Trans ally at work

[aliasname]

I've followed the trans debate on mumsnet, but feel I still don't know enough to handle an issue at work, so I hope people on here can give advice.

Our company is starting to embrace the 'trans ally' stance; there hasn't been anything official, but it has been suggested for example that we wear rainbow lanyards (of course i have no problem with the L and G part of the rainbow! ) A couple of colleagues have started adding pronouns to their signatures.

I've a feeling there's going to be a strong push in the next month, and I'd like to find a way of putting forward my views. I could just ignore it, and I don't think anyone would be that bothered (yet...) ~ but I want to explain myself a) otherwise people might just think I'm homophobic and b) it would be an opportunity to raise awareness, and for colleagues to actually think about their choices. Ironically we are big on scientific evidence ~ our policies and mission statements are plastered with the phrase 'evidence-based', so it would be good to use that as it may strike a chord.

My draft email to my boss: I've decided not to do xxxx after researching the trans issues & feel there is still a debate to be had over trans rights vs women's rights. I believe we are still waiting for the science to catch up with what's happening, and don't intend to throw women under the bus while we wait for evidence-based research on the subject. Of course I will support the right of anyone to call themselves what they like/dress how they want, however I can't support a charity/pressure group which overlooks the hard-won rights of women, confuses sex & gender or encourages self-identification to the extent of erasing feminist ideology.

Now that I write it down, it feels ridiculously OTT just because I don't want to wear a pride t-shirt! Is it overdramatic? I'm also aware that, y'know we could end up being wrong about everything, so I'm trying to be open minded.

I actually doubt my boss would even care, but it feels like I have to do what's right? Sorry that was so long...

I would just ignore it all, I do the same at work for fundraising, BLM, pride etc. Work is work for me.

I wouldn't ask them either on their stance on free speech. There's a lot of negative connotations regarding people who believe in it these days. I'd keep ignoring, keep saying no thank you, keep being silent, unless I'd be really harassed in which case I would ask them to commit everything they've said in writing (and be keeping a diary in the background just in case you'll need it).

@Chickenyhead

The Equality Act is about not discriminating, not about active promotion of some protected characteristics over others

Great response, although I would cut out the 'over others' because it could lead to an argument 'but we're not doing that!', yet it would be very difficult for them to argue against the rest if that statement.

I'm relying on using quiet dissent if the need arises. Ignoring mass emails, continuing to wear my GWV lanyard (which has never been mentioned), and, if approached, saying that I don't understand why I'm being asked to treat some colleagues as special instead of basing my interactions with them on factors directly related to doing our actual job and to signal to service users (many of whom have disabilities or disadvantages and suffer discrimination) that some of them are more equal than others in the eyes of the organisation. I would need to be heavily provoked before putting anything in writing and would probably limit that to, "No, thank you, it would be irresponsible of me to signal to colleagues and service users that I don't believe in biology. I will continue to be pleasant to everyone." Just enough to make it clear that I have a reason for dissent and am not trying to be difficult.

I'd be hesitant to put anything in writing unless you have a strong and very confident argument, and it may be used against you in the future. It may also provoke a more assertive response if they feel that their actions are not working the way they want. I'd perhaps go with the silent dissent, at least initially.

@KohlaParasanda - where did you find your green, white, violet lanyard? I've been looking online but drawing a blank for all 3 colours on the one item.

unlikely make pronouns mandatory. It would be a minefield, legally, as surely it forces an ideology that clashes with religious belief for one thing (also protected characteristic).

I wonder about the thin line between mandatory and 'cards marked if you don't' given some of the revelations about acquiring ally points by rebuking your colleagues on staff intranets about perceived wrongdoing.

I'd also comment that it's been a long time since I've seen an email from somebody in the NHS that doesn't have their pronouns. Within the last 2 months, I've noticed the same has happened for NICE staff. Most NGOs and charities now include pronouns in their emails and elsewhere.

I'm concerned about the partiality of this allyship on display. Particularly from organisations that do little to support their traumatised staff, staff with disabilities, don't have an impressive record for maternity rights etc.

[quote Nachthex]@KohlaParasanda - where did you find your green, white, violet lanyard? I've been looking online but drawing a blank for all 3 colours on the one item.[/quote]
I braided mine from thin ribbon in the individual colours. It doesn't have a quick release, it's just tied in a knot that I can hide under my collar or my hair at the back.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

unlikely make pronouns mandatory. It would be a minefield, legally, as surely it forces an ideology that clashes with religious belief for one thing (also protected characteristic).

I wonder about the thin line between mandatory and 'cards marked if you don't' given some of the revelations about acquiring ally points by rebuking your colleagues on staff intranets about perceived wrongdoing.

I'd also comment that it's been a long time since I've seen an email from somebody in the NHS that doesn't have their pronouns. Within the last 2 months, I've noticed the same has happened for NICE staff. Most NGOs and charities now include pronouns in their emails and elsewhere.

I'm concerned about the partiality of this allyship on display. Particularly from organisations that do little to support their traumatised staff, staff with disabilities, don't have an impressive record for maternity rights etc.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions Indeed. That's the tricky thing isn't it. If all the management is doing it, then there's a pressure for people lower down to do it as well, especially if they want to go for management roles.

I had no idea it was that common in the NHS. There will be a further push I imagine for International Pronouns Day that's coming up. All of this so bizarre to me. Again, I have no idea how they expect all of it to fit in with making a welcoming workplaces for all faiths :/ I'm not religious, but I would love to ask them this question and see what the answer was.

I claim lanyards make my neck itch triggering my sensory sensitivities which are there as a result of my neurodiversity and therefore I'll wear a badge reel clip on thing (which they haven't vomited rainbows over yet).

If I HAVE to wear a lanyard I've got a non-itchy Pokemon one.

As an aside- the sunflower hidden disabilities ones are the worst I've found for itching and being unable to wear them.

It just depends on how vulnerable you think you are in your workplace. Personally, I would simply decline and say as little as possible. Anything you do say will likely be used against you or make them feel like they actually have their foot in the door in arguing you down.
Another vote for do nothing from me although this:
Or you could ask to wear one that promotes a cause dear to you instead as there is little representative for x awareness.
is a very good idea. You are then putting them in a position where their performative support for an issue clashes with your own, and they would then have to explain why their chosen cause trumps yours.
Which could well lead to standardised corporate lanyards only, which would be a relief.

I work for a large NHS organisation, I would guess only about 10% of my colleagues have pronouns on their email signature. None of us in the team I am in have them.

@Violetparis

I work for a large NHS organisation, I would guess only about 10% of my colleagues have pronouns on their email signature. None of us in the team I am in have them.

That's interesting. I wonder what the differences are that underpin this. (No, I'm not involved in an area that by default overlaps with a relevant clinical space.)

I'd like to know if my experience is an outlier and how it is in other parts of the NHS or NICE. In my experience, colleagues are using the conventional sexed pronouns as their pronouns.

Your message is too emotional, rewrite it , same points phrased differently is what you need.

EmbarrassingAdmissions it's not a patient facing organisation if that makes a difference.

@Violetparis

EmbarrassingAdmissions it's not a patient facing organisation if that makes a difference.

Yes, it does make a difference and that's useful to know. Thank you.

Thank you everyone for replying, its been really helpful. To answer a few questions, no none of these things are currently mandatory, and I doubt my boss would even care if I just ignored, but part of me felt like that was just hiding from the problem. We do support other causes, no worries there.

I don't think there would be any risk to me from bringing it up, and I'd be willing to do it even if there was... however I'm not quick at thinking on my feet and might end up unable to defend my position unless I've thought it through beforehand!

This thread has also made me consider what my own motivation is for doing this. I guess I wanted to try and enlighten or educate my colleagues into at least doing their research before eg. adding email pronouns. I'm just amazed that critical thinking is at the core of what we do... its in my job description! Yet suddenly thats irrelevant 😕

So, going forward I will not commit anything in writing, bide my time, maybe quietly look into how the company protects sex-based rights?

And just as we all thought "asking pronouns" was now a fact of life along comes the latest trend....NOT ASKING PRONOUNS!!

twitter.com/activisthistory/status/1436090050144526338

In case any of you are breathing a sigh of relief it's not that simple - it doesn't mean you just don't ask pronouns any more. As one confused person is told when asking how you can not misgender someone when you're not allowed to ask their pronouns - you need to ""explore your privilege."

So it's simple really - you musn't assume someone's pronouns just by looking at them but you must also be aware that not everyone wants to be asked their pronouns. And it will be your fault if you get it wrong because the difference between people who want to be asked pronouns and those who don't is really obvious just by looking at them even though making assumptions by looking at people is completely wrong and shows your cis privilege.

Or something.

The thread is actually really worth looking at although it's hard to say whether it's sad or funny.

And just as we all thought "asking pronouns" was now a fact of life along comes the latest trend....NOT ASKING PRONOUNS!!

A few weeks ago, I decided against posting the following that I'd been sent (US healthcare context).
----

When does creating a gender affirmative environment become compelled speech?

This initiative is in a US context.

Introduce yourself with your pronouns and ask for your patient's

It is important to avoid using the word "preferred" when referring to pronouns or name. An individual's pronouns are what they are. "Preferred" suggests there is an acceptable (although less desirable) alternative. This is not the case. The only acceptable pronouns are the ones the person states that they use.

www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/generalprofessionalissues/93586

Is this a genuine enquiry that is likely to be welcomed by all or is it adjacent to compelled speech?

Depending on the exigent circumstances for my attendance - some of the following questions would make me rather worried that the healthcare facility had a reason not to rely upon their records but that they weren't being upfront with me. E.g.:

Be respectful: Ask the patient how they want to be addressed

Not all people go by their birth name. Many people desire a legal name change but haven't been able to access it. Don't assume someone uses the name on the chart. This can result in dead-naming. Always ask, "How do you want to be addressed?" or "what name do you go by?" Use their chosen name, not their birth name.

Reasonable in some contexts ("My name is Kate" - call me "Professor Dame Dr Wondrous-One") but I'd wonder how this chimes with insurance coverage questions in US healthcare facilities.

I'm also very aware that those questions might be upsetting to some groups of patients or people who might be baffled by this.

You probably need to log in to see all of the suggestions.

I look forward to initiatives that support safe, accepting, "We believe you are a reliable narrator of your own experience" healthcare settings for women, for people of colour, people with disabilities, people affected by housing instability etc. etc. However, none of those would involve being adjacent to compelled speech as a prerequisite to implementing those.

Are some of these questions an invitation to what some might experience as compelled speech? Would everyone understand them?

I'm not clear on why you even feel the need to send this message? You don't object to rainbow lanyards (since as you say, they are not just about trans people), and other colleagues choosing to add their pronouns to emails doesn't affect you. What exactly do you think there's going to be a "big push" towards? Shouldn't you wait and find out what happens, if anything, before you start making objections? Because otherwise honestly yes you're going to come off like a bigot because right now all you're objecting to is the mere concept of your workplace being accepting to trans people, and there's no way to make that appear like a reasonable stance. If they introduce a specific policy that you feel impacts you, then at least you're actually objecting to something specific, not just coming across like you have a problem with the very fact trans people exist and might be welcome in your workplace.

I’ve tried to raise questions about the bigger picture (mostly ignored and hand waved away so far). If we’re backing pronouns so strongly and unquestionably, are we backing males in women’s prisons, sports and employment? Are we making it harder for women and others to raise issues?

other colleagues choosing to add their pronouns to emails doesn't affect you
I think we've been through this already

coming across like you have a problem with the very fact trans people exist
Here we go again

While I 100 percent agree with your sentiment and passion, I don't think what you wrote will get across what you want to get across. You need the elevator pitch version at most. What is the one thing you really want to get across? If it were me I might be thinking something like-"-This month I'm going to be a trans ally by not infantilizing my trans colleagues. As an adult, I don't want anybody 'validating' my lifestyle choices, and they deserve the same respect. Let's all treat each other like adults, not children who need balloons and lanyards to get through the day!"

This thread really made me dig into my own motives for doing this. I was frustrated that other colleagues have apparently jumped on the bandwagon without doing the research. But I don't actually know their personal reasons for doing it, so I need to take a step back and look at the wider company stance.

I've sent an email (thanks to posters upthread for the wording suggestion) and sent it to both our LGBT lead and Women's rights lead.
Please could I clarify the Trust stance towards gender critical beliefs after the Forstater judgement. How can allies support trans people AND protect women's sex based rights which are protected under the Equality Act?

To the people who asked why I was concerned when it doesn't affect me; I know that the trans rights movement has affected other people, and it doesn't seem right just to sit back and say "it's not my problem".