Pride Month: Workplace have asked for anonymous feedback on "how can we be more inclusive?"

[Bornin1989]

I work for an SME who are big on their inclusive ethos (a good thing) but for the last couple of years have made a habit of asking staff, esp. new starters, to "State your name, role and pronouns". We are also "encouraged" to put our pronouns in our e-mail signature, to help trans and non-binary staff members feel safe and included. As part of pride month they've created an anonymous form to collect feedback on how to make the company more inclusive.

I used it as an opportunity to tell them about gender critical feminism, asked them to stop asking people's pronouns in company meetings (pronouns in e-mail signatures are non-compulsory thankfully!), told them that GC beliefs are protected in law and why GC is not transphobia. I also said I was happy to work alongside, love and respect trans and non-binary colleagues, including the use of their preferred pronouns, the same as I do with religious colleagues despite being an atheist.

I hope it will help senior staff realise that gender identity theory is an ideology that not all staff align with.

Has anyone done similar? How did it go?

Exactly - plus stopping the meeting facilitator from asking people for their pronouns is not "excluding trans and nonbinary people" as stating pronouns is not an inherent characteristic of being trans or nonbinary.

Although it does seem to be an inherent characteristic of "well-meaning, kind people" that buy into gender identity ideology without actually understanding a jot about gender politics😂

no one is outed as one or the other by the pronoun thing any more than being asked are you Ms, Miss or Mrs outs your marital status.

Nobody asks people to state their marital status (or race, sex, parental status, religion, sexual orientation etc) at the start of a meeting - it's not relevant to their job and could be seen as enabling illegal discrimination against those not giving the preferred answer. Why is gender the exception?

I'm not "out" as bisexual at work. Mostly because I've been married to a man for over a decade but also because its not necessarily information I want to share with my colleagues. My colleagues I am close to probably know from random comments about celebrities etc but no one else knows.

I am not actively hiding it, I'm not ashamed of it, I'm not scared of talking about it and if someone one on one asked me I would probably have a chat with them about it.

But if I got asked at the start of a meeting to state my name and my sexuality I would probably freeze, over think it and feel incredibly uncomfortable.

So I don't see how forcing people to state their pronouns every meeting could be comfortable for someone who is unsure for example whether they are non binary or not.

It just seems rather ironic that gender critical people seem to have more sympathy to those in that position than TRAs. Almost like if you aren't "out" and proud of it then tough feel uncomfortable. They sure do seem to be comfortable with a whole load of people being uncomfortable....

Part of me wonders how many GC people (especially women) are GC simply because at some point in our lives we have felt "non-binary".

Personally, I did for most of my life, then it clicked that maybe I feel non-binary because "feeling" like a woman isn't a real "thing". I just am a woman, nothing complicated about it.

I hope your points are addressed and policies get changed!

(My point was me pondering in relation to your comment about GC people being aware that not all trans or nonbinary people will want to be open about pronouns)

Well done OP.

Inclusion involves nine protected characteristics, not just the one. Women, disabled women, women of faith, religious tolerance, homosexual people -

Trans employees do not need to see other people's interests and needs subordinated, enforced belief performed against other people's beliefs and equality, and inclusion abandoned for all but them, in order to be included.

Political activists may want it. That is not the same thing. And the political agenda is not inclusive of all trans people; only those useful to and compliant with the political activist agenda, many of whom are not themselves trans.

For me it would be like being asked to declare my horoscope star sign at the start of a work meeting.

There's an answer I could give to that question (Aries), but I think the whole horoscope thing is bollocks. So to be forced to identify myself within the terms of a system I think is bollocks is offensive.

I'm not going to stop another consenting adult reading their horoscope: that's their affair. But to force everybody in a workplace to go along with an imaginary system of classification is frankly bizarre.

I agree.

It's tantamount to asking everyone to join in a prayer before the meeting starts.

And, as with the prayer, it puts non-believers in gender ideology in the position of either having to engage in the rituals of a religion they don't believe in because the request is coming from their employer so there is an imbalance of power and they feel under duress to do so, or they have to openly admit they are a different religion from their employer and the rest of the workforce and face the inevitable consequences.

I also think that employers don't realise how stressful all of this is for non-believers who have already been harmed in some way by gender ideology and/or who desperately don't want to be forced to publicly state their beliefs on the subject.

Well put.

It is in effect a demand to know if you love Big Brother.

I reply Penguin/Penguins but that i don’t fear being misgendered….

When are companies going to realise that their inclusiveness is anything but?

Well done, OP. A very astute and measured response.

The use of pronouns is enormously unprofessional and potentially damaging to a companies reputation; I'm stunned they are still a thing, tbh. I guess maybe it's hard to roll back once they're out there.

It’s not an exception. The point is being asked to share pronouns if you want to isn’t forcing and isn’t in any way outing if you decline. The issue is banning even asking pronouns is equivalent to banning even asking do you prefer “Ms or Mrs?”

OP says:
”to stop asking people's pronouns in company meetings (pronouns in e-mail are non compulsory….”

”I also said I was happy to work alongside, love and respect trans and non-binary colleagues, including the use of their preferred pronouns”

But OP doesn’t address how she is going to know their preferred pronouns if the company does as OP asks and bans/stops asking people’s pronouns, as in giving them an opportunity to share them in meetings.

So, with not even being allowed to ask for pronouns at the outset, what pronouns would OP use in discourse? She then gets to choose pronouns for others because she’s created a “don’t ask, don’t tell” environment which is de facto exclusionary. It is imposing her beliefs on others.

But you don't use pronouns to people's faces you use their names?

But you cannot say «no pronouns» and have it mean anything.
pronouns is something we use in language to make it easier to use, it is a grammatical tool.

«I have no pronouns» doesn’t mean anything. Because «you» do!

You do when you are referring to them or introducing them. “Sam completed the site survey and he/she/they has/have highlighted a few issues for us to consider. Over to you Sam”

Declining to share means you don’t care what pronouns are used which can be for any number of reasons. It doesn’t mean you have no pronouns, it doesn’t mean you are trans or nonbinary, it doesn’t mean you are gender critical. Declining isn’t outing and as it is an option-it isn’t forcing.

Not being allowed to ask is forcing silence.

Tell you what, next work meeting keep a tally of how many times a pronoun is said. It won’t be zero.

Luckily I don’t have to deal with this nonsense in my daily life.

People are free to ask what my pronouns might be, of course, and I am free to answer that I think that is a ridiculous question.

hollow laugh at the ‘no one will mind if you’re asked to declare pronouns and say no I don’t want too’

the type of organisation that is captured enough by gender woo to ask for pronouns at the start of meetings is exactly that sort of organisation that will make a note of people who say no, the sort of organisation who will start suggesting perhaps gently at first that that person needs more training or ‘education’, who will bring it up in annual appraisals. The idea that not going along with verbalising your pronouns if asked in meetings will be seen as a neutral act is extremely disingenuous.

In an introduction round there is nothing to stop someone saying 'My name is Sam, and I'd prefer you to use they/them pronouns for me'.
It doesn't have to be done as a 'Everyone introduce themselves and state your preferred pronouns'.
It is the latter where companies think they are being inclusive but actually it makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable/excluded.

I have resolved to say I'm opposed to being pressurised nicely or not to stating pronouns because:

If a person is unsure and hasn't come to terms yet, they may feel bullied and coerced into publicly coming out before they feel ready

Or alternatively feel compelled to lie about themselves because they are not ready - which would make them feel worse

And being required to make statement that suggests they follow a belief system they don't share would be problematic. Like requiring an atheist to say 'I believe in God the father etc'

Preferred pronouns is a 'thing' that has been pushed by those who believe in gender stereotype ideology - to demand that people don't rely on the evidence of their senses and also to see who is a believer in the ideology.

How about this situation:

“Sam completed the site survey and he has highlighted a few issues for us to consider. Over to you Sam”

Sam: Please can you use they/them pronouns for me

Other person in meeting 'Okay. Sam has completed the site survey and they has highlighted a few issues'

In other words, if Sam wants everyone else to change the language used around him, the onus is on him to make that clear. And even if everyone else in the room states their sex based pronouns, Sam is still singling himself out by requesting something other, which is why I don't understand this pronoun push - unless it is for an easy 'inclusion' win.