Woman

Rosie51

Wouldn't "I prefer not to say" be seen as being obstructive? I find my marital status to be totally irrelevant in 99.9% of situations, and would likely ask why you need to know. If you want to address me in a group setting, my given name will do nicely. I'd hope you'd not be talking about me when I'm present, but if you need to refer to me to a third party, again my given name will suffice. If you want to address written communication to me then my given name plus my family name would cover it. If you refer to me out of my earshot by a pronoun why would I care which you use?

Not in the circles I move in Rosie51 it would just be accepted.
The problem is when you are doing say an ice breaker where you have a short time to find out about the person next to you. You then introduce them and say something about them- So this is X and X likes cats recently X went on holiday to Greece. The name gets a bit repetitive

Wouldn't "I prefer not to say" be seen as being obstructive? I find my marital status to be totally irrelevant in 99.9% of situations, and would likely ask why you need to know. If you want to address me in a group setting, my given name will do nicely. I'd hope you'd not be talking about me when I'm present, but if you need to refer to me to a third party, again my given name will suffice. If you want to address written communication to me then my given name plus my family name would cover it. If you refer to me out of my earshot by a pronoun why would I care which you use?

Doodledog Thu 12-Aug-21 12:16:00
And you are still ignoring my post from yesterday.

Sorry, nope. As I've said on other threads, I'm not reading through 6 pages of talk. I read the last few comments and I'm not changing. This is a relaxing bit of surfing for me. Not a required task.

Also, as I have said before, you don't get to dictate how other posters behave or respond. By all means, spend all day on here. But I have other things to do. I dip in and out of GN when I'm having a cup of tea.

I think the pronoun thing is a polite method of inclusion. I support trans people but am personally sticking with 'she' & 'Miss'. But I'll call other people whatever they want and think it's respectful to ask. I dislike being called 'Mrs' so appreciate it when people ask and remember I don't like it. I don't like the assumption that all older women are married and I don't like the social pressure to make me appear to fit in to that social norm which seems to me to have direct links to the way trans people would like to be treated.

So now being asked what pronoun you prefer is forced speech aand akin to being outed by force in the 90s. My we are clutching at straws.
Firstly in any group situation some form of address is necessary. It may only come up once or twice in a session but it would seem to me much more polite to ask first than to misgender someone.
Secondly you were perfectly free to say "I prefer not to say" if you wished.
It's absolutely nothing like outing gay people. It's more equivalent of someone asking if you are Mrs, Miss or Ms.
Indepenant Practitioners in a wide range of things Mollygo I prefer not to say exactly. But they were not employees so no compulsion from anyone.

No need to apologise, petunia. It’s easily done - specially when’ Active Topics’ is so unreliable- I just thought you’d get a better response on the other one.

opps sorry doodledog. will redirect myself to that thread. i was so engrossed with this one, i took my eye off the ball.

There is a separate thread about Mridul Wadhwa, petunia.

I assume that the rape crisis centres didn’t begin meetings by asking for pronouns, though?

The recent case of Mridul Wadhwa is a perfect case of why transwomen, particularly those with a trans agenda, should not have access to women's spaces.

Mridul has worked in Scotland's rape crisis centres for several years. Apparently the Rape Crisis Centres were unaware of Mridul's trans status! Rising to CEO Mridul now is revealing some quite disturbing demands.

Women who require the centres services, are regarded as bigoted if they request a female supporter. Mridul feels that these traumatised women need their prejudices challenged. Mridul told The Guilty Feminist in a podcast

“ If you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma… but please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”

And in other news, Scotland is further down the road to trans inclusion than England. Today I read that teachers in Scotland will allow children as young as four to change gender with no expectation that the parents will be told of this plan. This completely flies in the face of parental responsibility and safeguarding.

Independent practitioners of what? motherhood, accountancy, cabdriver, fortune telling?

Agree SueDonim I suggest the correct response in line with the 3 women weightlifting medallists is #nothankyou

Doodledog

Ah, well. I have the advantage on you there, then. Many people do resent it - you'll have to take it from me if you have no experience, although you did say that the groups 'began by asking' people, which puts a certain pressure on them to comply or conspicuously opt out.

Why do you think about the idea that asking people to declare their pronouns is equivalent to the 90s trend fo 'outing' gay people?

The idea of people having to state their pronouns smacks of forced speech. How revolting.

“They seem to have led sheltered lives”
You have no idea what the group was, where they came from, why they were there and what their lives are like, but you make an assumption because they don’t fit your preferred profile for what young people think.
Am I surprised? No.

Ah, well. I have the advantage on you there, then. Many people do resent it - you'll have to take it from me if you have no experience, although you did say that the groups 'began by asking' people, which puts a certain pressure on them to comply or conspicuously opt out.

Why do you think about the idea that asking people to declare their pronouns is equivalent to the 90s trend fo 'outing' gay people?

A lot of the people I meet are actually independent practitioners -so no pressure from anyone just their own ideas. The pronoun thing usually happens before the ice breaker, you know where you have to introduce/tell a story about the person next to you. I've never been asked any other personal details

I don't know what sort of circles you move in, trisher, but I see that all the time (the 'preferred pronoun' thing), and have been told off the record several times that people resent it, but have been told to do it by work (in email signatures) or feel that others expect it of them (on Zoom names), and that they (young people) don't want to give offence.

I don't use it, perhaps predictably. I really don't see the point when I am there. If people can see me on Zoom, or in a face to face group and my name is on the screen or I introduce myself, why do I need to add 'she/her'? I don't presume that people will want to talk about me when I'm not there, but if they do they can use my name.

Just before lockdown I was at a meeting/workshop, and there were maybe 10 women there. The facilitator asked us if there was anyone who did not identify as female. Why? It wasn't a workshop about gender, or anything remotely connected to it. It really didn't matter how we identified - it was just a 'thing' she did, possibly to give a particular impression, or possibly to tick a box for some sort of accreditation.

Nobody came forward, but if they had, it would really have drawn attention to them, and there was no way of knowing whether a non-female-identifier would have wanted to be exposed in that way. Not all transpeople are extraverts, and many have very definite privacy boundaries.

I didn't like the 90s fashion for outing gay people against their will, and this insistence by some employers that people do so has those undertones, I think.

I know several women who have questioned HR about being asked to declare their gender in email signatures, and not one has been told she has to - despite having been told to do it as though it was a requirement. I suspect Stonewall of being involved and insisting on it as a condition of getting their badge of approval.

The size and range of the group may seem exceptional to you Mollygo but they seem to have led sheltered lives. I've said before even before lockdown most of the groups I attended began by asking people their preferred pronoun, mostly 'he's and she's but a few in the 20ish age group asked for "they".
A few of the younger people who e-mail me now have in their signature "preferred pronoun"-and then he, she or they.
Maybe it just shows that we move in very different circles.

I am not a cis woman or a natal woman. I am a woman. I have been through menstruation, sometimes painful, the discomforts of pregnancy, and very painful childbirth. My babies were breastfed by their mother, not chestfed. Eventually I like many others have gone through menopause.

I don't want anyone to be unhappy with who they are and a man who wishes to live as a woman I have no problem with.
He, however, can never be a woman. There are ways for transwomen to live alongside women without invading their space and I believe many of them would prefer to be private themselves.
There is a transwoman, who I know uses the disabled toilet that is separate to the men's and women's toilets rather than use either of the others.

I like to "live and let live" but not if it impinges on the security and comfort of others.

It is interesting. I particularly like the references to boys sticking out their chests, and their teenage bravado?.

Still nothing from GagaJo, more than 24 hours after I bothered to reply to her post insisting that I produce a list of 'wants'.

Well done MOnica. I find that interesting and encouraging. Some others may say something else entirely ….

GagaJo I am talking about men who choose not to have surgery. Choose to say they are women but keep all the male equipment. How is that being a woman? Of course there’s also Alex Drummond, living as a woman for years, bearded, no intention of having hormone treatment or surgery in a bid to change the way we think about trans people. I assume you’d be entirely happy to see him in an all-female space because he’s living as a woman and calling himself a lesbian?

I didn’t read about Caster Semenya because I thought it was another diversion. At the time, I felt sorry for her. Tall, 15stone, muscular and strong women like the friend someone mentioned on here are more noticeable, but now I wonder whether it gave failed male athletes an idea of how to succeed.

Men-even abusive men tend not to go into women’s changing spaces. Most men, because they can read and they have no interest in causing any woman distress or even simple embarrassment, and abusive men because that would highlight their likelihood of causing trouble.
As has been said before, transwomen who do not wish to make it obvious that they still have male body parts,
whether because they are in transition,
or because they are unable to have surgery
or because they do have respect for the gender they aspire to be,
would use a cubicle.
Transwomen who advertise that they are still men despite the name change should not be in women’s changing rooms.
Women, (natal women, I know you prefer cis, so you can use that term if you can’t bring yourself to use the term ‘women’) should not have to justify why that should be so.
I’m fascinated to read that African women have naturally narrow hips. Change it to ‘some African women have . . . ’ and there is evidence to back that up. As a generalisation it’s exactly that.
Now
I’ve just spent the last 3 days with 21 young people 16-25 and 2 couples in 30’s-40’s.
It’s not a proper survey, but it was interesting.
I asked for their help in filling in a questionnaire and, knowing what I do, they were happy to help. I did suggest it was done anonymously, which it was, but the noisy discussion afterwards really meant I needn’t have bothered with anonymity.

Q1. Do you think it’s better to call a group of girls or women or a group of men or boys ‘people’?
Q1a. Are there any circumstances where groups just being called ‘people’ would cause problems.
Q2. Do you think pregnant women should be called pregnant people or something else?
Q3. Do you think mothers and fathers should just be referred to as parents?
Q4. Do you think women and men need to be referred to by any additional term, e.g. trans, or cis?
Q5a. How do you want to be referred to when you give birth? chestfeeder, breastfeeder or something else?
Q5b. How would you want your child’s female parent to be referred to? chestfeeder, breastfeeder or something else.
Q6. Do you think men or people with male genetalia should be allowed in women’s changing rooms?
The answer to question 6 on paper was different from the subsequent comments in some cases.
On paper 30-40 year olds all said No. 1 said if they were trans and used a cubicle I suppose it would be OK.
16-25 year old girls said No. In the discussion they added things like “That’s creepy”, or “I don’t even let my dad in my bedroom” or “Pervs! They’re just there to ogle”
16-25 year old boys said No. Afterwards they added things like,
“Not if my girlfriend/sister/ is in there.” or “Yes, think of all those naked women!” or “Not if my mum’s in there” or “Why would they want to?”
When I pointed out that the person may be trans, the vote was split with about half still saying No and the others saying, get a cubicle.
Q1. They said people only if it’s a mixed group.
Q1a-the most telling response was from a 21year old girl who thought it would be wrong to send her into a room full of people without warning her they were all men.
Q2. All ages, male and female wrote pregnant women.
Q3. Parents was acceptable in general and for 16-18, but the over 18’s and the 30-40’s wanted to be referred to as mothers or fathers when that applied/would apply to them.
Q4. The 20-25’s and 30-40’s had heard the term cis. The under 20’s asked for clarification. Most said “Whatever you want to call yourself”. 6 said trans was OK if you were, but otherwise why not just be a man or a woman.
Q5 caused the most hilarity.
The results were totally No for chestfeeder with some unprintable comments.
The under 20 girls said that women were breastfeeding mothers not breastfeeders and those who didn’t just said they were mothers. The under 22 boys kept demonstrating sticking their chests out to ‘chestfeed’. On their forms they just wrote ‘mothers’.
The rest of the group chose ‘mothers’, though one male member of the 30-40’s group said it was disrespectful to refer to a woman as a function.
I’m quite sure a properly conducted YouGov survey, or even a random Google survey could produce a different outcome, with more directional questions, but this was a spur of the moment idea because of the size and range of the group. We were socially distanced except when outdoors.

No kicking or screaming from me. It’s not my style.

And you are still ignoring my post from yesterday. Selective engagement with a thread, such as picking up on one part of my post of a few minutes ago but ignoring the one I made in direct response to an aggressive question from you is rather rude to everyone who is posting, particularly when you have been politely asked for a response.

That shift is happening Doodledog, much as the gender critical like to kick and scream.

GagaJo

Doodledog, 'living as' is a requirement of the GRS route. It is a hoop they have to jump through.

Yes, in that context it is, but the concept is meaningless, as is ‘presenting as’, because there is no ‘true’ way to be a person of either sex (or gender for that matter).

My point is more that people can ‘live as’ or ‘present as’ the opposite sex without insisting on ‘being’ that sex. It would take a shift in normative values for society as a whole, but would be liberating for everyone.