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.

Another question related to the issue but not to same pp what is it about male socialisation that precludes listening to women?

For some listening to anyone and their experience will be ok but not if it’s listening to women

Why has society messed up so incredibly badly on this

I could rage about this

As a publisher, I've jumped through hoops to avoid gendered language in our publications, and originally I did so in a way that the old "he is generic" crowd would not be offended. Now I don't care. I'm happy to use they as a non-gendered singular pronoun.

I'd agree with that, in most cases when writing stuff I'm referring to a person of unknown sex rather than a specific individual so 'they' is completely standard. Nowadays in something like user documentation we tend to use the second person rather than the third though.

Yes, this works well and we almost always use "you" in instructions. We sometimes make examples plural, so we can use "they" in the plural case.

We used to use male and female characters in examples, but not so much now.

No, it doesn't.

Ms is not a lie. It's not pretending that the woman isn't married, it's choosing not to reference it. Whether a person is married or not is a tangible, legal, factual material reality. 'Being' non binary is a belief. It isn't indicative of anything tangible, legal or factual. It's just a feeling.

I didn't say that Ms it wasn't political, I said it wasn't indicative of a philosophical belief. Something can be true, and real and non philosophical but also political.

(Ms shouldn't be political, but it has come to be seen as such. Why should a woman wanting the same courtesy regarding her martial status as males get as a standard be 'political'? A lot of people seem to think it means 'divorced').

I'm not sure what you think I said that was abusive.

I personally think your refusal to acknowledge women's experiences, constant patronising comments, repeating views that women have told you are damaging to rape victims and gaslighting are abusive.

But you do you.

I don't want you to leave. Im happy for people to see your views for what they are. You comments provide an opportunity to point out the inconsistencies in your views.

Reminder that all polling which asks the question is clear that most people, including most women see a difference between women and "trans women" in whether the latter should be treated like women, and up to a third of people don't know that the term actually refers to biological males.

So your circle is the bubble with the minority belief Dadjoke. Most women on here, including me, support protection from discrimination and harassment for trans people in the workplace and public spaces. So if that is all "trans rights" are, I support it. But it's a sleight of hand.

Women's sex based rights to me matter more than "trans rights" as you evidently characterise them.

Well that’s people you know, that’s self selecting obviously, that’s the bubble if you need to use that word.

Women are letting you know on these threads how they feel, and as you are male it’s not your reality

Yes. It's certainly a startling lack of self awareness, if nothing else. First rule of social justice, you do not speak over members of disadvantaged groups you are not a member of when they are talking about their lived experience and feelings of being treated poorly.

DadJoke can i ask if you make any assumptions whatsoever about anyone using a pronoun for themselves (let's say "she") -see next paragraph - or do you consider it merely an arbitrary label with no actual meaning attached (sort of like a name, which although have meanings, most people wouldn't assume they describe the person literally - Grace may or may not be graceful, for example).

So my question is, would you assume that a "she" was female, and/or that they have a woman gender identity, or neither (ie meaningless label)?

I'm sure you won't answer directly and will change the wording of what I asked, but I'm genuinely interested.

Gender critical people are not a disadvantaged group. Transgender people are.

Sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics whose rights are balanced quite successfully in the EA2010, GRA and statutory guidance. If you want those rights restricted (and you do) then you want to restrict trans rights.

When you have your gender critical hat on, as far as I am concerned, you are punching down. When women are talking about issues other than trans rights issues, I will defer.

Gender critical people are not a disadvantaged group.

You are speaking to women.

You would listen to any group other than women, male socialisation and society has messed up.

Witnesses and victims can describe what they witnedsed as they saw them, so that's already the case.

Gender critical beliefs do not allow professionals to misgender people - Forstater's beliefs were only protected because she agreed she would not do this. This applies equally to court officials.

I speak to plenty of women who aren't gender criticalm with whom I agree. I am not diasgreeing with you because you are women, but because you are gender critical. I disagree equally with men (the majority) who attack trans rights.

I am not going to patronise you by agreeing when I think you are wrong.

Followers of "trans rights" say a variety of things. Some believe that it's simply a matter of ensuring that people who identify as the opposite sex cannot be sacked without protection on the grounds of that identity. I fully support this. Others think that most "trans" people should be able to be treated as the opposite sex in most situations, that's where the "preferred pronouns are just kind and basic courtesy, why wouldn't you" brigade come in. But many of these women still don't want males in their spaces.

Plenty of these women make an exception for males who have had full genital surgery. They are not ok however with other elements of "trans rights" such as males competing in the women's sport category, or intact males in women's spaces where women and girls are particularly vulnerable.

Then on the fringes you have those people who will not tolerate any dissent to the idea that "trans women are women" and always have been, and there can be no women only spaces or acknowledgement that sex ever matters as this gives the lie to this. That is the management team of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre for instance, many public sector environments and many people in the arts, yes also fashionable, primarily middle class industries like publishing, law, charity etc.

As I said, referring to all these people supporting "trans rights" sometimes and just some of them at other times is a sleight of hand.

You are disregarding women’s voices and their experiences. Even with the numerous posts outlining them.

Afaic it’s male socialisation and a male centred society that leads to any man who thinks they should do this.

As a woman who has always known what a woman is and has suffered for being female , I don't pay much mind to men of DadJoke's ilk and the views of his so-called feminist friends, I just think it's important to call out this sleight of hand when "trans rights" is being spoken about.

Afaic it’s male socialisation and a male centred society that leads to any man who thinks they should do this.

Yes. It's not just men like Dadjoke to be fair, there are plenty of men more on the side of sex based rights who like the sound of their own voice a little too much, and plenty of female socialised fawning over them and their "hepeating" of what a woman said first.

We also get more extreme versions such as violence, threats and abuse online and offline which is linked to the same

Male socialisation, and behaviours

I am not suggesting the pp is employing these tactics but society is enabling them due to that male focus

dadjoke are people who don't have gender identities that they consider align with their sex a disadvantaged group due to fitting that description?

As per my previous question I expect you'll ignore it.

If you are suggesting I should defer to your views on trans rights because you are a woman, I simply will not. I am not willing to be that patronising and sexist.

When you are discussing issues which affect women, or you personal experiences I am not going to dispute them. When you denigrate and dismiss non-binary and transgender people, I will disagree.

Trans women in particular are treated odiously here, with specific bad actors being used to paint an entire protected class just as bigots do with gay people and Muslims. The idea of you listening and accepting their lived experience is laughable. They are hounded off here pretty quickly, and trans men are just patronised and pitied. It's pretty unedifiying to see you playing the victim card in the arena of trans rights.

If you want a gender-critical-only space which excludes men, I will respect that. Tell me to leave and I will.

Anyway, I done on this thread.

All this expertise from a poster who doesn't know what women are or what pronouns mean!

Do you genuinely not see yourself?

Tell me to leave and I will

Don't leave.
Do have the honesty to answer questions about things you claim to believe.

If you're not honest enough to do that then it's a bit pointless coming here and just pretending all the time.

I think you should listen to women yes. It’s clear from your description in the pp which didn’t even use the correct term.

Listen is not leave. Maybe the next thread then.

Forstater's beliefs were only protected because she agreed she would not do this.

That's not true. She said she wouldn't do it gratuitously, not that she would never do it. And the EAT thought that was reasonable.

Para 104. My bold:

"The Tribunal correctly acknowledged, at para 87 of the Judgment, that calling a trans woman a man "may" be unlawful harassment. However, it erred in concluding that that possibility deprived her of the right to do so in any situation."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/MayaForstaterrvCGDDEuropeanddothersUKEAT0105520_JOJ.pdf

If you are suggesting I should defer to your views on trans rights because you are a woman

It's her views on her own rights as a woman that you should listen to, as a man, rather than glibly dismiss.

Is this how you treat other disadvantaged groups that you are not a member of? Do you weigh into discussions about funding for cataract removal to opine that the funding would be better spent on hearing aids?

How have women been sidelined in policy and views that impact them so much?

I’d say doing anything over listening is instructive

Even the terminology used is designed to remove women, when it’s us who are impacted not men.

How have women been sidelined in policy and views that impact them so much?

Because we live in a sexist society.