I'm wondering what happens if someone was to set up a "women only" service.
Let's say it's a salon. Then two paying customers come to use the service. The first is a trans-woman the other a TERF. Halfway through the cut, an argument begins and the two are removed from the salon.
According to the SC, a women only salon is specifically about genetics. So does that mean that the TERF could complain to the courts about being excluded from a space that the trans-woman shouldn't have been in?
Of course this is ridiculous. But TERFs could cause a lot of trouble if they feel they have court backing to police other people in public.
You will remember, I'm sure, the collection of bakers, wedding website makers, florists, and similar vendors that were the subject of court cases surrounding their desire not to provide services for same-sex weddings?
I've seen a change in language. The gender critical seem much bolder in publicly using terms* such as
trans identifying man/woman
- helpfully inserting misgendering directly into the language.
*spoilered as mentions of misgendering.
What would be the correct terms, please? Trans man and trans woman?
Hidden the below as it is all a discussion of mis-gendering:
I assumed from KarlLB's post that gender critical "trans identifying man" = somebody who would be called a trans woman amongst people who accept that trans people exist and have the right to exist, i.e. somebody who identifies as female but who is interpreted by gender critical people as a "man" based on their interpretation of "biological sex." Likewise that gender critical "trans identifying woman" = a trans man.
This exactly.
Quite. A person who was gender-critical but not an asshole could use a construction like "a person who identifies as a trans woman" to describe a trans woman without actually having to call her a woman. Calling her a man is deliberately offensive and provocative.
Also, my daughter regularly uses pangender and omnigender to indicate that they identify with all genders (there must be a subtle difference between these terms, but they tend to use them almost interchangeably, so I've not quite identified what that difference is).
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though? If I (beard and all) were to use the ladies facilities in any bar, club, or so forth I’m pretty sure that would be considered inappropriate in and of itself - would such judgement be wrong to make given that nobody there could actually know which gender I identify as?
Yes. What other alternative is there? Having someone by the door judging whether you appear feminine enough to use the ladies? Karyotyping on demand? Airport style genital inspection scanners?
Ok, but in practise that’s exactly the same as doing away with gendered facilities in the first place.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though? If I (beard and all) were to use the ladies facilities in any bar, club, or so forth I’m pretty sure that would be considered inappropriate in and of itself - would such judgement be wrong to make given that nobody there could actually know which gender I identify as?
Yes. What other alternative is there? Having someone by the door judging whether you appear feminine enough to use the ladies? Karyotyping on demand? Airport style genital inspection scanners?
Ok, but in practise that’s exactly the same as doing away with gendered facilities in the first place.
No, it isn't, because the number of people who choose to use the "wrong" toilets is tiny.
gender nonconforming is the fastest growing identifier I'm seeing these days. This is the word used by the person who uses he/him pronouns but tends to rock awesome skirt/blouse sets and the person who uses she/her pronouns but dresses masc enough that her (female) family try to make sure one of them is also in the bathroom area with her on road trips.
…
A genderfluid person has gender that is expressed differently on different days. They may have dress masc or femme on some days and not on others.
None of what I’m about to write is intended to disparage or deny the validity of the quoted terms, please take it as an expression of my personal feelings about them. The snipped bits I have no issue with.
That said, I get so frustrated by those aspects of current gender thinking that say that (for example) a man who rocks awesome skirt/blouse sets must perforce identify to some degree as not fully male. It feels to me like an undoing of so much of the good work that has been done over the last few decades to combat such gender-specific norms and requirements.
I firmly believe that there should be no such concept as “things men do” and “things women do”, and I’m trying very hard to bring my kids up with that mindset. But now it feels increasingly to me like those gender norms are being strengthened and reinforced, and instead of telling boys who want to wear skirts that that’s a perfectly fine thing for boys to do we’re instead telling them that it means they might really be girls.
I guess I am disagreeing with the term “gender nonconforming”. But that’s only because I don’t believe in gender conformity to begin with, and if there’s no such thing as conformity in the first place then it follows that there can’t be any such thing as nonconformity either.
I do realise, of course, that expectations of gender conformity are a thing in today’s world. But it’s a thing I detest, and that I fight against whenever I can. I don’t think we should be putting people in boxes labelled “male” and “female” and deciding what they can and can’t do based on which box they’re in - and that means I think we should get rid of the boxes completely, not just make it easier for people to change which one they’re in.
I’m genuinely sorry if I’ve accidentally phrased any of that in a way that offends anyone.
I may be totally mistaken, but I have always understood "gender non-conforming" to be a matter of observation i.e. does someone defy gender norms as currently constructed, rather than being, say, non-binary which is a matter of self-identification. Gender non-conforming individuals get a lot of negative attention that is a proxy for hatred of trans and non-binary individuals because you can't identify the latter on sight but the former, by definition, are pretty easy to spot. It seems to me that the conflation of drag with being trans comes almost wholly from a place of transphobia.
Marvin - the gender binary is not the enemy. The problem comes when people insist that it's the only game in town, that people are irrevocably assigned one of two genders at birth, that there are only a limited range of expressions of those two genders possible.
I may be totally mistaken, but I have always understood "gender non-conforming" to be a matter of observation i.e. does someone defy gender norms as currently constructed, rather than being, say, non-binary which is a matter of self-identification.
Valid. I think it can be both. The person I'm thinking of comes to our church trans group and does identify as gender nonconforming. But he'd be just as valid if he didn't.
gender nonconforming is the fastest growing identifier I'm seeing these days. This is the word used by the person who uses he/him pronouns but tends to rock awesome skirt/blouse sets and the person who uses she/her pronouns but dresses masc enough that her (female) family try to make sure one of them is also in the bathroom area with her on road trips.
…
A genderfluid person has gender that is expressed differently on different days. They may have dress masc or femme on some days and not on others.
None of what I’m about to write is intended to disparage or deny the validity of the quoted terms, please take it as an expression of my personal feelings about them. The snipped bits I have no issue with.
Thanks for the warning. I promise to take it in that spirit.
That said, I get so frustrated by those aspects of current gender thinking that say that (for example) a man who rocks awesome skirt/blouse sets must perforce identify to some degree as not fully male. It feels to me like an undoing of so much of the good work that has been done over the last few decades to combat such gender-specific norms and requirements.
My mom has had the same concern. Re the guy I mentioned, see what I said to arethosemyfeet above. It is relevant. His identification is internal as well as external. Also, I don't think considers himself gender nonconforming and trans because he wears skirts. I think that rather he wears skirts because he already is, outward sign of inward gender if I may be silly.
I guess I am disagreeing with the term “gender nonconforming”. But that’s only because I don’t believe in gender conformity to begin with, and if there’s no such thing as conformity in the first place then it follows that there can’t be any such thing as nonconformity either.
I might agree, but I object to the need for the term not the term itself.Maybe the need for that term is a sign of the brokenness of our world re gender? I personally would love a world where gender is less. We all do have pronouns but we don't even use them professionally or with strangers. For instance, how many of your colleagues need to know you are a dude? Some of them you may talk about things with, but as you say your activities don't imply a gender. Everyone should use they except with friends or dates/romantic people. It would lessen pressure to conform.
I may be totally mistaken, but I have always understood "gender non-conforming" to be a matter of observation i.e. does someone defy gender norms as currently constructed, rather than being, say, non-binary which is a matter of self-identification.
Valid. I think it can be both. The person I'm thinking of comes to our church trans group and does identify as gender nonconforming. But he'd be just as valid if he didn't.
gender nonconforming is the fastest growing identifier I'm seeing these days. This is the word used by the person who uses he/him pronouns but tends to rock awesome skirt/blouse sets and the person who uses she/her pronouns but dresses masc enough that her (female) family try to make sure one of them is also in the bathroom area with her on road trips.
…
A genderfluid person has gender that is expressed differently on different days. They may have dress masc or femme on some days and not on others.
None of what I’m about to write is intended to disparage or deny the validity of the quoted terms, please take it as an expression of my personal feelings about them. The snipped bits I have no issue with.
Thanks for the warning. I promise to take it in that spirit.
That said, I get so frustrated by those aspects of current gender thinking that say that (for example) a man who rocks awesome skirt/blouse sets must perforce identify to some degree as not fully male. It feels to me like an undoing of so much of the good work that has been done over the last few decades to combat such gender-specific norms and requirements.
My mom has had the same concern. Re the guy I mentioned, see what I said to arethosemyfeet above. It is relevant. His identification is internal as well as external. Also, I don't think considers himself gender nonconforming and trans because he wears skirts. I think that rather he wears skirts because he already is, outward sign of inward gender if I may be silly.
I guess I am disagreeing with the term “gender nonconforming”. But that’s only because I don’t believe in gender conformity to begin with, and if there’s no such thing as conformity in the first place then it follows that there can’t be any such thing as nonconformity either.
I might agree, but I object to the need for the term not the term itself.Maybe the need for that term is a sign of the brokenness of our world re gender? I personally would love a world where gender is less. We all do have pronouns but we don't even use them professionally or with strangers. For instance, how many of your colleagues need to know you are a dude? Some of them you may talk about things with, but as you say your activities don't imply a gender. Everyone should use they except with friends or dates/romantic people. It would lessen pressure to conform.
I was nodding along in agreement until the last two sentences, genuinely. Absolutely nothing at all to disagree with. But then ‘everyone should’ to ‘lessen pressure to conform’ was a bit of a ‘spit out the tea moment’
It would be lovely if we all just rubbed along and people weren’t d*ckheads, but I suspect trying to reprogramme everyone’s pronouns to the same thing outside their tightest social life to *avoid conformity* is a bit of a reach.
It would be lovely if we all just rubbed along and people weren’t d*ckheads, but I suspect trying to reprogramme everyone’s pronouns to the same thing outside their tightest social life to *avoid conformity* is a bit of a reach.
Only slightly more of a reach than everyone only using *two* pronouns to avoid conformity, if that was that the beef.
But I didn't really see Gwai's post as prescribing a particular format of address; rather saying wouldn't it be better if you were betjemaniac, Gwai was Gwai and we weren't hung up about pronouns in situations it didn't matter (as it doesn't for much of the social).
I guess I am disagreeing with the term “gender nonconforming”. But that’s only because I don’t believe in gender conformity to begin with, and if there’s no such thing as conformity in the first place then it follows that there can’t be any such thing as nonconformity either.
I might agree, but I object to the need for the term not the term itself.
That sounds like agreement to me. I’m objecting to the need for the term as well, I just phrased it differently.
It would be lovely if we all just rubbed along and people weren’t d*ckheads, but I suspect trying to reprogramme everyone’s pronouns to the same thing outside their tightest social life to *avoid conformity* is a bit of a reach.
Only slightly more of a reach than everyone only using *two* pronouns to avoid conformity, if that was that the beef.
But I didn't really see Gwai's post as prescribing a particular format of address; rather saying wouldn't it be better if you were betjemaniac, Gwai was Gwai and we weren't hung up about pronouns in situations it didn't matter (as it doesn't for much of the social).
Thanks for the clarification, @chrisstiles . This is exactly what I was wish for.
I personally would love a world where gender is less. We all do have pronouns but we don't even use them professionally or with strangers. For instance, how many of your colleagues need to know you are a dude? Some of them you may talk about things with, but as you say your activities don't imply a gender. Everyone should use they except with friends or dates/romantic people. It would lessen pressure to conform.
Some of my colleagues are my friends, and by your metric here would naturally use "he" to describe me. Those colleagues who are not friends are likely to pick up on the use of "he" by my friends, and copy it. It's hard for me to see how this wouldn't happen.
It would be lovely if we all just rubbed along and people weren’t d*ckheads, but I suspect trying to reprogramme everyone’s pronouns to the same thing outside their tightest social life to *avoid conformity* is a bit of a reach.
Only slightly more of a reach than everyone only using *two* pronouns to avoid conformity, if that was that the beef.
But I didn't really see Gwai's post as prescribing a particular format of address; rather saying wouldn't it be better if you were betjemaniac, Gwai was Gwai and we weren't hung up about pronouns in situations it didn't matter (as it doesn't for much of the social).
Who's to say whether or not it matters? (Or how the social realm should be constructed?)
What about the people for whom traditionally-gendered pronouns do matter, where those pronouns help them make sense of the world, or that validate their own identity?
There are people who prefer to be referred to as she/her or he/him, whose identity is partly located in those terms. Do we tell them they shouldn't be hung up about pronouns, that the world would be a better place if we abandoned those terms?
Everyone should use they except with friends or dates/romantic people. It would lessen pressure to conform.
I would still experience this as pressure to conform (albeit to a different standard). My preference would be to avoid third-person pronouns and personal names too.
This is the one problem I still have. To me,. pronouns belong to the community of users of a language, not to their object. They are precisely means of referring to a person one doesn't know, and yes one would pick up cues from those who know the object of the pronoun better. This is one of the better arguments for the universal use of "they" but this would require everyone to adopt it because of my point about language belonging to the community of speakers.
There is a gender neutral singular pronoun in English. ' IT' is used in English for all things and even for humans, generally babies, if we are not sure which gender they are..
Some of my colleagues are my friends, and by your metric here would naturally use "he" to describe me. Those colleagues who are not friends are likely to pick up on the use of "he" by my friends, and copy it. It's hard for me to see how this wouldn't happen.
I imagine analogous situations currently crop up when speaking languages with specifically informal pronouns, such as French, and I presume they manage.
There is a gender neutral singular pronoun in English. ' IT' is used in English for all things and even for humans, generally babies, if we are not sure which gender they are..
Notwithstanding it is sometimes used for babies, referring anyone older than a baby as "it" is generally perceived as dehumanising. It's used frequently by the worst kinds of homophobes and transphobes to describe people they despise.
There is a gender neutral singular pronoun in English. ' IT' is used in English for all things and even for humans, generally babies, if we are not sure which gender they are..
Singular 'they' is older than singular 'you', and we manage to cope with ambiguity in the latter most of the time.
Whose main concern was the "very binary reaction that there has been" to the ruling.
And because there's no escaping the need for loos at a festival (she was speaking, with her daughter Julia Hoggett - CEO of the London Stock Exchange, at an event on Money, Power and Justice at the Charleston Festival):
[I don't want to] undermine the court and its authority by being critical of its decisions, but I can be much more critical of the way it’s been received. Because there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.
Thinking about Louise's request on page 9, it seems depressingly inevitable that this particular topic is going to carry on being used to focus debate, but we don't have to lose sight of the way in which it demonstrates the exercising of power and control, of marginalisation and discrimination, and the creation of disunity between groups of people.
In which context the EHRC have released their proposed changes to their code of practice for consultation. From chapter 2, Change 2.2: New content on asking about sex at birth, selected paragraphs:
2.2.2 Where obtaining information on birth sex is not necessary and proportionate, asking a trans person about their birth sex may risk unjustifiably interfering with their human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is respect for private and family life. Therefore, care should be taken, particularly by public authorities, that this is only done where necessary and justified.
2.2.3 Requests about birth sex are more likely to be justified where it is necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual’s birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). Any request that is made should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment.
2.2.6 If it is necessary to ask a person’s birth sex, consideration should be given to whether it is reasonable and necessary to ask for evidence of birth sex. In many cases, it will be sufficient to simply ask an individual to confirm their birth sex. A service provider may make a rule that if someone is asked their birth sex and chooses to answer objectively falsely it will be grounds for exclusion from the service.
2.2.8 If there is genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested. For the vast majority of individuals, this will be an accurate statement of their birth sex. However, it should be noted that a birth certificate may not be a definitive indication of birth sex. If a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) they may have obtained an amended birth certificate in their acquired gender. In the unlikely event that it is decided that further enquiries are needed, such as confirmation as to whether a person has a GRC, then any additional requests should be made in a proportionate way which is discreet and sensitive.
2.2.9 It is important to be aware of legal provisions protecting privacy in the context of making such enquiries. If, in the course of these enquiries or otherwise, a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association acquires information that someone has a GRC or has applied for a GRC, onward disclosure of either that information or their biological sex without consent may be a criminal offence in some circumstances (read section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004).
What about the people for whom traditionally-gendered pronouns do matter, where those pronouns help them make sense of the world, or that validate their own identity?
There are people who prefer to be referred to as she/her or he/him, whose identity is partly located in those terms. Do we tell them they shouldn't be hung up about pronouns, that the world would be a better place if we abandoned those terms?
If people want to volunteer that kind of information about themselves in a social setting that's absolutely fine, but there shouldn't be a compulsion for other people to do that.
There is a gender neutral singular pronoun in English. ' IT' is used in English for all things and even for humans, generally babies, if we are not sure which gender they are..
Maybe where you come from. Where I come from, 'it' is used mainly to refer to animals (except for pets) and inanimate objects.
When I was a new mother, random strangers who came up to me to talk about the baby would do one of two things:
Either: refer to the baby as 'he' - presumably on the grounds that all babies are male until proved otherwise. This happened even on the rare occasions when I dressed my baby in pink frilly things.
Or: go to extraordinary lengths to avoid using pronouns at all. You can get away with this in English. Of course, in German the situation does not arise because all babies are gender-neutral (das Baby).
Personally I preferred the people who made an effort to avoid misgendering my baby to the ones who just assumed that parents of girls would be flattered if their daughter was mistaken for a boy.
At a macro level, the problem is that the function of gender is changing.
It used to be that if you knew someone’s gender, you knew who they would form relationships with, the scope of what they would look like, what they would wear, what jobs they would do and the things they would be likely to express an interest in and also their biological sex - which would matter if you were looking for a prospective partner to have biological children with.
This is no longer true, gender doesn’t act as that rule of thumb anymore. It’s not functioned wholly like that for decades. But it does still work for a large chunk of the population - though I would hesitate to say a majority given the wider range within the gender roles, at least of occupations.
Generationally, gender is shifting more to be a form of self expression - like choosing a name. What is in some ways interesting, is that at the same time people are inventing an extensive system of conveying the same information both symbolically and linguistically.
For example - 100 years ago, if I tell you I am a woman you might assume:
I am biologically female
I am sexually attracted to males
I am only interested in sex with someone I love, and/or for the purpose of having children
If I work before I have children it will be as a nurse, secretary, nanny or teacher
I present as feminine
I have interests such as sewing, flowers, childcare, baking and probably not sport, train spotting or stamp collecting
You don’t actually have to ask me any of this, and can decide whether to court me partially on this basis
Now I could describe myself as a femme presenting heterosexual demisexual cisgender female, with an interest in traditional women’s hobbies and occupations to convey the same information.
But if I see myself as a masc presenting pansexual greysexual cisgender female with an interest in gaming, engineering and surfing - I am still telling you I am a woman but I am describing a very different lived experience of that. I also probably have a specific flag / set of colours I can use to convey that, even I am not using an actual handkerchief code.
I personally would love a world where gender is less. We all do have pronouns but we don't even use them professionally or with strangers. For instance, how many of your colleagues need to know you are a dude? Some of them you may talk about things with, but as you say your activities don't imply a gender. Everyone should use they except with friends or dates/romantic people. It would lessen pressure to conform.
Some of my colleagues are my friends, and by your metric here would naturally use "he" to describe me. Those colleagues who are not friends are likely to pick up on the use of "he" by my friends, and copy it. It's hard for me to see how this wouldn't happen.
In my theoretical situation for you, they wouldn't use he/him for you when being professional at work. Similarly, at work they wouldn't discuss having a beer with you on your front porch, even if they have done so. I'm thinking of that kind of work/social separation. The pronouns would just become part of it.
The fear of trans women, is really based on the assumption / stereotype that any biological male would rape women if they could get away with it. This is why identified males in single sex spaces (the janitor, the doctor, the nurse etc) are not seen as threatening - they don't have the cloak of anonymity.
The resistance to biological transition, especially early in the life course, is driven by the fear of loss of reproductive capacity more than anything else. In the same way, try being a childless woman under 30 and asking for sterilisation.
(A large chunk that coming from the stereotypical assumption that you have failed at life as a man or a woman, if you have not produced your own children.)
At a macro level, the problem is that the function of gender is changing.
It used to be that if you knew someone’s gender, you knew who they would form relationships with, the scope of what they would look like, what they would wear, what jobs they would do and the things they would be likely to express an interest in and also their biological sex - which would matter if you were looking for a prospective partner to have biological children with.
This is no longer true, gender doesn’t act as that rule of thumb anymore. It’s not functioned wholly like that for decades. But it does still work for a large chunk of the population - though I would hesitate to say a majority given the wider range within the gender roles, at least of occupations.
Generationally, gender is shifting more to be a form of self expression - like choosing a name. What is in some ways interesting, is that at the same time people are inventing an extensive system of conveying the same information both symbolically and linguistically.
For example - 100 years ago, if I tell you I am a woman you might assume:
I am biologically female
I am sexually attracted to males
I am only interested in sex with someone I love, and/or for the purpose of having children
If I work before I have children it will be as a nurse, secretary, nanny or teacher
I present as feminine
I have interests such as sewing, flowers, childcare, baking and probably not sport, train spotting or stamp collecting
You don’t actually have to ask me any of this, and can decide whether to court me partially on this basis
Now I could describe myself as a femme presenting heterosexual demisexual cisgender female, with an interest in traditional women’s hobbies and occupations to convey the same information.
But if I see myself as a masc presenting pansexual greysexual cisgender female with an interest in gaming, engineering and surfing - I am still telling you I am a woman but I am describing a very different lived experience of that. I also probably have a specific flag / set of colours I can use to convey that, even I am not using an actual handkerchief code.
Indeed, as @Gwai noted, this is a really insightful post. Some might quibble with your use of 'self-expression' as gender identity is a very deep part of the human experience for most and 'expression' sounds almost like a free choice. I know you don't mean it that way.
For fellow Pratchett fans, the gender identity of the Dwarfs is a fascinating journey. For non-STP-fans, in the Discworld series all dwarfs present as male, and he describes how couples politely discover at some point if they are biologically compatible (in the reproductive sense) and then get married. I think Pratchett originally wrote them this way for laughs but in later novels, this evolves into quite serious social commentary (whilst still being quite funny) as a few individual dwarfs 'come-out' as female and a very conservative form of feminism breaks out among the species.
I mention Pratchett / Discworld because since reading this thread, it's got me thinking more deeply about this construction. Female dwarfs are only allowed to be female in terms of reproduction. Otherwise, they must present as - and be- male and conforming in all situations. Great literature always tells us something important about the human condition. I just wonder if Sir Terry is describing something quite important here about gender identity? Early thoughts only for me at the mo...
I was retracing my Freudian days, in training as a therapist, and as well as the notorious idea of penis envy, I think the "woman with a penis" was cited as something dangerous, partly as something indeterminate, or ambiguous. I've no idea if such ideas and feelings still float around, but I must try to dig out references. Sorry, if anyone is offended by these ideas.
When I say 'it' as a gender neutral singular pronoun { am speaking about its meaning linguistically. It is used to indicate' ne uter' neither one thing or another. I am happy to agree with Karl.B that it is generally perceived to be dehumanizing.
However there are some people who wish to be considered as 'neither one thing nor another' just are there are some who wish to be considered as 'both one thing and an other' and for whom the ,as usually understood, plural pronoun is suitable.
The idea of gender varies from one linguistic group to another and here we are talking mainly about the anglophone world.
In German all diminutives are neuter and the neuter pronoun (es)should technically be used all the time when referring to a person using this noun 'das Baby' as already quoted,but 'das Maedchen' (the girl) 'das Maennchen' (the little man),'das Fraeulein' (the unmarried lady) whereas anyone described as 'person' is automatically feminine 'die Person' and should be talked or written about with the pronoun for 'she' (sie)
In French the word 'person' is always feminine (la personne) as is the word for the 'sentry'
(la sentinelle) and so a feminine pronoun 'elle' should be used in place of these nouns irrespective of the biological sex of the human being referred to.
Sex and gender can be difficult to define at times,but I would say that a good number of human beings find it relatively easy and convenient to distinguish between male and female, certainly at the biological level.
It is only right and proper that we recognise that there are people who feel they have been put into the wrong gender and we should respect them but equally we should remember that there are many people for whom the idea of male and female complementarity is something which feels to them to be 'natural'. And it seems wrong to me to classify them almost automatically as 'bigots'.
In German, the word "Kind" means "child" in English and is neuter, as in "das Kind". As English is a Germanic language, it is likely that the use of "it" for a child is a Germanic influence.
In German, the word "Kind" means "child" in English and is neuter, as in "das Kind". As English is a Germanic language, it is likely that the use of "it" for a child is a Germanic influence.
Child isn't directly related to German Kind - it comes from a Germanic root meaning foetus or womb; although Cild was neuter in Old English, the English gender system was completely remodelled along natural gender lines by Middle English. The use of "it" for babies or children likely comes from their being gender neutral at a time when the dehumanising use of "it" had not yet arisen. Baba, baby, meanwhile, was a masculine noun.
I think an additional practical problem is that how people experience being asked about pronouns is (often) wildly different. For a trans person it maybe experienced as inclusive and welcoming.
For many cisgender people, who are gender conforming in their self presentation, what they are hearing - from stereotypes etc - is:
Women: you are so ugly, unattractive and insufficiently feminine (possibly also old) that you can be mistaken for a man, how disgusting
Men: you are so puny and ineffectual, even effeminate, that you could be mistaken for a woman, how pathetic
Until asking for and providing pronouns becomes a normal practice when introducing yourself - this will remain a significant obstacle. I work in the NHS and it is becoming very common to include your pronouns in your email signature - but it is almost never the case that this is done in verbal introductions.
"Some might quibble with your use of 'self-expression' as gender identity is a very deep part of the human experience for most and 'expression' sounds almost like a free choice. I know you don't mean it that way."
I have to say I took Doublethink's post as exactly referring to free choice. Why shouldn't it be?
I don’t think people choose to be trans, what I mean is that - instead of gender being a code by which others understand a laundry list of things about you (and impose a set of related expectations) - it is becoming a way you express to others, your lived experience of yourself.
Originally posted by Doublethink: For example - 100 years ago, if I tell you I am a woman you might assume:
If I work before I have children it will be as a nurse, secretary, nanny or teacher
I present as feminine
I have interests such as sewing, flowers, childcare, baking and probably not sport, train spotting or stamp collecting.
You don’t actually have to ask me any of this, and can decide whether to court me partially on this basis
I've swithered about posting this, as it may be a tangent, but 100 years ago (1925) I'm not sure everyone would assume all of those. Perhaps a bit earlier (1910?) or later (1935?)
In the 1920s, in the aftermath of the First World War, there were far fewer available men to marry, given the carnage of the war, but conversely women were much more visible in the workforce because a) they were more likely to be single and have to work to support themselves and b) there were vacancies in some areas owing to the loss of men.
There was a huge increase in women-only groups, providing a social life and structure for these unmarried women. For example in Aberdeen, the St Katherine's Club was formed in 1919 for working class girls providing keep-fit classes, a cycling club, lectures in first aid, and (from 1926) lectures on family planning for married women. The YWCA could not cope with the demand for women-only recreation, and so the Aberdeen Businesswomen's Club was formed (1925, I think), a large building with a library, cafeteria, amateur dramatics, and other hobby groups, aimed at shopworkers, secretarial workers etc. The Soroptomists were formed at about the same time for doctors, journalists, women running their own businesses etc. Aberdeen had an amateur all-female orchestra, hockey teams for adult women, etc. I'm using Aberdeen as an example because I've got a good grasp of the dates and figures.
Women in 1925 would present as feminine, but many had had experience of war work in which they did not present as feminine. A lot of what were previously seen as badges of femininity were disappearing - women bobbed their hair, wore clothes which let them cycle to and from work, jump on and off trams etc.
It's generally known that there was a generation of spinsters post WWI but within the patriarchy, the assumption was that these women lived half-lives, yearning for a man. Whereas a cursory look at the huge flourishing of careers, women-only interest groups, sporting clubs etc in the 1920s suggests otherwise.
Thanks North East Quine. I'd been wondering how things changed during that period, and about the impact of the First World War on women and society. From Striking Women:
Women’s employment rates increased during WWI, from 23.6% of the working age population in 1914 to between 37.7% and 46.7% in 1918. It is difficult to get exact estimates because domestic workers were excluded from these figures and many women moved from domestic service into the jobs created due to the war effort. The employment of married women increased sharply – accounting for nearly 40% of all women workers by 1918.
But because women were paid less than men, there was a worry that employers would continue to employ women in these jobs even when the men returned from the war. This did not happen; either the women were sacked to make way for the returning soldiers or women remained working alongside men but at lower wage rates. But even before the end of the war, many women refused to accept lower pay for what in most cases was the same work as had been done previously by men. The women workers on London buses and trams went on strike in 1918 to demand the same increase in pay (war bonus) as men. The strike spread to other towns in the South East and to the London Underground. This was the first equal pay strike in the UK which was initiated, led and ultimately won by women.
It's generally known that there was a generation of spinsters post WWI but within the patriarchy, the assumption was that these women lived half-lives, yearning for a man. Whereas a cursory look at the huge flourishing of careers, women-only interest groups, sporting clubs etc in the 1920s suggests otherwise.
More particularly with respect to gender, my reading of what's been changing at the macro level (for at least 100 years) is the "direction" in which gender is embodied - from inside to out rather than from outside to in. By individuals rather than by society.
Society, in this case, expressing itself in a rather narrow patriarchal, heteronormative (and colonialist) definition of gender - something that is applied to us, at birth, according to outward appearance, that we have to accept and get used to, along with a set of restrictive expectations about our maturing appearance and manner, and our place in society.
For me, a key sentence in the EHRC draft code of practice is:
A service provider may make a rule that if someone is asked their birth sex and chooses to answer objectively falsely it will be grounds for exclusion from the service.
Which looks like a pretty unsubtle attempt to turn back the clock to gender being "objectively" defined by the people looking at someone's outward appearance, rather than anything the individual in question might have to say in the matter.
It's quite fascinating what women were deemed to be strong enough to do during the First World War. Farmers whose daughters were working away from home in domestic service were asked to "recall" their daughters to do farm work, to release male farm workers for the army. I've seen it stated in newspaper reports of the time that there was very little a male farm worker could do that was beyond the strength of a young woman with a farming background! I wonder if the male farm workers concerned felt that that undermined their masculinity? Of course, as soon as the war was over, women's strength ebbed back to pre-war levels and they became, once again, the weaker sex.
There is a gender neutral singular pronoun in English. ' IT' is used in English for all things and even for humans, generally babies, if we are not sure which gender they are..
I find using "it" for babies dehumanizing and offensive. "It" is used for things, and not for people. I tend to suspect that the people who call babies "it" don't really think of babies as being actual people.
In my theoretical situation for you, they wouldn't use he/him for you when being professional at work. Similarly, at work they wouldn't discuss having a beer with you on your front porch, even if they have done so. I'm thinking of that kind of work/social separation. The pronouns would just become part of it.
Ah. I don't have that kind of work/social separation. It is normal for us to make reference to "having a beer on the front porch" type situations in work meetings. A couple of guys I work with like to fish, and from time to time go on fishing trips together. You can practically guarantee that if one of them has something to present in the week following a fishing trip, they'll include a slide mocking the other guy for only catching tiny fish or something of that nature.
Until asking for and providing pronouns becomes a normal practice when introducing yourself - this will remain a significant obstacle. I work in the NHS and it is becoming very common to include your pronouns in your email signature - but it is almost never the case that this is done in verbal introductions.
In a lot of cases, people are never actually introduced. IME, it's common to have a meeting, and for someone to be told "you need to talk to Bobby Smith about that", and then they have a guess at Bobby's preferred pronoun based on their name. Bobby probably isn't even present, but someone's going to want to refer to them with a pronoun. You can make a good case for it being correct to use "they" in this situation, because Bobby is a human whose gender you don't know. "They" is what I do in this kind of situation. I suspect that the majority of people just guess at "he", although my suspicions might be colored by the fact that my workplace has a significant majority of men, so "he" is statistically most likely to be correct. Do people that work in predominantly female places tend to default to "she" in this sort of circumstance?
I don’t think so, but you tend to get a little context - “you should talk to Bobby Sands at HR, I’ll put her email in the chat - she has been involved with this issue for the last few weeks”,
My workplace, if it's internal you tend to get context, as @Doublethink has said. Plus about 50-60% of people put pronouns in their email sig. It's the external stuff that gets tricky.
I used to process paperwork where we often only had name and phone number for some of those present. Most European names we could guess gender as most of the team had that background. Something like Sam, Pat, or Lesley, which could be either gender, note on file that "they have been rung and a message left". The difficult ones were the names from various parts of Asia and Africa where most of us were not familiar with the naming patterns. Default for those whilst trying to make contact was 'they', despite the team being 90% female.
It's quite fascinating what women were deemed to be strong enough to do during the First World War. Farmers whose daughters were working away from home in domestic service were asked to "recall" their daughters to do farm work, to release male farm workers for the army. I've seen it stated in newspaper reports of the time that there was very little a male farm worker could do that was beyond the strength of a young woman with a farming background! I wonder if the male farm workers concerned felt that that undermined their masculinity? Of course, as soon as the war was over, women's strength ebbed back to pre-war levels and they became, once again, the weaker sex.
This was also a thing noted in the early years of the 20th century when there was considerable migration from Scotland to East Anglia, where there were vacant farms that could generally be ploughed without having to dodge the boulders.
If you were a farmer in Essex, you were a Big Man in the village, children educated better than most, and you'd be one of the huntin' shootin' fishin' set and, in the lean decades after 1870, there's a fair chance you'd have gone bankrupt trying to maintain the lifestyle.
The Scots, however, would take on failing - even derelict- farms and *the whole family* - man, wife and children - would work somewhere on the farm, turning it round by using the family as labour.
Then there's the Land Girls and Lumber Jills of WW2...
Comments
You will remember, I'm sure, the collection of bakers, wedding website makers, florists, and similar vendors that were the subject of court cases surrounding their desire not to provide services for same-sex weddings?
Quite. A person who was gender-critical but not an asshole could use a construction like "a person who identifies as a trans woman" to describe a trans woman without actually having to call her a woman. Calling her a man is deliberately offensive and provocative.
Ok, but in practise that’s exactly the same as doing away with gendered facilities in the first place.
No, it isn't, because the number of people who choose to use the "wrong" toilets is tiny.
None of what I’m about to write is intended to disparage or deny the validity of the quoted terms, please take it as an expression of my personal feelings about them. The snipped bits I have no issue with.
That said, I get so frustrated by those aspects of current gender thinking that say that (for example) a man who rocks awesome skirt/blouse sets must perforce identify to some degree as not fully male. It feels to me like an undoing of so much of the good work that has been done over the last few decades to combat such gender-specific norms and requirements.
I firmly believe that there should be no such concept as “things men do” and “things women do”, and I’m trying very hard to bring my kids up with that mindset. But now it feels increasingly to me like those gender norms are being strengthened and reinforced, and instead of telling boys who want to wear skirts that that’s a perfectly fine thing for boys to do we’re instead telling them that it means they might really be girls.
I guess I am disagreeing with the term “gender nonconforming”. But that’s only because I don’t believe in gender conformity to begin with, and if there’s no such thing as conformity in the first place then it follows that there can’t be any such thing as nonconformity either.
I do realise, of course, that expectations of gender conformity are a thing in today’s world. But it’s a thing I detest, and that I fight against whenever I can. I don’t think we should be putting people in boxes labelled “male” and “female” and deciding what they can and can’t do based on which box they’re in - and that means I think we should get rid of the boxes completely, not just make it easier for people to change which one they’re in.
I’m genuinely sorry if I’ve accidentally phrased any of that in a way that offends anyone.
Thanks for the warning. I promise to take it in that spirit.
My mom has had the same concern. Re the guy I mentioned, see what I said to arethosemyfeet above. It is relevant. His identification is internal as well as external. Also, I don't think considers himself gender nonconforming and trans because he wears skirts. I think that rather he wears skirts because he already is, outward sign of inward gender if I may be silly.
I might agree, but I object to the need for the term not the term itself.Maybe the need for that term is a sign of the brokenness of our world re gender? I personally would love a world where gender is less. We all do have pronouns but we don't even use them professionally or with strangers. For instance, how many of your colleagues need to know you are a dude? Some of them you may talk about things with, but as you say your activities don't imply a gender. Everyone should use they except with friends or dates/romantic people. It would lessen pressure to conform.
I was nodding along in agreement until the last two sentences, genuinely. Absolutely nothing at all to disagree with. But then ‘everyone should’ to ‘lessen pressure to conform’ was a bit of a ‘spit out the tea moment’
It would be lovely if we all just rubbed along and people weren’t d*ckheads, but I suspect trying to reprogramme everyone’s pronouns to the same thing outside their tightest social life to *avoid conformity* is a bit of a reach.
Only slightly more of a reach than everyone only using *two* pronouns to avoid conformity, if that was that the beef.
But I didn't really see Gwai's post as prescribing a particular format of address; rather saying wouldn't it be better if you were betjemaniac, Gwai was Gwai and we weren't hung up about pronouns in situations it didn't matter (as it doesn't for much of the social).
That sounds like agreement to me. I’m objecting to the need for the term as well, I just phrased it differently.
Thanks for the clarification, @chrisstiles . This is exactly what I was wish for.
Some of my colleagues are my friends, and by your metric here would naturally use "he" to describe me. Those colleagues who are not friends are likely to pick up on the use of "he" by my friends, and copy it. It's hard for me to see how this wouldn't happen.
What about the people for whom traditionally-gendered pronouns do matter, where those pronouns help them make sense of the world, or that validate their own identity?
There are people who prefer to be referred to as she/her or he/him, whose identity is partly located in those terms. Do we tell them they shouldn't be hung up about pronouns, that the world would be a better place if we abandoned those terms?
I would still experience this as pressure to conform (albeit to a different standard). My preference would be to avoid third-person pronouns and personal names too.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-definition-of-a-woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale?CMP=share_btn_url
Notwithstanding it is sometimes used for babies, referring anyone older than a baby as "it" is generally perceived as dehumanising. It's used frequently by the worst kinds of homophobes and transphobes to describe people they despise.
Singular 'they' is older than singular 'you', and we manage to cope with ambiguity in the latter most of the time.
And because there's no escaping the need for loos at a festival (she was speaking, with her daughter Julia Hoggett - CEO of the London Stock Exchange, at an event on Money, Power and Justice at the Charleston Festival): Thinking about Louise's request on page 9, it seems depressingly inevitable that this particular topic is going to carry on being used to focus debate, but we don't have to lose sight of the way in which it demonstrates the exercising of power and control, of marginalisation and discrimination, and the creation of disunity between groups of people.
In which context the EHRC have released their proposed changes to their code of practice for consultation. From chapter 2, Change 2.2: New content on asking about sex at birth, selected paragraphs:
If people want to volunteer that kind of information about themselves in a social setting that's absolutely fine, but there shouldn't be a compulsion for other people to do that.
Maybe where you come from. Where I come from, 'it' is used mainly to refer to animals (except for pets) and inanimate objects.
When I was a new mother, random strangers who came up to me to talk about the baby would do one of two things:
Either: refer to the baby as 'he' - presumably on the grounds that all babies are male until proved otherwise. This happened even on the rare occasions when I dressed my baby in pink frilly things.
Or: go to extraordinary lengths to avoid using pronouns at all. You can get away with this in English. Of course, in German the situation does not arise because all babies are gender-neutral (das Baby).
Personally I preferred the people who made an effort to avoid misgendering my baby to the ones who just assumed that parents of girls would be flattered if their daughter was mistaken for a boy.
It used to be that if you knew someone’s gender, you knew who they would form relationships with, the scope of what they would look like, what they would wear, what jobs they would do and the things they would be likely to express an interest in and also their biological sex - which would matter if you were looking for a prospective partner to have biological children with.
This is no longer true, gender doesn’t act as that rule of thumb anymore. It’s not functioned wholly like that for decades. But it does still work for a large chunk of the population - though I would hesitate to say a majority given the wider range within the gender roles, at least of occupations.
Generationally, gender is shifting more to be a form of self expression - like choosing a name. What is in some ways interesting, is that at the same time people are inventing an extensive system of conveying the same information both symbolically and linguistically.
For example - 100 years ago, if I tell you I am a woman you might assume:
You don’t actually have to ask me any of this, and can decide whether to court me partially on this basis
Now I could describe myself as a femme presenting heterosexual demisexual cisgender female, with an interest in traditional women’s hobbies and occupations to convey the same information.
But if I see myself as a masc presenting pansexual greysexual cisgender female with an interest in gaming, engineering and surfing - I am still telling you I am a woman but I am describing a very different lived experience of that. I also probably have a specific flag / set of colours I can use to convey that, even I am not using an actual handkerchief code.
In my theoretical situation for you, they wouldn't use he/him for you when being professional at work. Similarly, at work they wouldn't discuss having a beer with you on your front porch, even if they have done so. I'm thinking of that kind of work/social separation. The pronouns would just become part of it.
The resistance to biological transition, especially early in the life course, is driven by the fear of loss of reproductive capacity more than anything else. In the same way, try being a childless woman under 30 and asking for sterilisation.
(A large chunk that coming from the stereotypical assumption that you have failed at life as a man or a woman, if you have not produced your own children.)
Indeed, as @Gwai noted, this is a really insightful post. Some might quibble with your use of 'self-expression' as gender identity is a very deep part of the human experience for most and 'expression' sounds almost like a free choice. I know you don't mean it that way.
For fellow Pratchett fans, the gender identity of the Dwarfs is a fascinating journey. For non-STP-fans, in the Discworld series all dwarfs present as male, and he describes how couples politely discover at some point if they are biologically compatible (in the reproductive sense) and then get married. I think Pratchett originally wrote them this way for laughs but in later novels, this evolves into quite serious social commentary (whilst still being quite funny) as a few individual dwarfs 'come-out' as female and a very conservative form of feminism breaks out among the species.
I mention Pratchett / Discworld because since reading this thread, it's got me thinking more deeply about this construction. Female dwarfs are only allowed to be female in terms of reproduction. Otherwise, they must present as - and be- male and conforming in all situations. Great literature always tells us something important about the human condition. I just wonder if Sir Terry is describing something quite important here about gender identity? Early thoughts only for me at the mo...
AFZ
However there are some people who wish to be considered as 'neither one thing nor another' just are there are some who wish to be considered as 'both one thing and an other' and for whom the ,as usually understood, plural pronoun is suitable.
The idea of gender varies from one linguistic group to another and here we are talking mainly about the anglophone world.
In German all diminutives are neuter and the neuter pronoun (es)should technically be used all the time when referring to a person using this noun 'das Baby' as already quoted,but 'das Maedchen' (the girl) 'das Maennchen' (the little man),'das Fraeulein' (the unmarried lady) whereas anyone described as 'person' is automatically feminine 'die Person' and should be talked or written about with the pronoun for 'she' (sie)
In French the word 'person' is always feminine (la personne) as is the word for the 'sentry'
(la sentinelle) and so a feminine pronoun 'elle' should be used in place of these nouns irrespective of the biological sex of the human being referred to.
Sex and gender can be difficult to define at times,but I would say that a good number of human beings find it relatively easy and convenient to distinguish between male and female, certainly at the biological level.
It is only right and proper that we recognise that there are people who feel they have been put into the wrong gender and we should respect them but equally we should remember that there are many people for whom the idea of male and female complementarity is something which feels to them to be 'natural'. And it seems wrong to me to classify them almost automatically as 'bigots'.
Child isn't directly related to German Kind - it comes from a Germanic root meaning foetus or womb; although Cild was neuter in Old English, the English gender system was completely remodelled along natural gender lines by Middle English. The use of "it" for babies or children likely comes from their being gender neutral at a time when the dehumanising use of "it" had not yet arisen. Baba, baby, meanwhile, was a masculine noun.
For many cisgender people, who are gender conforming in their self presentation, what they are hearing - from stereotypes etc - is:
Until asking for and providing pronouns becomes a normal practice when introducing yourself - this will remain a significant obstacle. I work in the NHS and it is becoming very common to include your pronouns in your email signature - but it is almost never the case that this is done in verbal introductions.
"Generationally, gender is shifting more to be a form of self expression - like choosing a name."
And @alienfromzog said
"Some might quibble with your use of 'self-expression' as gender identity is a very deep part of the human experience for most and 'expression' sounds almost like a free choice. I know you don't mean it that way."
I have to say I took Doublethink's post as exactly referring to free choice. Why shouldn't it be?
I can’t think of an exact analogy.
For example - 100 years ago, if I tell you I am a woman you might assume:
If I work before I have children it will be as a nurse, secretary, nanny or teacher
I present as feminine
I have interests such as sewing, flowers, childcare, baking and probably not sport, train spotting or stamp collecting.
You don’t actually have to ask me any of this, and can decide whether to court me partially on this basis
I've swithered about posting this, as it may be a tangent, but 100 years ago (1925) I'm not sure everyone would assume all of those. Perhaps a bit earlier (1910?) or later (1935?)
In the 1920s, in the aftermath of the First World War, there were far fewer available men to marry, given the carnage of the war, but conversely women were much more visible in the workforce because a) they were more likely to be single and have to work to support themselves and b) there were vacancies in some areas owing to the loss of men.
There was a huge increase in women-only groups, providing a social life and structure for these unmarried women. For example in Aberdeen, the St Katherine's Club was formed in 1919 for working class girls providing keep-fit classes, a cycling club, lectures in first aid, and (from 1926) lectures on family planning for married women. The YWCA could not cope with the demand for women-only recreation, and so the Aberdeen Businesswomen's Club was formed (1925, I think), a large building with a library, cafeteria, amateur dramatics, and other hobby groups, aimed at shopworkers, secretarial workers etc. The Soroptomists were formed at about the same time for doctors, journalists, women running their own businesses etc. Aberdeen had an amateur all-female orchestra, hockey teams for adult women, etc. I'm using Aberdeen as an example because I've got a good grasp of the dates and figures.
Women in 1925 would present as feminine, but many had had experience of war work in which they did not present as feminine. A lot of what were previously seen as badges of femininity were disappearing - women bobbed their hair, wore clothes which let them cycle to and from work, jump on and off trams etc.
It's generally known that there was a generation of spinsters post WWI but within the patriarchy, the assumption was that these women lived half-lives, yearning for a man. Whereas a cursory look at the huge flourishing of careers, women-only interest groups, sporting clubs etc in the 1920s suggests otherwise.
Society, in this case, expressing itself in a rather narrow patriarchal, heteronormative (and colonialist) definition of gender - something that is applied to us, at birth, according to outward appearance, that we have to accept and get used to, along with a set of restrictive expectations about our maturing appearance and manner, and our place in society.
For me, a key sentence in the EHRC draft code of practice is: Which looks like a pretty unsubtle attempt to turn back the clock to gender being "objectively" defined by the people looking at someone's outward appearance, rather than anything the individual in question might have to say in the matter.
I find using "it" for babies dehumanizing and offensive. "It" is used for things, and not for people. I tend to suspect that the people who call babies "it" don't really think of babies as being actual people.
Ah. I don't have that kind of work/social separation. It is normal for us to make reference to "having a beer on the front porch" type situations in work meetings. A couple of guys I work with like to fish, and from time to time go on fishing trips together. You can practically guarantee that if one of them has something to present in the week following a fishing trip, they'll include a slide mocking the other guy for only catching tiny fish or something of that nature.
In a lot of cases, people are never actually introduced. IME, it's common to have a meeting, and for someone to be told "you need to talk to Bobby Smith about that", and then they have a guess at Bobby's preferred pronoun based on their name. Bobby probably isn't even present, but someone's going to want to refer to them with a pronoun. You can make a good case for it being correct to use "they" in this situation, because Bobby is a human whose gender you don't know. "They" is what I do in this kind of situation. I suspect that the majority of people just guess at "he", although my suspicions might be colored by the fact that my workplace has a significant majority of men, so "he" is statistically most likely to be correct. Do people that work in predominantly female places tend to default to "she" in this sort of circumstance?
I used to process paperwork where we often only had name and phone number for some of those present. Most European names we could guess gender as most of the team had that background. Something like Sam, Pat, or Lesley, which could be either gender, note on file that "they have been rung and a message left". The difficult ones were the names from various parts of Asia and Africa where most of us were not familiar with the naming patterns. Default for those whilst trying to make contact was 'they', despite the team being 90% female.
This was also a thing noted in the early years of the 20th century when there was considerable migration from Scotland to East Anglia, where there were vacant farms that could generally be ploughed without having to dodge the boulders.
If you were a farmer in Essex, you were a Big Man in the village, children educated better than most, and you'd be one of the huntin' shootin' fishin' set and, in the lean decades after 1870, there's a fair chance you'd have gone bankrupt trying to maintain the lifestyle.
The Scots, however, would take on failing - even derelict- farms and *the whole family* - man, wife and children - would work somewhere on the farm, turning it round by using the family as labour.
Then there's the Land Girls and Lumber Jills of WW2...