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.

What is your answer to the question about whether people are not ready to state what pronouns they prefer? How are you being kind and compassionate to them?

What is unreasonable about sex based rights then Redtrees?

It's unreasonable to think that sex exists and women should have rights?

I know this isn't AIBU, but I'd love an explanation about that one.

So believing women are adult human females & gender is a socially constructed set of stereotypes is unreasonable

Deary me

We all know this has nothing really to do with the pronouns point. The OP betrayed herself when she described her employer as Woke.

So tell me why a concern for collecting accurate statistics about a clearly disadvantaged group (women in STEM) is unreasonable.

Tell other posters why their concerns about forced use of pronouns when all it does is give people a chance to virtue-signal and may actually put genuinely disadvantaged groups (trans people not yet ready to come out, women working in traditionally male-dominated industries who don't want the first thing their correspondent registers about them to be their sex) are unreasonable.

Come on, you must have some answer other than "but doing so makes you a bigot." Because if you can't back your claim up with actual arguments, then yes, you do look like the one who is bigoted.

I should probably reflect on whether my company is “woke”

@RedtreesRedtrees

We all know this has nothing really to do with the pronouns point. The OP betrayed herself when she described her employer as Woke.

Well then! We must immediately disregard anything the OP has ever said or will ever say.

Because she betrayed herself. Marked her card, right?

Nope, nothing intolerant and bigoted here at all. Totally reasonable.

@RedtreesRedtrees You should probably reflect on why you hate women so much that when they have opinions on their erasure and oppression you resort to calling them bigoted.

What's a woman? You haven't answered that one yet, keen to know.

Ok so you agree the pronouns point is reasonable as you're diverting away from it and implying it's a mask for transphobia?

@RedtreesRedtrees

Dianaslasso, I very much care about employment law and we comply with it. This is not contradictory to anything I’ve said.

What is your definition of gender critical beliefs?

That's the core of this, isn't it. If we don't know we share a definition, we can't know we are talking about the same thing.

Yeah, funnily enough, I've only noticed one person making veiled threats about someone's employment on this thread, and it's not been any of the regulars, either feminists or 'GC' posters.

It's been the same person who has been quite openly calling the OP a bigot, which looks very like a personal attack to me.

Floral I’ve not made any threats about the OP’s employment at all. I am not her employer. I can reflect on how we would respond if she was in my company, but even then,as we have all acknowledged, the OP probably has a very safe legal position.

I'd crowd fund anyone who got sacked because they were GC. Being sacked for understanding biology is the way of madness.

However, I think any transpeople in the company would make sure there were lots of other things tagged onto the reasons for dismissal.

I think someone eluded to that earlier

Have to give some credit to Redtrees steadfast avoidance of actually engaging with the pertinent questions... top quality dodging on display

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

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

What views, redtrees? How do you go about vetting for views?

*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).

Am I right in thinking that disability discrimination is an unlimited liability at an employment tribunal, ie the sky’s the limit in a payout? It would be most unwise to push through measures that indirectly discriminate against your disabled employees.*
an interesting point @BettyFilous - it reminds me of the young man with Aspergers who was arrested and fined £600 for 'misgendering' a trans police officer in Wales - it sounded so unfair on the surface of it but when you consider that it is actually disability discrimination it is even worse!! His disability meant that he couldn't reconcile the signals his eyes, ears (and nose to a certain extent - sex specific pheromones could also sit at odds with the outward appearance of an individual). If he had someone on his side to advocate for him he would probably have a good claim for discrimination against the police.

sorry @ScrimpshawTheSecond - not sure how I attached my post to yours - I was trying to reference the point made by @BettyFilous - doh!

No problem, gardenbird, I'd still like to hear redtrees' answer, so it saved me repeating myself.

I very much care about employment law and we comply with it. This is not contradictory to anything I’ve said.

Yes it is. You would discriminate against women who want to keep their sex based rights. You admitted that. So you don't care about employment law.

Am I the only one who didn’t really understand the original post? I get this is something to do with ‘identifying’ but tbh I’m a bit lost

People at some workplaces are being "encouraged" to display the pronouns they expect other people to refer to them by to show which gender identity they have. The OP has gently challenged this.

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

So your company is one which, on one hand, likes to appear 'progressive', and take plaudits for employing so many 'females' in senior roles, because you know that women have traditionally been under-represented in such positions, on account of their sex.......

And yet, simultaneously, you do not acknowledge that women exist as a distinct category, nor that they have the right to feel a sense of integrity, dignity or privacy in their sex. you do know equality does not mean similarity or sameness, it simply means equality of opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with 'different but equal'. This recognises the distinct differences of need and provision that relate to different groups or categories of person.

Equality does not mean riding roughshod over people in their own protected categories and spaces. Transwomen are not women/ are not female. They are transwomen. They are different. Make a space for them in your company, but that should not necessitate colonising the spaces and categories of others. Nor does it mean enforcing compliance with anything other with a spirit of general good team work and respect for others. Including your female staff.

This is entirely possible and reasonable.

If someone wants to resist the trend but isn't in a position to make waves perhaps the following formulation.

"I will respect the pronouns of anyone who chooses to specify them but for myself I am happy for people to use whichever ones they prefer when referring to me. I will not therefore be specifying a preference in my E-Mail signature"

Nothing that anyone could possibly object to but makes the point.

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)

The point is, and one that you seem unable to acknowledge, is that you are being dismissive of women's needs and integrity - in forcing upon them a situation, and environment, which does not respect or acknowledge their specific needs. You are happy to subjugate the needs and comforts of your female staff, in favour of enforcing an ideology which you believe to be progressive, but which is actually repressive in the most awful way.

You believe in uniformity, not in equality or respect.