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.

I agree with the guidance in use of pronouns in this very difficult case. The victim can refer to the defendant as she saw them.

Either every transgender person could be referred to by their pronouns, or not, by court officials, however heinous the crime of which they are accused. I agree with the approach the bench guidance took.

I have always said that where it’s relevant, sex assigned at birth should be recorded for victims and defendants, alongside gender.

No. That they are not male or female and that they need special attention from the students to be treated as different from all other teachers.

This is a false equivalence.

So you're not at all bothered that by referring to a male rapist as she, the victim is being gaslit and having her trauma potentially exasperated? By referring to the rapist as she, the court officials are effectively calling her a liar when she refers to him as he.

So can a transgender or non-binary teacher. Yours deeply held pseudo-religious protected belief makes no difference to that.

Being gay or transgender isn’t political.

If I had a teacher was a Reverend, I’d be happy to address her as such without following the religion.

i don’t agree with your framing of this, and the other option, misgendering every single transgender defendant is worse. Hard cases make bad law.

No-one is assigned a sex at birth - come on, if you’re trying to present a cogent argument you need to be factual if you want people to take you seriously.

Rapists are not she - there is an obvious reason for that.

They can be referred to by their preferred pronouns in non-sexual cases. Where a sexual assault has taken place, the biological sex of the offender is relevant, which it probably isn't in a case of shoplifting, for instance.

Unless you’re happy for the statistics (as they currently stand) to be inaccurately recorded with the result the crimes by women (actual ones) show an overall increase as a result of the men committing them.

Despite the fact that multiple defendents have stated that the use of non-sex based pronouns exacerbated their trauma, you are more concerned about hurting the feelings of the perpetrators? That says a lot.

Why do we even need to do this?

It is a philosophical belief. Transgender people and academics supporting gender identity have been saying this out loud for a while now. This is all about personal identity. Why does any other person need to comply with a persons belief about themselves?

So can a transgender or non-binary teacher.

How? "You're not allowed to call me Sir/Mr because I'm not a man?" That's not true though, is it?

I can't see any justification for coercing the speech of witnesses in any trial - they've solemnly promised to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Force me to mis-sex someone, my choice is contempt of court, perjury, or linguistic gymnastics. The latter may be possible in an MN post but are likely to impair the quality of verbal evidence.

I am concerned about all defendants being treated equally.

This is the point.

If a person is prepared to use language to reflect someone philosophical belief that does not reflect material reality, then how can the judge or jury trust anything they say without wondering if it is obscuring the material fact.

But obviously not at all concerned about the female victims of rape.

And that is done by referring to them correctly to ensure that the victims are not subjected to further trauma, that crime statistics are not skewed, and that and media reporting is accurate. Men committing crimes = he, women committing crimes = she.

They aren't going to ask you that in an interview, unless you are applying for a job with some LGBT type organisation. Most likely they have done the Equality training on LGBT at their work that told them put their pronouns in their signature so they did.

None of the pronoun people in my public sector org have ever asked me my pronouns.

I am concerned about all defendants being treated equally.

And innocent till found guilty.
But the conundrum is how to do that without being massively, horribly, disrespectful and cruel to victims?

And gender ideology as a whole leads to bad outcomes for women and children

As a male you can’t see it and despite reading many posts from women on these boards you remain incredibly closed to hearing experiences

What “pseudo-religious protected belief” are you talking about?

Perhaps he + name of choice (for males), she + name of choice (for females)?

There is now a massive disconnect where society can now declare that sometimes we, as a population, can believe material reality and sometimes we ‘shouldn’t’. The entire premise of someone changing sex has been dealt a blow in ways that it will never claw back support from.

The word ‘cis’ has been shown to be completely meaningless to describe female people as well. It never was fit for purpose.

Piece by piece the basis of the belief that people are the identity they claim is being eroded. Since rapists are not the sex they claim when they claim to be the opposite to what their body is formed as, and sportspeople, and rape crisis centre staff, why do we need to continue with affirming any person’s gender identity?

If a rapist is not the sex they claim when they claim to be the opposite sex to their body’s reality, then who is?

the other option, misgendering every single transgender defendant is worse

It really isn't.

I think it's really bad to make all
witnesses lie under oath. Perhaps it's easier to understand it in the case of "Lexi", but it's expecting too much. People should be able to speak freely about what they experience when giving evidence.