I thought the accusation by JR that to use female pronouns in public but then "misgendering" in private is classic bully behaviour was a good argument. Of course misgendering is bullshit, but Sex Matters advises to do that, selecting when to use preferred pronouns.
It is an irrational compromise that exposes you precisely to the sort of charge that JR leveled at Sandie Peggie. As for the upcoming disciplinary hearing, it was the judge in Forstater to say we cannot misgender with impunity? What did people think that meant?
To decide when to grant and when to withdraw the "privilege" of female pronouns for a male is the sort of irrational behaviour that employers will not look at with favour. It is like being nice in public while abusing in private, they will think.
This case forces, at least, compromisers to make choices. Gender ideology cannot be both insane and toxic and worthy of respect. Pronouns cannot be withheld by personal choice and a standard that a judge will apply in harassment cases .
So I am not joining the outrage at NHS Fife's actions, outrageous as they are. You celebrate the Forstater judge saying we cannot misgender with impunity, and then wring your hands when an employer wants to punish misgendering?
Only those of us who warned about the ticking bomb that was the misgendering with impunity proviso can say, We told you so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
