Fully outed myself as GC at woke workplace

[McDuffy]

It might be stupid in this job climate but I'm reasonably senior and I've just commented on someone's intranet post on why they've put pronouns in their bio and why it's a nice thing to do with a (softened, for me) counter argument (three, actually).
I'm feeling a bit trembly but courage calls to courage. I don't add much original thought here but I learn so much (though I'm good for a Times share token ) so thanks for making me feel I'm not alone.

It’s bloody ridiculous that you are SCARED or FRETFUL to let people know that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and that you identify as the person you were born to be. All this pc crap is getting on my nerves. Be what you want but don’t tell me I’m wrong for being a woman. Utter nonsense if you asked me !

I'll make it easier for you redtrees as you can't specify any examples yourself - would you sack someone for saying "same-sex attraction is a fetish"?

What do you mean that your top team is almost half female? What is a female?

Smashing question. Can't wait to see how redtrees answers it.

I think he will.

(Naive as fuck me.)

I work in a very 'woke' (boak) place. I have been told I am not allowed to discuss my views on the appropriation of the label of women.
If they do start doing bollocksy pronouns when signing off on emails, I am going to put my pronouns are it.
That might cause people to do a bit of head scratching and maybe even some critical thinking.

@RedtreesRedtrees

“Yes, because the punishment for 'wrong think' would be 30 years in the gulag”

Nope they’d be free to seek employment elsewhere. I just won’t have them in my company.

Do you feel that is a reasonable approach for a Catholic employer to take towards atheist employees who don't believe god exists?

Or for an atheist employer to take towards a Catholic employee who thinks abortion is murder?

Or about a Brexit voting employer who objects to an employee who goes on Remain marches?

Or about a Labour voting employer who thinks that a Tory voting employee is responsible for the deaths of people who've fallen through the universal credit net?

Or is it only women employees who're not allowed to have political opinions which differ from your own?

I don't mind using a particular pronoun for someone if they ask me to and it is important to them, it doesn't change the way I treat them, or what sex I think they are.
However if someone forces me to partake in a declaration of preferred pronouns and by extension, gender identity, even though I have none, I am going to refuse to do that.
I have no right to dictate how people talk about me, and my opinion of myself and my rights doesn't change with other people's language, and I am not going to support or add weight to that idea.

RedtreesRedtrees
"Bishop I think a fairer comparison would be bigots, racists and homophobes. I won’t have them in my company either and I’d happily see them at a tribunal."

If you really would do this, and I suspect you are all mouth and no trousers, then you would certainly keep the employment lawyers busy and your company would probably go under.

I've encounted Redtrees on other threads and let's just say I'm not convinced they're here to learn anything.

They won't say what they would sack someone for. They won't say whether they think "same-sex attraction is a fetish" is homophobic or not. That would require examining their own beliefs and perhaps seeing inconsistency.

If redtrees is still on this thread, the reason so many people are asking you to clarify isn't as some sort of gotcha or to be mean, it's an attempt to tease out what exactly your beliefs are and how they mightactively affect people's employment. If you don't wish to engage, perhaps consider, even for a minute or two, asking yourself why you can't elaborate on or specify what you actually believe? It's fine to have grey areas - most people do somewhere - but to refuse to try and address these suggests you don't actually care about how your beliefs affect anyone else, particularly oppressed groups.

I expect you know that, though.

@Justhadathought

Bishop I think a fairer comparison would be bigots, racists and homophobes. I won’t have them in my company either and I’d happily see them at a tribunal

I suspect going forward you may well end up in court quite a bit, then.
It is you who sounds utterly bigoted. The big blind spot in your assumption of moral superiority.

You do realise that if you were not trying to enforce 'right think' and were respecting of the rights of women and girls, you could could put some time and energy into campaigning for third spaces.

Enforcing an ideology, under threat of expulsion. onto a whole workforce is not progressive. It does not resemble anything to do with good manners or respect. Try experimenting with your authoritarian sentiments but apply it to groups other than to women, see how you go with that?

As an employer of several hundred people (disclosure I'm part of a partnership who employs them rather than me as an individual) I agree that RedTrees comes across as narrow minded, dictatorial and puffed up with their own misguided sense of moral superiority. They do not strike me as a very good employer.

I think when you work in a company you have a grasp of the values and attitudes of the business and of your coworkers. As I said in a PP, amongst my employees there probably are people whose views are at odds with the companies, but they have the sense not to air them. I don’t think it’s difficult to grasp that a person with views at odds with those of the company and who airs them at work is not going to fit in. You cannot be so naive as to think that it would enhance your career prospects at that organisation!

Dido a partnership is a very different kind of business, but obviously you’re entitled to your opinion.

Do you have a breastfeeding room? Who can use it?

Redtrees, suppose your company decides to implement unisex toilets . A woman pipes and says that she would like female only toilets. She invoked the equality act. Would that constitute expressing gender critical views, and would you want her out of the company? What exactly do you consider to be a gender critical belief?

@RedtreesRedtrees

Dido a partnership is a very different kind of business, but obviously you’re entitled to your opinion.

Not really. I'm an employer of several hundred people via the corporate body of a limited liability partnership.

The fact you make that comment about it being different strikes me as someone who knows little about corporate structures or employment law.

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

I know this was posted ages ago, but I think it is a really important point. Surely the only people that putting pronouns in signatures benefits is non trans people who wish to virtue signal. To trans people who aren't out it applies pressure to out themselves or to put a pronoun they are uncomfortable with. For an out trans person it is explicitly stating that they don't pass, and also exposes them to all of the workplace and everyday bullying that transpeople experience. Should people really be required to state their protected characteristics in emails - really what is the benefit?

I mean, I appreciate the sentiment behind stating preferred pronouns in signatures etc - trying something to make sure every employee feels welcome and valued and respected at work.

it's just a shame this doesn't extend to women who want to speak up for their rights, and who want to feel respected and valued at work.

The thing is though Redtrees most companies only decided to start doing all the enforced pronouns malarkey in the last few years usually after shelling out to stonewall for training

So someone can happily have worked at a company for 20 years and felt they did share their values and then all of a sudden this comes along. Why should they leave? Why should give up a stable job, income, colleagues they like etc to appease the handful of ppl who are so self obsessed they want to dictate how they are referred to when they are not present?

Redtrees
I don’t think it’s difficult to grasp that a person with views at odds with those of the company and who airs them at work is not going to fit in.

Do you grasp that when you said you would sack someone for voicing opinions that you personally found 'bigoted' (yet are still, still, unable to specify even ONE of these) that this is an entirely different thing from your comment I've quoted above? Or by "fitting in" do you actually mean "remaining employed"?

You speak so vaguely - it seems like you are a bit muddled about your own views, let alone being in a position to accurately establish those of others!

(Just noting that 'not fitting in' was also a reason given by employers not to hire Black people, etc - there was a recent example of a church who gave this specific reason for not hiring a Black vicar/priest)

Here it is - he had the audacity to be black when that wouldn't "enhance his career prospects at that organisation!" - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53064929

I think redtrees' posts have really helped, though possibly not how they intended.

Because of them I've now got at least three more watertight reasons why it's a bad idea to introduce mandated pronouns if anyone challenges me (or asks discreetly!) and I feel reassured by the PPs posting who know more about legal scenarios and structures than me so thanks all.

The various blood curdling threats to the OP about her prospective unemployment: the OP states one of the specific reasons she gave for objecting was the effect on people with autism & without English as first language. If an employer dismisses someone who objects to a policy on the express basis that it has a particularly adverse effect on disabled people (ie the policy is discriminatory) then you’re looking at a discrimination claim founded on disability. (It doesn’t matter that the OP herself is not disabled). Similarly, potentially, with English language and race.

At least, this was the position in my days as an employment lawyer (some years ago now). Interested to know from anyone currently practising as an employment lawyer if this has changed?

OP: good for you. There are lots of good reasons for objecting to this. The point about the effect of women of constantly having to reiterate their sex - in every email - is a really important one.

There’s always the same argument that we should tolerate all viewpoints. But I doubt you’d want to work with, for example, a racist. Even if their actions were not sufficient to legally dismiss them you’d still expect your employer to try to do something. There are some viewpoints which are at odds with my company’s values (which are clearly set out and in the public domain) and I know that they are are at odds with my main investors. So I don’t want people with those views to work in the company and as far as is legally possible I will ensure that they don’t. It really is that simple. I appreciate that you believe that GC is an acceptable position to hold, but on that we will have to disagree.

Come on redtrees please answer the question.

But I doubt you’d want to work with, for example, a racist.

I work with a couple of homophobic people, and I’m bisexual. Of course I was upset when I learnt their views, but I didn’t expect my employer to do anything. They are entitled to their own opinions, even though I profoundly disagree with them.