Staying on topic- threads in general

I read it and thought Lord of the Flies theory very apt.

However "Millennials" to me will always been those who came of age in 2000 ie those born in 1982.
Am I confused again?

(Better to remain confused than become indoctrinated.)

SueDonim I scrolled through the twatter feed and howled with laughter at the woman who was accused of "appropriating the vegan ethos and should be banned from vegan community" because she said that she only ate tofu because she didn't like the taste or texture of meat. Apparently, even what you eat, and the reasons behind it, are up for public scrutiny and censorship now and if you're found wanting, you'll be cancelled.

We know a young person who announced that she wishes to be known as 'they' in future.

I haven't been able to grasp this as she, he, it are singular therefore referring to one person but they is plural referring to two or more people.

Students and staff at Leeds University have called on their vice-chancellor and senior employees to include gender pronouns when introducing themselves in meetings.
They also said that the vice-chancellor, Simone Buitendijk, should state her preferred gender pronouns in her email signature. Both measures are designed to show support for the transgender community.

Someone on another forum has made the comment did they (plural) check with Simone whether they (singular) were happy with being referred to as her, it would be literal violence if Simone has been misgendered!

My attention has also been brought to this Twitter thread. It’s not just about trans matters but about how daring to challenge certain thinking gets you punished.

twitter.com/babybeginner/status/1163478536297930753

We need more people to take that attitude SueDonim.

My son works in academia. His institution has requested that people state their pronouns. He has ignored that. He doesn’t do forced speech and he also doesn’t care how he’s addressed - Dr, sir, Mrs, princess, he doesn’t give a damn, he’ll talk to them anyway.

FarNorth yes indeed.

Of course it's important what gender identity clinics actually do.
Most people, I'd guess, imagine that they help clients to explore their feelings around gender and what would be the best way forward for them.
What is more likely is that, as shown with Tavistock, they very quickly affirm the person as being the opposite sex, or no sex, and usher them into medication and/or surgery in support of that.

Universities should state that, in fairness to everyone, they have chosen a set of words, not currently in use, to be used as pronouns for all.

Yes, that stood out for me, too.

That's an excellent piece of journalism SueDonim, thanks for sharing. This paragraph stood out for me: Trans people should be afforded the same rights and protections as everyone else. A reduction in adult waiting times for gender identity clinics, which are currently scandalously long, is much needed. This, at least, is a more urgent priority than unleashing the cops on radical feminists and getting the word ‘mother’ removed from government documents.
But the dominant, mainstream mode of trans activism prioritises censorship, bullying, intimidation and institutional and linguistic capture. These things have to be fought because they are destructive of open, pluralistic societies.

And so they are.

There’s a very good article about Marion Millar’s case in the Spectator. www.spectator.co.uk/article/marion-millar-should-never-have-been-in-court

The group in question used it as a power tool against staff and pupils.

Yes, the lesson from all of this is that if you shout loudly enough, and bully everyone who disagrees with your aims, you will get your own way.

Excellent.

There was hell to pay-I didn’t have to deal with it but I was asked for my advice. Evidently their super citizenship lessons decided a group of girls to claim they were boys, despite being at a girls school and all dressed in the same uniform. Of course, once having told the pupils about the ‘rights’ to a gender neutral pronoun, it was declared as transphobia not to use them-even if you couldn’t remember which pupils it applied to. The group in question used it as a power tool against staff and pupils.

Isn't that why some women prefer the prefix Ms. because they don't want their marital status known?

Is it personal choice if you risk being castigated depending on which choice you make?

I agree Chewbacca it's up to the individual to decide how much, if any private personal information the choose to disclose.

All I can say to that Mollygo is there would be hell to pay a year 7 child of mine was punished for that.

Thank goodness I’m not teaching languages any more!!
Absolute minefield I’d guess with “feminine masculine neuter endings, agreements etc”
Great excuse for students getting those agreements etc wrong!

I might have mentioned before that one all girls’s school is punishing even year 7 for not using ‘they’ instead of she.

Precisely Doodledog. If we are not expected to announce our ethnicity or disability status say, in support of ethnic minorities or disabled people, why should our signatures have to be used to show support for trans people only?
It's within living memory that some people were forced to wear yellow stars to make their ethnicity known in public and we all know how that ended. I am very strongly against forcing people to reveal private personal information when there is no reason, other than to validate the insecurities of others. How does one minority group trump another?

This is particularly acute for people who do not want to link their personal and professional lives. An email signature is not private, and there are people who use different names at work and in their personal lives.

This has traditionally usually applied to married women who may choose to use the family name socially, but keep their birth name in the workplace, but this is not the only group who is affected.

Not everyone is 'out' (whether as gay or transgender) to their extended families, who may live in a country that is different from where they work. Why should anyone have to declare a personal choice of pronoun on an email when this is, effectively, outing themselves to all. As it is, lecturing staff have photos on university websites, which can be intrusive, and this seems to me a step too far.

Why does it matter if people are male or female (or 'non-binary') other than to themselves? Who benefits from this enforced invasion of privacy? Someone emailing a member of staff can just address their message to 'Dr X'. Why does it matter if X stands for Xavier or Xanthe, and whether either of those people is male or female? All it's doing as far as I can see is pushing the idea that gender is far more important than it needs to be.

Our universities are struggling to balance TRA's demands and showing fairness and inclusivity to all students, staff and lectureres. Leeds is the latest:

Students and staff at Leeds University have called on their vice-chancellor and senior employees to include gender pronouns when introducing themselves in meetings.
They also said that the vice-chancellor, Simone Buitendijk, should state her preferred gender pronouns in her email signature. Both measures are designed to show support for the transgender community.

The university was accused of having “a deeply entrenched culture of transphobia” in a letter signed by LGBT staff and student groups, as well as by the Leeds branch of the University and College Union.

The letter called on her to “rapidly address and effectively rectify the current discriminatory situation” at the university, which the writers said was “a hostile environment for trans staff and students”. Concerns were raised over people being misgendered by colleagues who, in some cases had not apologised before being asked.

Among the other demands, the letter called for “an effective and fit-for-purpose pronouns policy to be enacted, to include our VC showing her support for the trans community by using pronouns in her email signature, and a culture which encourages the sharing of pronouns when, for example, in meetings and seminars”.

The university said: “We strongly deny the assertion that we have created a ‘hostile environment’ for transgender staff and students, but recognise that we need to do more to alleviate concerns that have been put to us and are working with our community to do so. We have a clear and unwavering commitment to ensuring equality, diversity and inclusion for all. The use of pronouns – in emails or in meetings – is a personal choice. We do not have policies on this, but do provide support and resources to help inform that choice.”

But, this reads to me, as though personal choice is becoming as rare as hen's teeth these days. What if you'd rather not declare your pronoun at the end of an email? Or you'd rather not have to stand up and declare it at the beginning of a meeting? What about that choice?

I’ve never been amused on this sort of thread before. Thanks for the nutty comments. R and D.

Very true. My obsessions run more interesting than that

Ah but then Doodledog wouldn't want to be accused of being obsessed with scrotums either.

Transmen aren’t forcing themselves into male wards or prison wings, and there are no calls for men to be called ‘people with penises’. I started to call them that on threads like this a while ago, to try to make a point; but of course it went over the heads of the trans supporters, and I was accused of being obsessed with penises?.

You just need to vary it Doodledog, perhaps try 'scrotums' as a shortcut identifier, no need for 'people with a'. I'm sure nobody in possession of said item would object