Line Manager just "come out" as Non-binary

[SpinningTooFastWantToGetOff]

My line-manager emailed everyone in the office last week to say she was non-binary and we should use they/them pro-nouns.
Today I inadvertently called her she in an email to a colleague in another office, but line-manager was copied in, plus her line-manager. Are you keeping up?
My line-manager responded to the email and added at the bottom a reminder about her pro-nouns.
I do not believe in the gender identity ideology and so object to being told to speak in an unnatural and incorrect way, but what I am incandescent about is being called out in front of 2 other colleagues.
Am I over reacting?

Does Perself promise to help me with my washing?

Eck Aren't a lot of people on this board women?. Is that not hugely offensive.... How do Eck know how people on this board identify?

Maya Forstater apparently misgendered that person by using a male pronoun. Maya does not work with Murray. Maya’s misgendering was complained about by a person who also doesn’t work with Maya. As a result of this, Maya lost her job.

It's misleading to claim that Maya lost her job because of a single instance of misgendering. The case involved a long series of tweets expressing her philosophies, and her position that she reserved the right to misgender people in accordance with her own beliefs.

I'm proud of em is going to get a bit confusing though is there's an Emma in the office, who hasn't done anything special. Or someone from Essex who is simply saying, "I'm proud of 'em!" about the whole team.

I'm liking My pronouns are: //

When in an, admittedly very bitter, dispute with Gregor Murray, who alleged that they had been misgendered by the Claimant, rather than seeking to accommodate Gregor Murrays legitimate wishes she stated: “I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns “they” and “them”, “Murray also calls it “transphobic” that I recognise a man when I see one. I disagree”, “In reality Murray is a man. It is Murray’s right to believe that Murray is not a man, but Murray cannot compel others to believe this.” and that “I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”
90. I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

This is the judge’s take. A reminder, Maya didn’t even work with Murray. The judge ruled it was fair for Maya to be sacked for talking about someone who didn’t even work where she did, because people who she does work with might get offended by that.

This is where the problem the OP has leads. If you don’t toe the line and agree to have your speech compelled, you can use your job.

I find it totalitarian, and most totalitarian problems start with people shrugging their shoulders going “so what? Doesn’t bother me too much.”

I think call people what they want to be called. My children use shortened version of their birth names but I’m always so grateful when doctors or teachers use their preferred names.I’m happy to go with whatever name or pronoun suits the wearer. It doesn’t change biology but if it makes them more comfortable

That can only work in certain and very limited ways, though. Name and identity are not fixed or immutable things. Our identities shift and change throughout a life-time, and take on many subtle adaptations.

I have used several variations of my name/different names throughout my life - according to how I felt at particular times. Some older friends know and refer to me as one name, while other more recent friends and associates refer to me by another. I have no desire or right to impose on anyone something which does not feel right or comfortable to them, and I would never demand that. Relationships are social and therefore mutual.We are all multifaceted people with histories - and our 'identities' are flexible to some extent because they are socially constructed and negotiated.

Biological sex is not an identity; it is just a fact of life - universally applicable and acknowledged.This is one of the aspects of a person which is immutable; like genetic heritage; like race.... The idea of a 'gender identity' is entirely something that has meaning only for an individual - and certainly if this identity is in opposition to one's observable biological sex.

Some friends and associates may decide they are happy to indulge you in this role play and identity - and that is up to them........but nobody goes around the world attempting to police and enforce correct names or titles - unless terribly insecure or, to an extent, mentally unbalanced.One's felt identity is something private and interior, and if one is secure in one's self then there is no need to control how other people respond to or perceive you.

Funnily enough I received an email this morning from my daughter who is a bit of a Shakespeare obsessive:

Hazlitt famously remarked, "We are Hamlet". It is a pleasant thought – the thought that an invisible audience somewhere has access to, and applauds and validates, our every passing thought. A less pleasing idea, but perhaps a more accurate one, is that we are not Hamlet. We are Coriolanus ( Coriolanus constructed his identity and pride on a false sense of security. He tried to defend the indefensible)

Is it really that big a deal to call the person how they want to be called?

Its not a huge effort on your part, doesn't cost you anything so just go with it.

I don't know your work colleague and perhaps they are unreasonable so it is difficult to make a judgement other than finding a way (as I mentioned yesterday) for you to respect their dignity that doesn't force you to feel oppressed.

But, speaking from experience, the trans people I know (I confess I don't know any non binary people) generally navigate their lives with as little fuss as possible. A day unnoticed in the world is a measure of success and relative personal calm. They would be horrified at a demand for a pronoun but, would equally be saddened by a deliberate misgendering with an apparent intention (not an accusation) of causing upset or making the user of the misgendered pronoun feel better about themselves and their particular belief.

Perhaps ask them if they would sit and chat to you and explain how they feel about themselves, what led them there, what difficulties they've faced and ask them to give you an opportunity to tell them directly the reasons why you feel their particular way of identifying is not valid and why you feel you can't respect their dignity. Offer some supporting experiences to this as biological essentialism is likely to fall on their deaf ears. This may offer an opportunity for you both to start to understand each other. It could be a start of something good. As I see it at the moment, there are trans forums where those on the more hardline edges of demands for trans rights operate, Mumsnet FWR where those of a GC mindset chat without too much critical challenge and Twitter where both groups lob stuff at each other from their respective trenches. You have an opportunity here to do something different and perhaps guide the conversation in a direction that is more palatable to the majority of people who occupy the middle ground. Alternatively, your colleague may be a total dick and what I'm saying is a waste of time.

I know you are not exactly going to be Regan an Gorbachev but, it could be a start for the pair of you personally to gain some understanding and perhaps a begrudging respect for each other. Some may say take the moral high ground if you like, I like to think of it as a learning curve.

Oh, rtfs, cat

Is it really that big a deal to call the person how they want to be called?

Pronouns arent used to 'call', names are used to call.

Should people have the right to define the verbs, adverbs & adjectives other people use in sentences which referring to them?

I messed up badly over this one. I am severely deaf, so even a normal conversation can come out garbled, especially with a lot of background noise.

I was introduced to a new person in a social setting who ended with sentence "call me they". I nodded, a bit confused and said "I am sorry you had to deal with that growing up, it must have been hard". I called them "they" as I thought it was their name for the rest of the evening. A friend finally cleared up my mistake in the taxi on the way home.

How else could you respond to “Call me They”, to be fair?

They would be horrified at a demand for a pronoun but, would equally be saddened by a deliberate misgendering with an apparent intention (not an accusation) of causing upset or making the user of the misgendered pronoun feel better about themselves and their particular belief.

Would calling someone zer instead of they, or Angela instead of ver, say because you had so many non-binary/gender fluid/pansexual people in your office and had got confused when typing out a quick, urgent email, actually be mis-gendering though? Isn't it only mis-gendering if you call her him or vice versa?

Its not a huge effort on your part

Not a huge effort to maintain an up to date list of how everyone in an organisation and all external contacts wished to be referred to as in their absence? Then look up every individual each time I want to refer to them? Sounds a huge effort to me. And as the pronoun then ceases to be descriptive it inhibits clear communication and creates confusion.

Imagine what a bloody minefield all this is in, say, Russian, where your adjectives have to have the same gender as your nouns. So there's an extra level of "don't say what you mean, say what that person demands that you do or they'll get you in trouble" to contend with.

Have I missed something that OP has mentioned about threats and sacking

I think everyone understands that there is an implicit in that reminder...and most people will be wary of getting it 'wrong'. If it goes against 'nature' and natural observation then it will have to be carefully constructed each time it is used. It is a very controlling and self indulgent thing to demand of others. Like the Emperor's New Clothes.

is an implicit threat

Its not a huge effort on your part, doesn't cost you anything so just go with it

But it does require effort to refer to someone in a way which goes against observable fact and 'nature'. If it was "cost free" people wouldn't get so upset about it. It is very costly to some, clearly......and they get nothing in return. They feel as if they are being controlled by the person making the demand.

That's an FTE right there in my organisation. We'd have to employ a grad whose entire shop would me maintaining and updating out pronoun database for all 8000 employees and 10s of 1000s of customers, partners, suppliers and prospects, in a GDPR compliant manner.

The other part of their job would be to be in call 24x7 (so 2 FTEs actually, working in shifts, as it's a global organisation) responding to urgent mesages saying "quick, I'm at drinks with , what are his pronouns again?! Is he old skool he and likely to be offended if I they him or has he recently come out as gender fluid? Quick, look it up and let me know ASAP!"

Keeping up with the gender-fluid, whose pronouns are presumably subject to constant change, might even require a third person. HR would also need some sort of API interface into this database too so they could correctly arbitrate in cases of grevious mis-gendering (mis-pronouning?) reported to them.

This is the logical conclusion of this pronoun thing in the workplace.

NotBadConsidering

"I find it totalitarian, and most totalitarian problems start with people shrugging their shoulders going “so what? Doesn’t bother me too much."

I couldn't agree more with this. In this case we are being forced to accept something which didn't even exist a short time ago, and is based purely on the basis of how one individual feels.
The majority being forced to cowtow to the demands of a self indulged, narcissistic individual.
At what point is society going to come together as one and refuse to humour these people?

Keeping up with the gender-fluid, whose pronouns are presumably subject to constant change, might even require a third person. HR would also need some sort of API interface into this database too so they could correctly arbitrate in cases of grevious mis-gendering (mis-pronouning?) reported to them.

This is the logical conclusion of this pronoun thing in the workplace

I have a memory of an incident similar to this happened last year when discussing something said/done by someone clearly male with public profile. A poster was deleted for not using the 'correct pronouns' as per the individual's current twitter bio however the poster had used Wiki for the source of the comment.
It begs the question how much research one is supposed to do & also how much research one can do given asking about the possession of a GRC is discouraged.

Is "it doesn't cost you anything" the new TWAW?

Because yes, it really does.

As this trend gathers momentum and individuals choose their pronouns from the word salad menu, it could easily become difficult to keep track of which particular CVC (consonant vowel consonant) combination each prefers and get them straight every time at email typing speed.

As a teacher who had to keep track of 30 children's names (or 200 odd when I taught secondary) at talking speed, I know the potential for getting it wrong.

It feels as though some individuals may be setting colleagues up to fail. Certainly the extra time spent ensuring the right pronoun has been selected and the email proof-read for slips by the sender and that spent trawling for errors to pounce on and complain about by the recipient is time robbed from the core business of a company. HR teams will be tied up dealing with this and the potential for accusations of 'deadnaming' , recriminations and fallings out in the workplace seem limitless.

Companies will be scrambling to comy with new GRA legislation, not to mention trying to squeeze their way onto Stonewall's list of top 100 trans-friendly companies... And then there are the essential £5k a day staff training sessions which will need regular refreshers as today's approved vocabulary morphs into next month's unacceptable terminology.

I am glad to be CEO of my own micro company so all my conversations about this can happen with the aid of a mirror!

if I were in HR I'd tell you that the Equality Act is irrelevant

If you were in HR then lines like 'the Equality Act is irrelevant' would get you....er, retrained, if not managed out at high speed. What on earth do you think HR do all day? They know equality law inside out because their main job is to balance need with the company not being sued by employees for breach of legal protections. That's like saying if you were in the police you'd say that traffic laws were irrelevant.

Just go with it

No.

You do you.

I've seen it repeated a couple of times on this thread that not using these pronouns is not 'respecting the person's dignity'. This makes no sense to me. I'm female but if someone referred to me as 'he' I wouldn't see it as some affront to my dignity. I'd assume it was a mistake and ignore it.

But then I know I'm female and don't desperately need people to 'validate' the claims I'm making about myself, I suppose. 'Agree that I'm valid' is another odd bit of Newspeak that seems to mean 'agree with whatever I say about myself, no matter how absurd it sounds'. I don't give other people that kind of power over my thoughts or my words.