Staying on topic- threads in general

We have now meandered on to Tofu At least it's civil now Madgran!

Chewbacca I think some people might say that Tofu isn't civil just by its very existence!!

Another university professor is taking legal action against her employers because she's been bullied and harassed for "being transphobic". Her name is Jo Phoenix and she's a lecturer at the Open University. This is her story:

On the December morning that Jo Phoenix, professor of criminology at the Open University, was to give a lecture at Essex University on trans rights in prisons, Twitter roared into action, with several Essex staff and students tweeting allegations that a “transphobe” would be on campus.

By 10am Phoenix was warned by a member of university staff that some students were threatening to shut down her lecture, as they said LGBT+ staff and students wouldn’t feel safe if Phoenix gave her talk. At midday the university decided to cancel it because disruption looked inevitable, and proper academic discussion unlikely.

“I was furious,” Phoenix says. “It was very clear to me that those agitating were fundamentally anti-academic because they condemned me and my research without hearing what I had to say.”

Phoenix, who is adamant she is not transphobic, had given the same talk at the University of Newfoundland in Canada a month earlier, to an audience that included trans scholars, without controversy. “They all liked it. So there is something unique about what is going on in the UK,” she says.
The talk explored tensions around placing trans women in British prisons, and argued that there are problems with applying trans rights to criminal justice.
Dr Kath Murray, a research associate in criminology at Edinburgh University, says there are many obstacles to organising gender-critical events on women’s rights. An event was cancelled at Edinburgh in December because of fears the speakers would face abuse.

Murray says one event that went ahead last year on sex-based rights required extensive security because of anticipated opposition. “There was a one-hour security briefing for speakers, seven security guards attending the event, a security sweep of the lecture theatre beforehand, and ID checks for all attendees,” she says.

In December, another event was due to take place, on schools and gender diversity. Dr Shereen Benjamin, senior lecturer in primary education at Edinburgh and the event organiser, says it was intended to show teachers both sides of the debate. “I wanted to bring together gender
critical speakers who see the increase in referral rates of children to gender identity clinics as problematic, and believe it has multiple social causes, with speakers from trans rights organisations who believe it is due to young people discovering their true identities at a younger age,” she says.

Benjamin says she was unable, however, to persuade any trans rights organisations to share the stage with gender-critical speakers, so the event was redesigned as a research seminar without teachers involved. However, when booking went live in December, the university’s staff pride network criticised it in an email to hundreds of staff, and on its blog, citing guest speakers
“with a history of transphobia”.

With at least one academic urging opponents to protest, Benjamin cancelled, fearing speakers would face abuse. “It is now so risky and frightening for people to talk critically about gender identity on campus,” she says.

Universities are no longer places for discovery and learning. They're populated by those with closed minds who want to silence everyone who has the temerity to question them. Jo has already raised £65,000 via crowd funding, to pay for her legal challenge. I've donated.

That is very interesting Chewbacca , thankyou for posting

I don't understand why 'staff and students wouldn't feel safe' if someone gave a talk. Safe from what?

This was said on a thread here about cancel culture - that young people needed to be protected. If university students need to be protected from ideas they don't like, or the opinions of others that clash with their world view, then they really shouldn't be there. It would be better if they had a year or two out until they were mature enough to attend an institution where debate and different points of view are discussed. They are not there to be spoon-fed ideas, but to listen to a range of them and decide on their own.

It makes me really cross to think that academic freedom is being crushed like this, and also that students are being denied the chance of a rounded education. It is also unacceptable for students to dictate to the university about which subjects are covered in lectures.

I was about to ask what these people don’t feel ‘safe’ from, Doodledog.

My ds’s role as a professor is to challenge people’s thinking, to make them look outside the box, to hear different ideas and upturn their assumptions. He’s fortunate in that he only teaches post-grads who of course are older and have seen a bit of life. He also has many overseas students, some of whom are utterly baffled by the whole trans issue.

Thanks for the post Chewbacca. What’s to be done when academic debate can’t happen because of the noise, the threats made by a small, volatile group?
We need research into what is influencing the increase in numbers of young children referred because of gender confusion. It’s a complex issue for any parent and I fear the simplistic belief that the increase is because children are ‘more aware’ is already causing harm.

Thanks for sharing that Chewbacca.

I agree Iam that believing "children are 'more aware' is as you say causing harm.

I would have imagined that anyone believing that gender norms should be challenged would welcome requests for people to state their preferred pronoun. Doesn't this challenge the idea that you can identify gender by appearance? And isn't the abandonment of preconceptions a step on the way to a gender neutral world?

Wouldn't the same pronoun for all be a better idea?
I believe the Japanese language doesn't use sex-specific pronouns unless it is essential to know which sex a person is.
That sounds much better.

(Not that Japan is a non-sexist society)

FarNorth

Wouldn't the same pronoun for all be a better idea?
I believe the Japanese language doesn't use sex-specific pronouns unless it is essential to know which sex a person is.
That sounds much better.

(Not that Japan is a non-sexist society)

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 ....."

trisher

I would have imagined that anyone believing that gender norms should be challenged would welcome requests for people to state their preferred pronoun. Doesn't this challenge the idea that you can identify gender by appearance? And isn't the abandonment of preconceptions a step on the way to a gender neutral world?

The rather convoluted word order and questions about what you imagine others would welcome is a bit confusing, but I think this is saying that in your opinion declaring pronouns is a good idea, and that you think that we shouldn't be able to identify gender by appearance as a gender-neutral world is a good thing?

How does an email signature link to appearance? If a signature says 'Dr J Smith', that gives the responder a name to which they can respond - what more do they need?

Why, in an equal world, should it matter if J is for Janet or John? It seems to me that only if someone cares that the expert in whatever it is is male or female that they would want to know, and I would seriously question their motives for that.

What's next, Professor J Smith, (she/her/Methodist/36-24-36/Labour/Brunette)?

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'?

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'.

*for individuals, obv.

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.

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!

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.

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/

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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.