonyms) is more likely to be used in relation to trans people, whereas the phrase "big fuss over nothing" (and various synonyms) is more likely to be applied to women who favour sexed-based pronouns as safer for them, truer to them and respectful of them.

Well, no one actually ‘coerced’ anyone to say anything @Ereshkigalangcleg because let’s not forget the question was never asked.

But if someone ever does ask you your pronouns, I can assure you now they are not ‘coercing you to say things you don’t believe and which perpetuate a quasi religious ideology’. They are literally just asking you how you would like to be referred to if spoken about in the third person. You don’t have to believe in anything either way to know the answer and be able to give it.

😀😀

@ElleWoods15 "They are literally just asking you how you would like to be referred to if spoken about in the third person."

OK, so how is that? How are they referring to us after our implicit agreement to the concept of having a preferred pronoun has been necessitated by the question being asked?

When they ask, and we say "she/her" as you recommend, then when they use these pronouns afterwards, are they:

1. Referring to us as female - which is what we wish and therefore shows a basic level of respect?

2. Referring to us as having a "female gender identity", which is something we don't feel we have or even understand, and therefore find fundamentally - sometimes distressingly - disrespectful?

They are just referring to you as you’ve indicated you would like to be referred to. That’s really all.

They're using the word I've chosen, yes.

But a meaning I reject.

Words have meaning. That's why they matter to trans people. Why can't that meaning matter to us, as well?

Have you stopped to consider that, 20 years, ago this thread and the lengthy reflections on it wouldn't have been necessary? I think its very existence is fairly damning evidence that women have lost the very language we need to describe ourselves.

Good post, this and generally

Some adults have messed up. Men should have widened their sex class to encompass everyone no matter their presentation

We had twenty years to get a better place with that and have created harm for women and children instead.

Rather than double down, I'd like to reverse and try for a more progressive society when men are better at accepting all biological men

We wouldn't need mangled language at all

For clarity, @ElleWoods15, I find the pronouns issue difficult and complex. My views on it have shifted over time, driven, reluctantly, towards wariness as I've seen the damage that giving up our sex-beasd language in the name of "basic respect" to a minority group can facilitate or even cause (Rape Crisis Scotland, Isla Bryson, our progressive loss of the word "female" as well as "woman"... we all see so many examples, I could make this list run for pages).

But I've always - always - thought long and hard about this at every painful stage, struggling with my wish to show a 'basic level of respect' both to trans people and to women and girls who need and want sex-based language.

One of the deciding factors that crystallised my increasing wariness around indiscriminately supporting the concept of preferred pronouns is the realisation that others aren't extending the same level of thought, care and respect to me. As I've agonised, all I've seen is outright, often rude dismissal of my own needs and preferences.

The difference in perspectives and approaches has been stark and revealing, and shaped how I feel more than anything else.

I'd also add to the above that, when I feel under pressure to use or support the concept of different-sex pronouns, whether explicitly or implicitly (eg. in a passively obliging "My pronouns are...") I feel an increasing sense of betrayal of women. All women. Everywhere and ever. I know this may sound a bit grandiose or absurd, but it's been growing as the evidence of harm caused women by gender ideology has grown.

Just as one example...

To passively allow someone to think that I support the belief that "she" or "woman" is a matter of how one feels, not how one is, feels like the most appalling betrayal of the women of Afghanistan, who are oppressed because of their bodies not an innate sense of self - how dare I contribute to the removal of the language necessary to explain their oppression? how can I bear to contribute to their redefinition in the eyes of our future generations, when they're suffering as they are, for the reasons that they are? It feels utterly, utterly 'disrespectful' to them. 'Disrespect' feels inadequate, actually. It sticks in my throat, and viscerally upsets me.

First, I dispute your use of "women" throughout where you mean gender critical people and whatever you want to call the men's rights activists and religious groups who also dispute transgender people's identities. This keeps happening, and many if not most feminists and gay women would fundamentally disagree with the gender critical position. Certainly, pretty much every women's rights organisation supports and accepts trans women, and the only explanation I've seen for this is conspiracy theories.

Yes, the language around gay rights, trans rights, rights for ethnic minorities change, and there will always be people who object. I accept that. It's deeply immoral to some people to say that marriage isn't "between a man and a woman." They might not like it, and it's a protected belief, but they can't use it to stop marriage equality, however hurtful that is.

I know you think the gender critical movement isn't like all the other movements which oppose minority rights, but that's not what it looks like to me.

The EqA provides a balance between protected groups, and it works pretty well. The Forstater judgment said that it was a protected belief in part because Forstater agreed that she would not misgender people in a professional or social context. So, it might be hurtful or upsetting to you, or conflict with your beliefs, but rights need to be balanced between difference groups. Sometimes trans women will be excluded from womens' spaces, sometimes they won't, and the EqA determines that. The same applies to the use of language.

Why couldn't males accept all presentation in their sex class?

You do seem to care, so why not change society so you do better? By you I mean men.

@EasternStandard I am sorry, I am not sure understand you question. If you are saying men should be more accepting of gender-non-conforming men and trans men - I absolutely agree.

I am not saying that no

Why can't you be more accepting of all males, including someone who presents as they think a woman does?

OP doesn't "identify as" female though, she simply IS female. And visibly female at that, so the real "big fuss about nothing" and rather disconcerting would be somebody asking about how to speak if her in the third person.

But how would males accepting all presentation in their sex class accommodate someone who, despite being AMAB, in fact identifies as (and I would say is- but I know you would find that controversial and I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole) female, @EasternStandard?

A person who was AMAB but identifies as a woman (with the caveat I’ve put on my wording above) isn’t asking to be accepted in the ‘male sex class’, nor should they be expected to think that’s an ok solution.

It's not controversial to say that a man isn't and can't ever be female.

"First, I dispute your use of "women" throughout where you mean gender critical people and whatever you want to call the men's rights activists and religious groups who also dispute transgender people's identities. This keeps happening, and many if not most feminists and gay women would fundamentally disagree with the gender critical position. Certainly, pretty much every women's rights organisation supports and accepts trans women, and the only explanation I've seen for this is conspiracy theories."

Firstly, to address the above.

I've just reread my post, and think you misunderstand my use of women "throughout", which kind of proves my point - it's become unnecessarily politicised and easily misunderstood in a way it wasn't previously.

My use of it was as follows"

1. "women have lost the very language we need to describe ourselves" - if you're saying that for me to use the word "women" to distinguish 51% of humanity across the world (and, implicitly, thoughout history), is an inappropriate use of the term, I can't think of any better way to prove my point and the appalling implications of the loss of our language.

2. "women here" - I use this to refer to women who are themselves arguing for the use of this word to describe themselves as female, so assume you can't be taking issue with this (or it would prove my point even more emphatically)

3. "the women's case" - this contextualised by the preceding sentences so, again, see 2) above.

This is not passing the plain English test @ElleWoods15 and is a hard read. That is a problem with gender ideology it mangles language

Society could have gone another way and asked men to be better at accommodating all presentation

No one should have learnt it's possible to change sex as it's not

As for what people want, it's dysphoria and no other condition reorganises society in the same way. Adults have messed up and the harms are too great.