just checking - since the SC there is no such thing as misgendering on Mumsnet? Or is there??

[loveyouradvice]

Just checking we can refer to TIM as he now? I think so... The deeply admirable Helen Joyce does and I share her rationale...

Goes all the way back to the sublime Pronouns are rohypnol from a much loved mums netter...

Oh dear... did you really just say all that? 😂

and happens to many women, especially tall ones with short hair who do not dress or act in a conventionally feminine manner.
That's me, and I don't get called sir but I wouldn't really be offended by it. I also get letters addressed to Mr BiologicalRobot shrugs

At what point do we agree that we aren't going to agree on this?

I don't want to be rude and stop answering questions put to me, but it's perfectly clear that we aren't going to agree on this.
.

So? I know other women it does happen to. None of us are bothered by it. We don't define ourselves as female by our appearance.
.

I missed this. I'm guessing you are one of those people who can't tell the sex of Grace Jones or Ziggy Stardust either. Of course it's obvious 99.9% of the time.

Obvious? How do you know?

Have you seen everyone you've ever met naked? Have you DNA tested them?
.

I suspect that somebody has decided to adopt a contrary position for shits and giggles.

Genuine question. Do you suffer from that face blindness thing? I can't recall it's proper name but I'm sure someone will. That might be why it's not obvious to you but it is to others.

Edit - Prosopagnosia

Not the person you asked, but yes I do to an extent (though not as extreme as some) and yes, I can’t invariably tell sex. Mostly I can, but I’m nowhere near as confident as many others here seem. I’m reasonable at spotting men who claim they’re women, starting to spot transmen sometimes, it’s more when someone is androgynous I can’t tell.

No.

People who think they can 100% tell a dressed male from a dressed female are fooling themselves.
.

That is not correct, I am entirely genuine. I don't see why people can't agree to differ, is there only one point of view allowed in this subject on this forum?

They/ she/ he is often used in written communication where the person concerned will receive or see a copy.

There was no mention of the person concerned being sent a copy of this sort of communication.

I don't personally consider the use of they in reference to a single person a lie. Females and males are routinely referred to as they as part of a group and in their professional roles.

You may not personally regard it as a lie but the fact remains that it implies (by normal grammatical conventions) that we don’t know the sex of the person under discussion which in this case would be untrue.

Do you think that people should be coerced into saying things they know to be untrue?

Personally I find it very difficult to deliberately use the wrong words for things - I know I am pedantic but it even irritates me if people refer to beef/mash as shepherds pie (should be lamb/mash) instead of cottage pie.

Do I deserve the space to choose the words I want to use?

But that is not imposing a solution on people - akkak (and many of us inc OP) are just refusing to be part of their chosen solution.

If someone is treating a mental health condition, it is unlikely that they will place any specific demands on those around them but if they do ask for support, it would be a short term request ideally with the aim of making progress to health so those accommodations are no longer necessary. In this situation, the demands for accommodations on everyone around the trans person are permanent and forever. People should have the right to refuse.

People do have the right to refuse.

What you don't have is the right not to seem, in some people's eyes, in some situations (eg insisting on calling a colleague who has politely requested that you refer to them in emails as they), unnecessarily confrontational.

.

Quote.
There was no mention of the person concerned being sent a copy of this sort of communication.

Reply.
It's not exactly an uncommon occurrence!

Quote.
You may not personally regard it as a lie but the fact remains that it implies (by normal grammatical conventions) that we don’t know the sex of the person under discussion which in this case would be untrue.

Reply.
Not any longer. Today, it implies that the person concerned does not wish to be referred to as he or she. Language changes over time. I used to get really cross about the instruction "enjoy! ", because the verb to enjoy that I learnt required a subject. That's no longer the case. "They" has, like it or not, changed.
.

Quote
Do I deserve the space to choose the words I want to use?

Reply
You can choose whatever words you want to use as long as misgendering never becomes illegal harassment, which it never should. What you can't choose is other people's reactions to the words you choose.

Can we agree to differ now? This conversation seems to be going nowhere but I don't want to be rude and not respond to comments made quoting me.
.

Oh dear. I believe I have recently identified a new social condition called ‘sex blindness’ (for want of a snappier title) where people attempting to argue certain positions claim they can’t tell what sex someone is unless they are told.

Most people find that they can very reliably tell what sex someone is, in many cases without even looking. I spend a lot of time in scruffy jeans, a sweatshirt and big boots and no one has ever ever mistaken me for a man.

Some practice may help. Check out the gorgeous Skunk Anansie. I’ve just rewatched the Communards Don’t Leave Me This Way video (absolute genius), full of stereotype smashing. The sex of each performer is blindingly obvious though - even the women in big trousers and mens braces.

The chilling effect was very real and to some extend still is.

The degree of pretzeling and contorting of posts to stay within the guidelines was excruciating. All because some people demand their philosophical belief is so important that everyone has to act as if they believe it.

Quote
Oh dear. I believe I have recently identified a new social condition called ‘sex blindness’ (for want of a snappier title) where people attempting to argue certain positions claim they can’t tell what sex someone is unless they are told.

Reply
I didn't say that I can't tell the difference between most men and most women. Most people can.

What nobody can do is know that 100% without seeing people naked and/or seeing their gene test.

I understand that some women might find that idea very uncomfortable, especially if they have been a victim of male assault, but that doesn't make it untrue.

So can we agree to differ now?
.

Why should anyone have to comply linguistically, or at all, with someone’s demand to act as if they believe that person’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality?

What other group’s philosophical belief that doesn’t reflect material reality do you act as if you support?

Nobody has to comply.

I got called sir in the local supermarket last week by a woman only half paying attention. What was even more startling was that she stopped and you could see her embarrassment and she went to correct herself and did it again. I had to tell her that it wasn’t a problem and put her mind at rest.

Not any longer. Today, it implies that the person concerned does not wish to be referred to as he or she. Language changes over time. I used to get really cross about the instruction "enjoy! ", because the verb to enjoy that I learnt required a subject. That's no longer the case. "They" has, like it or not, changed.

No. That is a new meaning being pushed hard by one particular group for their own ends (and to the detriment of many). It has not been settled and been agreed by the whole of society like the existing use has, hence the need for bullying and coercion to make it happen.

You can choose whatever words you want to use as long as misgendering never becomes illegal harassment, which it never should. What you can't choose is other people's reactions to the words you choose.

Clearly that’s not the case though - as you say yourself:

What you don't have is the right not to seem, in some people's eyes, in some situations (eg insisting on calling a colleague who has politely requested that you refer to them in emails as they), unnecessarily confrontational.

by calling our use of correct sex pronouns “unnecessarily confrontational” you are attempting to coerce our language. Your comment about not being able to control other people’s reactions to the words we choose - that sounds a bit like when the tras claim that we have free speech but there may be ‘consequences’ that we don’t like (like getting bullied, sacked, harassed and physically harmed).

Feel free not to continue engaging with me and agree to disagree - I won’t take it as rude at all but it may be worth considering how your position on pronoun use can be seen as coercive.

Also read Pronouns Are Rohypnol by Barbara Kerr to understand the issue more thoroughly.

Completely laughable that we can't correctly sex people.

Even toddlers can do that.

My husband has face blindness that was mentioned above so he can struggle sometimes. But 100% I can. Prove me wrong.

Of course you are dear. However, your elision from position to position would suggest otherwise.

Excellent.

So, no thank you. I don’t believe that any of us should have to use someone’s preferred language choices.

And established language conventions that are vital for clear and precise communication, such as pronouns and terms such as woman, girl etc, lose meaning when a group demands they are changed to suit their belief. Especially when that group wishes the word to also mean the opposite of the intended original meaning.

It is in no way kind to demand words needed to describe the needs of female people also include the very opposite meanings. It leads to harm to female people.

“What you don't have is the right not to seem, in some people's eyes, in some situations (eg insisting on calling a colleague who has politely requested that you refer to them in emails as they), unnecessarily confrontational.”

What gives anyone the right to expect others to comply to demands of language usage when that demand is based on philosophical belief that doesn’t reflect material reality? Why is one person in this situation being prioritised over someone else?