The Times: Pronoun choice is harmful, says tech billionaire

[ResisterRex]

Even a billionaire "steps down" after making rational statements:

Pronoun choice is harmful, says tech billionaire

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/62d14612-5174-11ed-af60-3f894fe60060?shareToken=46ae1d8964f21eb802318d38d1e12b0d

"Chestnut said he wanted Mailchimp to be an inclusive company but the pronoun practice was never required and “in the long run this approach does more harm than good”. Forcing people to behave a certain way was “the opposite of inclusion”, he added. He said that in conversations with transgender staff, they said they did not want this type of accommodation.”

This is especially lucid:

“ He lamented the growing politicisation of the workplace, an issue that has confronted other tech chiefs. “I am finding that peeps are no longer motivated by meaningful work — they are motivated to make political statements. They are using company time and company resources to win a game, against their opponents, in a game that is raging in their minds and on social media.

“Coercing peeps into proclaiming their pronouns is not about creating an inclusive, creative, productive work environment. It’s becoming a political statement.”“

What's with all the 'peeps'?

That just seems like how they speak to each other. Probably like "folks"?

Saves time. Busy man. No need for xtra sllbles.

Or he's germphobic and there's no 'ill' in 'peeps'?

He was worried about sounding too sensible?

If I see folx I know it’s going to be ridiculous. Maybe peeps will become a sign of people who make sense.

Isn’t peeps, like, so long ago!

Is it an age indicator? So saying peeps means this dude is from an era before folx and therefore the likelihood of experience forming a more sensible statement increases?

(“Sarcasm alert” in case anyone needs it).

"Chestnut said he wanted Mailchimp to be an inclusive company but the pronoun practice was never required and “in the long run this approach does more harm than good”. Forcing people to behave a certain way was “the opposite of inclusion”, he added. He said that in conversations with transgender staff, they said they did not want this type of accommodation.”

This is just typical of trans activism...

1. Demand something that requires other people to actively participate in your belief system.
2. Call anyone who objects a transphobe.
3. Wait for it to be almost universally adopted.
4. Pretend that it was never trans activists / trans people who demanded it in the first place and moreover claim that it actually harms trans people.

It is harmful to the protected sex of females are discriminated against because of this behaviour.

hbr.org/2017/12/what-research-tells-us-about-how-women-are-treated-at-work.

www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace

It result in women being forced to repeat their sex in all and every communication inviting anti women sex based bias every time they interact with their colleagues.

Is it an age indicator? So saying peeps means this dude is from an era before folx and therefore the likelihood of experience forming a more sensible statement increases?

He's 48, so Gen X.

Quote from another thread: "Teaching people that
a) misgendering is a terrible thing to do and
b) you must pay attention to superficial gender stereotypes in order to correctly choose a pronoun goes directly against my value of equality of the sexes."

No ill in peeps 🤣🤣 Love it!!

I've worked in several tech giants, and currently senior in one of the top ten. No one is introducing themselves with pronouns. Some people (a few) have theirs in their bio, and you see a lot of it on linked in, but in the main people ignore it.

In my last company in pride week they had "Katy" Jon on, the first question someone asked was what he felt about men competing in womens sports.

So whilst it is absolutely a prevalent ideology within tech world, my experience is people tend to ignore it and often take the piss out of it.

That said, I left a previous company after they platformed a known domestic abuser, despite me pointing it out, this person has the magic trans card.

I am a woman, people know I am a woman. My pic on Teams etc us clearly of a woman.

So what harm will putting pronouns do for me?

It will reinforce that I am a woman. It will reinforce that I get paid less than my male peers.

It will reinforce that I am less likely to be promoted because I am a woman.

It will reinforce 'is she out again - bloody mothers!'

It will reinforce everything that means I am not really equal in the workplace.

I SUGGEST WE ALL SIGNAL OUR INNATE GENDER IDENTITY BY USING APPROPRIATE EMOJIS IN OUR SIGNATURES INSTEAD OF PRONOUNS THIS WILL UNDERMIND THE PATRIARCHAL CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE 🍆🍑

One of the things is tech, rightly or wrongly, tends to be a male environment.

When talking about the subject amongst themselves, they give it surprisingly short shrift. Cos its bollocks (bollocks being the punchline). People are more fed up of the pronoun nonsense than others are willing to believe.

I do think this culture only exists within certain companies and certainly isn't universal within tech.

It's all very well saying that you won't verbally state your pronouns, but I've seen in Teams new feature requests people lobbying hard for pronouns to appear next to each user, therefore you may not have a choice.

I know Linkedin did the pronoun thing but I refused to answer it. Only one person in the company who has been indoctrinated into this nonsense has done it (he's one of the younger generation who just thinks it's the done thing).

I posted this in another thread so please forgive me for quoting myself but either compelling people state their pronouns in email signatures or even just suggesting it is a really sticky wicket from a GDPR perspective, it would be akin to your employer suggesting everyone put their religion or what political party they support in their email signature.

What I wrote in the other topic
I think it would be a really interesting legal case if someone is compelled to have their pronouns in their signature given what was established in Forstater, that being gender critical is a protected philosophical belief.

Article 9(1) of the GDPR "provides a list of special categories of personal data whose processing is generally prohibited unless any of the exceptions under Article 9(2) GDPR applies. The list is exhaustive and includes data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation."

Even if someone wasn't relying on Forstater, sex life or sexual orientation is taken to include " information about an intended gender change or one that has already taken place". So if you made it mandatory and someone felt compelled to reveal a gender change or a non binary identity etc.

Any employer who does this is getting themselves in a minefield if they presume that making it optional will mean that they can benefit from the exceptions under 9(2), they're ostensibly getting you to reveal your beliefs by making it optional one could argue

gdprhub.eu/Article_9_GDPR