Staying on topic- threads in general

*I didn't expect you to have an answer Doodledog .
If people hide their true selves it is usually because revealing it would result in persecution. In tacitly accepting such restrictions you give approval to this.*

I have no answer, as IMO there isn't one. There is no need for anyone to decide which restrictions are ok - people have a right to decide for themselves!

I absolutely have not given approval to persecution here or anywhere else, much less to torture or murder, and I find it very offensive that you have suggested I have.

For one thing, I am not asking people to do anything they don't want to do. I am the one opposing the insistence that people declare their personal details on email addresses that can be seen by anyone.

I am not telling people that Dr X or Professor Y is not enough information to give strangers - that people need to say what gender they are, when nobody seems to know the reason why this is important.

I am not telling people that they should hide their true selves, but neither am I saying that I know best and that they should challenge the norms of a different culture as not to do so would be accepting those norms.

It is not my place to do any of that. People coming her in fear of persecution have enough to put up with without self-righteous meddlers asking them to conform to their ideas of how intolerance should be tackled.

I didn't expect you to have an answer Doodledog .
If people hide their true selves it is usually because revealing it would result in persecution. In tacitly accepting such restrictions you give approval to this.

There has still, predictably, not been an answer to a far more pressing question, which is why it matters for someone to know the sex, gender or anything else about the person they are emailing in anything other than a social or dating capacity. In a professional context it is (or should be) entirely irrelevant.

Well I suppose it doesn't matter so the pronoun used could be "they" .
However people should have the right to ask for the pronoun they prefer.

Oh, and good luck with challenging the norms in other countries, particularly as a woman who doesn't live there. It would be good if people were not put at risk in the meanwhile, though.

It's not just people with family abroad, though - what's the difference between asking people choose a gender pronoun on an email sig and asking them to declare their race or sexuality? Surely you can see the inherent risks in doing that?

I'm ignoring the idiotic 'link' to FGM, as (like the flowers that bloom in the spring) it has nothing at all to do with the case.

What I will say is that wanting to protect people's privacy has nothing to do with accepting intolerance in other countries. It has to do with respect for other people's boundaries.

There has still, predictably, not been an answer to a far more pressing question, which is why it matters for someone to know the sex, gender or anything else about the person they are emailing in anything other than a social or dating capacity. In a professional context it is (or should be) entirely irrelevant.

No-one decides.
Of course FGM should not be tolerated.

But the acceptance of one standard that is that some people may suffer in their country of origin if they reveal their trans status surely means you are accepting those norms. And no people aren't mutilated they are actually killed in some cases. So shouldn't those norms be challenged.
Exactly the same family circumstance apply that the girl's mother will be upset or offended and she will not live the life the family want for her.
Who decides exactly which restrictions are OK and which aren't?

"Case by case" is something popular with trans activists.
Clearly the FGM case is completely different from the pronoun case, in their effects.

Some people are being permanently mutilated by their attempts to change sex, which could perhaps be compared to FGM.
No-one is being mutilated by any kind of pronoun use.

No, the argument is that compelling people to declare pronouns may have consequences that people haven't thought of.

So the argument now seems to be that we shouldnt' ask for or use preferred pronouns because the cultural origins of someone may mean that their identity is not accepted by their family or friends. So how far should we take this changing of principles or restrictions on individual freedoms. I once heard a very educated and highly qualified man of Middle Eastern origins use much the same excuse to explain why his daughters would probably be subjected to FGM, because his wives expected it and would worry that without it the girl would be unmarriageble. He knew it was wrong but he had to accept their beliefs.
It seems to me that objecting to preferred pronouns on the basis of other cultures plays into exactly the same sort of beliefs. It's just a question of how far you are willing to go.

As I've said, I will use 'they' if asked, but see no need for people to be compelled to publicly 'genderise' themselves by employers.

A new pronoun might be ideal but would be opposed by some and they wouldn't use it.

Preferred pronouns are opposed by some, who won't use them.

I'm one who will be using 'they' as seems appropriate to me, rather than get involved in trying to 'categorise' everyone.

Mollygo

FarNorth

Multiple FacePalms ???

'Sex' = biological sex (female or male)

'Gender' = archaic sexist stereotypes

I’ve been away, came back, read the last page and have since just managed to read through these. Doodledog please don’t shoot yourself!
FarNorth that’s a very clear post.
Sex -you can’t change it. If you are female, you are female. You are a woman, and can be a mother or not.
You can SAY you are a man, or a father, you can add or remove bits, grow a beard and have a deep voice and a hairy chest, but you are still a female.

For those who can’t tell the difference, Sex is immutable, Gender you can swap day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. You can SAY you are any gender.
What you shouldn’t be able to do is erode the rights of those who are the sex you wish you were just because you want to change gender.
The horrifying thing is that it’s a minority of trans and their fans who want to do the eroding, who physically and verbally attack females for speaking the truth about sex being immutable and female rights being eroded and applaud each other for doing so, throwing the language of hate at anyone who disagrees. Almost as bad - the media who give them the publicity they so ardently seek.
I believe the majority of trans don’t want the publicity or to stir up anger against others. They simply want to live their lives in peace.
Possibly some posters on here think that’s wrong.

This post by mollygo is so good that I wanted to re-post it.
It says everything relevant in a nutshell.

But the Jakartan women would presumably be "out" in her everyday life so if she used the same e-mail for family there would always be the danger that one of her friends would refer to her using "she" or her transitioned name. If she really was keeping her status a secret she would need two to do it successfully

Just seen this, sorry. Yes, Rosy, in what world are email conversations likely to include friends, family and professional contacts? Are we back to scenarios in fictional novels? Of course it's not going to arise.

And assuming that someone is necessarily 'out' to their family is incredibly naive, particularly coming from someone who knows so many transpeople. At the risk of banging a drum, cultural norms (which includes the acceptability of things such as transsexuality, homosexuality and so on) vary massively between groups, and I have personally known more than one person who has been disowned by their family because they failed to keep an aspect of their life private, even when they have moved to the other side of the world in the hope of doing so.

But the Jakartan women would presumably be "out" in her everyday life so if she used the same e-mail for family there would always be the danger that one of her friends would refer to her using "she" or her transitioned name. If she really was keeping her status a secret she would need two to do it successfully. I don't know about you, but my emails remain private between the person I'm emailing and me. None of my friends can see emails sent to me from other friends, family or companies. So your imagined scenario just wouldn't arise.

FarNorth

trisher my friend had met this person several times. The person had even tried to chat her up on one occasion.
My friend was well aware that this person is a male, and was totally okay with their flamboyant dress sense (an actual dress, at all times).
It genuinely hadn't occurred to her that the person would claim to be a woman.

I do know women who have been mistaken for males. It doesn't bother them and they just say that it's an easy mistake to make.

As I said, one new pronoun for everyone would remove the need for constantly checking how someone identifies today.

(Do you ask everyone you meet for their preferred pronouns?)

I don't ask FarNorth but then I am getting on. A lot of the things I'm involved in where younger people are present do ask. I actually find it useful particularly for non-binary people who are sometimes difficult to categorise.
A new pronoun might be ideal but would be opposed by some and they wouldn't use it.

If my posts are long-winded it is because it is impossible to simply 'chat' on these threads, in case a tiny slip is picked up on and used as a diversion.

Anyway.
No, you wouldn't say the woman dropped 'their' pen, which is what I said. The fact that you might use 'their' in a murder mystery has no bearing on email addresses. TBH, when an author starts using a generic pronoun, I usually assume that they are trying to mislead the reader into thinking the murderer is of a different gender from the one we'd been led to expect. The plural pronoun can be used to refer to a singular person, but only (as in this case) when 'they' are part of a larger and unspecified group.

I told you how I feel when talking about my cousin's daughter, and my feelings not something that 'somehow' happens. I find that when I refer to them as 'they', it does reinforce the fact that they are non-binary, when otherwise I just see them as X. My message was about my own feelings, and not what I would have thought that someone else might have welcomed.

Yes those feelings might fade if everyone used 'they', but that is no reason for doing something, is it? We can get used to all sorts of things in time, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best things to do. Not everyone wants to have their gender erased, and not everyone should have to, IMO.

Of course I'm aware that it is perfectly possible to have more than one email account (we are not all as stupid as you seem to think), but are you aware of how public university staff actually are? They are contacted by all sorts of people - from media requests for opinions on their subject specialisms, researchers, industry contacts who want to collaborate on projects, publishers etc, as well as alumni, students, parents, the list goes on. Email addresses are part of a profile that is on externally available staff lists - of research groups, departmental teams, committees and many more besides, and most are accessible to the public as well as internal contacts.
Putting pronouns out there as part of these profiles is forcing staff to make their private lives very public, and not everyone is going to want to do that.

Anyway, more importantly, you have predictably, ignored the question of why any of this is important. Why does it matter if you are replying to Dr X (female) or Dr X (male)? If you don't know Dr X personally, it is their expertise or professional role that matters, not their gender, unless there is some other reason, and I would love to know what that might be.

trisher my friend had met this person several times. The person had even tried to chat her up on one occasion.
My friend was well aware that this person is a male, and was totally okay with their flamboyant dress sense (an actual dress, at all times).
It genuinely hadn't occurred to her that the person would claim to be a woman.

I do know women who have been mistaken for males. It doesn't bother them and they just say that it's an easy mistake to make.

As I said, one new pronoun for everyone would remove the need for constantly checking how someone identifies today.

(Do you ask everyone you meet for their preferred pronouns?)

Rosie51

^The concept of the transitioned Jakartan seems to be unaware of the fact that it is perfectly possible to have two e-mail accounts, the professional which would be for the people she worked with or had professional contact with, and the private for family only. Of course there is always the possibility family might "google" the individual and discover their secret but that could happen anyway couldn't it^ but without compelled pronouns in emails this situation needn't arise need it?
Compelled speech is not free speech and compelled pronouns are equally wrong. Those who require third person pronouns which are different to what might be expected from their 'presentation' have the responsibility to inform others of their preference. Those of us happy that you use your instincts need do nothing. Third person pronouns are mostly used in your absence but if someone referred to me as he instead of she I would not be traumatised, I don't need random validation by strangers. Given the ever growing number of pronouns this could become a feat of memory in a large gathering. I hope Pip/Philip Bunce use he/she pronouns the same days he/she presents in traditional male/female attire or his/her colleagues must be mightily confused!

But the Jakartan women would presumably be "out" in her everyday life so if she used the same e-mail for family there would always be the danger that one of her friends would refer to her using "she" or her transitioned name. If she really was keeping her status a secret she would need two to do it successfully.

FarNorth

Someone I know did use a "wrong pronoun" in the presence of a transwoman acquaintance.
My friend saw the transwoman at a craft fair stall and didn't go over immediately.
Later, she said to the transwoman "I saw you when I came in but I thought 'Oh, he's busy, I'll speak to him later.'"
The transwoman was most upset.

My friend had never considered that this person really believed they were a woman, especially as they looked much like Alex Drummond (see pic).

www.grrlalex.co.uk/what-is-transgender/

Surely it would be just as upsetting if you mistook a women you didn't know for a man simply because of her appearance and called her "he" which is why it's always polite to ask.

Someone I know did use a "wrong pronoun" in the presence of a transwoman acquaintance.
My friend saw the transwoman at a craft fair stall and didn't go over immediately.
Later, she said to the transwoman "I saw you when I came in but I thought 'Oh, he's busy, I'll speak to him later.'"
The transwoman was most upset.

My friend had never considered that this person really believed they were a woman, especially as they looked much like Alex Drummond (see pic).

www.grrlalex.co.uk/what-is-transgender/

Bunce's colleagues all know that he is a male but I am sure that they will be compelled to refer to him as 'she' on certain days.
I wonder if they are also expected to recall which name & pronouns he required on a specific day, when referring to something in the past.

The concept of the transitioned Jakartan seems to be unaware of the fact that it is perfectly possible to have two e-mail accounts, the professional which would be for the people she worked with or had professional contact with, and the private for family only. Of course there is always the possibility family might "google" the individual and discover their secret but that could happen anyway couldn't it but without compelled pronouns in emails this situation needn't arise need it?
Compelled speech is not free speech and compelled pronouns are equally wrong. Those who require third person pronouns which are different to what might be expected from their 'presentation' have the responsibility to inform others of their preference. Those of us happy that you use your instincts need do nothing. Third person pronouns are mostly used in your absence but if someone referred to me as he instead of she I would not be traumatised, I don't need random validation by strangers. Given the ever growing number of pronouns this could become a feat of memory in a large gathering. I hope Pip/Philip Bunce use he/she pronouns the same days he/she presents in traditional male/female attire or his/her colleagues must be mightily confused!

Doodledog

*Which gives us "they". This has been rejected as plural but when you don't know the gender of a person it is used for example if someone dropped something and you couldn't tell their gender you would say "They dropped their ....."*

Colloquial English and written English are very different, though. Yes, we would say 'if someone wants to make a statement they can declare their gender', as 'someone' is neither countable nor gender-specific. In other words, 'they' is a generic pronoun that is useful when the number of people attached to it is uncertain, or the gender of a singular person is not known. It is jarring when we know that we are talking about is one person whom we know to be male or female, and we wouldn't say 'the woman over there dropped their pen'.

My cousin's daughter (can we say 'daughter'?) is non-binary, and referring to them as 'they', which I do out of politeness, does not come naturally, as each time I do it I am reminded that they are non-binary. This dissonance each time they are mentioned means that their non-binary identification has become the most important thing about them. It shouldn't be, if the whole point of being gender-neutral is that gender is unimportant.

The only way I can think of to get around it would be to have a new pronoun that is singular and gender-neutral (and another gender-neutral plural one), but that is not going to be achieved by forcing people to declare their 'identification status', as that just breeds resentment.

How would you advise someone who has transitioned to female, and is known as such at work, but hasn't told her family in Jakarta who still think they have a son, as he presents in that way at home? Should she have to declare herself as 'she/her' on her emails, and have the decision to come out to her family made by a university policy, or should she conform to that policy and deny her identity by using 'he/him'?

This seems to be a long winded argument which uses fallacious and spurious assumptions in an attempt to prove something.

Firstly the colloquial /written English. You would no more say "The woman dropped their " than you would write, it as you have already identified the gender of the person involved. If however you were writing a mystery or crime story and you wished to hide the identity of a suspect you might write "the figure dropped their...." I realise this is obscure but it shows that the usage is in no way related to written or colloquial language.

Secondly the concept that using "they" somehow creates the idea that gender is the most important thing about someone. This is purely based on the fact that "they" is not in common usage. If it was a common term it would seem unimportant.

The concept of the transitioned Jakartan seems to be unaware of the fact that it is perfectly possible to have two e-mail accounts, the professional which would be for the people she worked with or had professional contact with, and the private for family only. Of course there is always the possibility family might "google" the individual and discover their secret but that could happen anyway couldn't it.

*for individuals, obv.

I actually meant a completely new pronoun.
'Co' was once suggested by feminists but, of course, it never caught on.

It would have to be a completely new one, so that no-one felt that their own pronoun was being discarded in favour of someone else's.

I'm fine with 'they' fit individuals, all the same.
I expect the same objections about plural/singular could have been heard when 'you' began to be used instead of 'thou'.