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.

Having now read the rest of your post, I agree with much of it, but don't see how it responds to my invitation to explain why, in this "balancing" of rights - important, absolutely - it's so unambiguously, straightforwardly clear that women should sacrifice their language in all contexts, with all the implications this has for them, as opposed to trans women conceding their claim to the word "woman" in a range of contexts (eg. health care: rape crisis centres). Your argument above seems to be that using your favoured definition of "woman" and "preferred pronouns" aligns more closely with our values of equality and respect than ours. We already know that you think this. What I'm asking you is why.

AMAB/AFAB

No-one is assigned male or female at birth.

Human sex is binary and immutable, determined at conception, observed and recorded at birth - and often during gestation.

Any rare cases where sex cannot be immediately be observed at birth, it can be discovered by further tests.

You can only assume you missed me saying "where you mean gender critical people."

1. "Women" in general do not think they have lost the very language to describe themselves. I don't know a single woman who isn't gender critical who thinks this. So, that's gender critical people, not women in general who think this.
2. "women here" in this context means specifically the women who are arguing for you viewpoint here - not included.
3. See above.

Wrong. Grammarical gender is masculine, feminine or neuter, not male or female. For humans, the 3rd person pronouns appropriate to them are applied on the basis of the subject's male or female sex.

Yep.
And saying someone who is observed male at birth is female isn't 'controversial' either, except in the way claiming the earth is flat or mankind was created 6000 years ago. It's plain, demonstrably, factually wrong

I am entirely accepting of gender non-conforming men who present as they think a women does (by which I think you mean wears clothes typically worn by women). Why wouldn't I?

With the greatest respect, I’d suggest that if it’s not passing the plain English test that’s because the quote it was responding to doesn’t pass that test.

I've never heard the phrase ‘accept all males in their sex class’ before, and I’m just trying to respond to what I think you mean by it…

My point is that men ‘accommodating all presentation’ doesn’t actually accommodate trans women (whose gender identity is not male).

There have been plenty of threads already on whether trans women are women- you and I are not going to agree on that- so I’d suggest that’s a topic we don’t need to get into for these purposes!

No, I didn't. I'll reread to be sure I've not missed something - multi-tasking, using this in part as a distraction through a family crisis - but I think assumptions are the issue here, and too easily made in recent pages.

Their biological sex is male

I don't see your words in brackets as changing that

So when I say accept all men I mean everyone who is male.

Yep, just as an update, have reread, and all good as far as I'm concerned. If you reread, @DadJoke, hopefully you'll see from my numbered list that

1. I use "women" to refer to the collective female part of humanity in a post arguing that we need a word for this - and you seem to perceive my use of it as problematic or, alternatively, misunderstand what I mean by it (thereby, I'd argue, rather decisively proving my point - this really wouldn't have happened 20 years ago!)

2. & 3) I use "women" to refer specifically to the GC women on here who are arguing for a sexed-base meaning to the word - I don't think they'd take issue with that, and am not sure why you do (except that I'm aware we have some fab male contributors who share our views - if I inadvertently excluded you, apologies!)

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.

This. It's like MTF trans people wanting to use women's facilities and not share with males is allegedly essential to their safety and dignity, but women who don't want to share women only spaces with males are just making a big fuss again.

They are applied on the basis of sex by gender critical people. They are applied on the basis of gender identity by non-gender-critical people. Usually these align, and there's no problem.

My point is that men ‘accommodating all presentation’ doesn’t actually accommodate trans women (whose gender identity is not male).

..but they ARE male, so accommodating their 'gender presentation' as outside of the norms for men IS accommodating transwomen - who are male

I am very sorry to here about your family crisis. I'm also distracting myself from unpleasant stuff.

But you can accept surely that that is a GC viewpoint to say ‘but they ARE male’, and I think it’s patently obvious that I, and some other posters on this thread, do not agree with that viewpoint.

But seriously do we really need to go there again? There are so many other threads dealing with your argument that it is ‘fact’ that ‘transwomen are men’, and why we refute that.

Well it all comes down to this doesn't it?

It leads to nonsensical and harmful what are your preferred pronouns questions

Women do get to say what they consent to, and many do not.

Ah the old 'male' to 'men' switcheroo

Thanks for that @DadJoke. I actually just got some good news - progress. I really hope things start to go more smoothly for you, too, soon, too.

You have on multiple occasions failed to demonstrate how you refute biology

trans women are men - popping on a skirt will never alter their male skeletal structure or DNA

they can no more be women than they can fly to the moon and all the endless obsfucating word salad you post doesn’t change thsat basic fact

Women" in general do not think they have lost the very language to describe themselves. I don't know a single woman who isn't gender critical who thinks this.

This is your "inclusive" bubble. You are in no position to comment on what women in general think. Not all women who believe "trans women" are not women identify as "gender critical". Most women want women only spaces when they are undressed or vulnerable. Some women will make exceptions for males who have had genital surgery.

I've just been reading the Forstater judgment due to discussing this with you earlier, the judge makes the point that it might be necessary to "misgender" to advocate for women's sex based rights. So the two things go together.

But you can accept surely that that is a GC viewpoint to say ‘but they ARE male’, and I think it’s patently obvious that I, and some other posters on this thread, do not agree with that viewpoint.

It's simply not a valid viewpoint. 'Male' is a word that specifically refers to sex, whether it be human, dog, holly tree....
And mammals can't change sex.

It's bad enough trying to get a coherent description of what 'woman' can possibly mean other than 'adult human female', so I doubt there's one that remotely allows female to mean male.

But you can accept surely that that is a GC viewpoint to say ‘but they ARE male’, and I think it’s patently obvious that I, and some other posters on this thread, do not agree with that viewpoint.

There is literally no scientific, legal or social basis whatsoever for saying "trans women" as a group are not male.

I know that some on this thread do not agree with that view point and that is their prerogative.

You (and they) are of course free to hold whichever view you choose. As am I!

I'd venture that you are alone in your view here that "trans women" are not just women, but female, @ElleWoods15

Women" in general do not think they have lost the very language to describe themselves. I don't know a single woman who isn't gender critical who thinks this.

The worst of it is that I think a large number of women are unaware this is happening - who, for example, would sign up to a women-only walking group wanting a sense of safety in the woods, or wander into a women's loos, without the faintest idea that other people are now understanding something entirely different by the label on the box. This is another way in which I think this appropriation of our language is at best disrespectful and, at worst, dangerous.

And @DadJoke may take issue with me using the generic noun women above for what may be, potentially, vulnerable transwomen, or transmen, or non-binary individuals... And that would prove my point all over again, because although I have similar concerns about them and their needs, my focus here is the demographic adult human female, and that's the only word I have for them.

That we've been told the descriptor AHF is itself problematic says everything, too. Who - who?!?! - can argue in all seriousness that it should, effectively, be made impossible to describe a particular oppressed group with distinct characteristics enabling their oppression?