Fully outed myself as GC at woke workplace

I'm just baffled as to how I am supposed to remember everyone's preferred pronouns when I can no longer remember my own age or where the heck my car keys are.

Would this not be like asking someone to declare their race or ethnicity in their email signature, supposedly in support of BLM? But would actually, probably, have the opposite effect of making the person who identifies themselves as the oppressed group more likely to be subjected to bias and discrimination because racist (or in OP's case, sexist) people will know who to discriminate against whereas previously, when they only had a name on an email,they couldn't be sure of the person's characteristics?

OP, can I also say I share your thoughts exactly on both Paw Patrol and the Little Miss books. Toy Story is also bugging me at the moment.

Thanks for explaining. Good for you for challenging the wokery.

I was off last week but will be scouring the work intranet for this on Monday in the hope that you work at the same company as I do! I know the chances are minute but one can hope

I don’t understand some of the facts from your OP: are some of your work colleagues putting preferred pronouns on their email signatures / profiles; you think it’s because they think this is ‘kind’; and you commented on an internal intranet challenging this assumption and suggesting the practice isn’t necessary / a good idea?

Is this a UK employer?

At a museum talk in the US last year speakers announced their ‘preferred pronouns’ as part of their introduction. I thought it was woke BS, a friend thought it was ‘cool’ but she couldn’t explain why!

GC means that you don’t believe it the current theory of gender as distinct from sex, ie that everyone has a gender identity which may or may not match your biological sex. Instead, if you’re gender critical, you believe that everyone has a biological sex and is free to behave in accordance with or completely counter to perceived gender norms, as fits their personality, but however they choose to behave or present they are still the sex they were born, because there’s no such thing as an innate ‘gender’, gender norms being a social construct. That’s my understanding, anyway!

The performative pronouns thing is so sexist.

there is no established legal right for employers to force anyone else to declare pronouns against their will.

You could point to the precedent set by the Northern Irish ‘Gay Cake’ case which established that it’s not legal to try to compel someone’s adherence to a belief that they don’t share.

This thread covers the same issues and links to previous threads on the same.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3574450-Work-policy-coming-in-AIBU

WhatTheDickens - no, people are already free to do that if they choose. What’s happening in the OP’s workplace, and increasingly (it happened at the BBC last week, supposedly) is that employers are demanding that everyone should include their preferred pronouns in their email signature, so you sign off Katie Jones, Very Important Job (she/her). In theory this ‘normalises’ the use of preferred pronouns, so that someone who wants to be thought of as she but looks like a he, or vice versa, doesn’t stand out for saying so. It’s therefore “a kind thing to do that doesn’t hurt anyone”. The objections are that it implies that everyone buys into a theory of gender than many of us have serious problems with, and it calls attention to everyone’s gender when in some contexts women will be disadvantaged by that.

' Male and female created He them' - If she is a true believer

OK so you’re talking about someone telling people at work whether to call them ‘she/her’ or ‘he/him’? But the pronouns they ask for might not match their biological sex? How would this appear in an intranet bio or email signature? Their name with the pronouns in brackets? Sorry to be thick, just asked my partner and he’s never heard of this either.

And why do people have a problem with this? I think I would have a problem with it too but my opinion is only just forming so I need some more info on where you’re all coming from.

Also, can someone give me a proper definition of GC? I know I’m late to the party here but can’t find much on Google!

This is all so strange for me. I retired about 10 years ago. I have been moving through society as a baby boomer, we influenced everything we touched (right bloody mess that turned out to be), we could speak up about anything, but I realise now that I was confident in my views, anti sexism, anti-racist, anti homophobia and society in general held those views (with exceptions) it was easy. I can see that now, that the balance has gone to extremes and therefore so many of your are in fear of speaking out. This usually means that things have gone too far (not certain on that statement but I believe it).

Imposition is often used when the rule is weak. Society has a tendency to kick back in those circumstances. Someone, somewhere is using language to great effect but it has become too complicated and because of that, society will just revert to its easiest last step, In this case, will revert back to not using pronouns. It will, fortunately, also go back to simply using women and men. Perhaps even LGBT Can't wait

I can see it wasn't intentional now. It really upsets me that women are so scared when they should not be put into that position so apologies for misunderstanding your motives. It's part of the problem isn't it? The fear causes suspicion.

A suggestion - compelling people to make a definite public statement on a personal matter which an individual may not yet have come to terms with yet could be seen as harassment and bullying.

That's what I'd go with if pressurised.

You haven't been asked to reveal your employer by me. No one is going to do that on an anonymous forum.

The bar for dismissal of someone with full employment rights (so more than 2 years service) is incredibly high. People might try to attack others which is scary but ultimately the person attacking is more likely to be straying into unacceptable behavior than someone speaking as carefully as the OP was. Nothing the OP said could lead to a fair disciplinary.

I'm also dyslexic and autistic and I understand I can come over as blunt when I write. It wasn't my intention to scare anyone.

She's nervous enough without being told that she will be dismissed because someone else was in circumstances we are not going to know about.

She didn't convey that nervousness to me when we messaged. I was actually looking for clarity on why she could speak up in her 'woke' workplace to give move women the confidence to speak up. Based on my personal experience I'm too scared to do so. It's important that we can express our own lived experiences on mumsnet while maintaining a right to privacy online. We are not reflecting a true picture of what it's like to live in Britain today as a woman if we think we are all able to challenge these issues like OP did. Revealing my employer could be outing for me and I'm not able to deal with these consequences at the moment. But I don't want to be silenced online or scared to express my views. Feminism shouldn't be used as a way to pile on a women when she expresses weakness.

There is no way I would go along with this pronoun nonsense.
Just no - not putting pronouns in emails or on name badges.

I am sooo glad I don't work for an employer who has zero understanding of what it means to reinforce stereotype threat for 51% of the population.

It's nice that you think we live in a post-sexist world ( that or you don't give a shit about women's experience of work) but that assumption couldn't be more wrong.

You will be actively disadvantaging female employees with your mindset.

I'm sorry that someone you know was dismissed, but it's unfair to extrapolate that scenario to a generalised message to not speak because "discrimination".

Is it , not visit sorry.

Ah ok. I've not asked you to humiliate anyone. I asked you to explain the policy that you explicitly referred to. You have inferered however that the OPs actions are the equivalent of a dismissal you know about which if you didn't want to ever expand on, whilst it's understandable that you don't, makes your cryptic comments really rather alarming to the OP.

She's nervous enough without being told that she will be dismissed because someone else was in circumstances we are not going to know about.

A lot of what is going on with this speculation about "discrimination" for holding reasonable opinions is causing anxiety and fear. The actual cases are few and far between and the fearful reaction outweighs the actual risk. Innuendo here doesn't help.

Just looking for clarity Frog - it's not good to believe everything you read on the internet!

I'm just wondering visit something that might be written into my work policy is it lawful etc etc

Frog, you're making no sense.

What policy have you read that has informed you that you would be sacked?

I didn't read the policy, someone was dismissed.

If you know this, you must be informed about the policy that dictates it?

Why would knowing that someone was dismissed mean that I know about the policy that informed the decision?

I don't understand the attack on me?