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?

You don’t have to believe in something to respect others belief in it. If you want people to respect your beliefs, you should respect theirs.

I agree with your first sentence.

Your second sentence, to me, gets to the root of the issue. If people who believe in Gender Identity Ideology want me to respect that, they also have to respect my LACK of belief in the same thing.

So demanding the use of pronouns that don't reflect one's sex is not mutually respectful.

How would it go down, do you think, if Sam said his preferred pronouns for himself were she/hers and the response was 'Well, MY preferred pronouns for you based on my perception of you (your sex) are he/his, so I'll continue to use those'

Thats hilarious

Counselling for 'struggling with gender'

I have, over many years struggled with my spirituality, I really dont know if I identify more with being a Leo or a Virgo, being born on the cusp, Ive never really been one way or the other, its a struggle I have to live with, I do need counselling

A pronoun is not a form of adress @HadalyEve . It is not comparable. It is a different function of the language alltogether. Pronouns are how you speak about people, granted sometimes when they are present too. I have already stated that in such a case, if people are asking that I use pronouns that do not go with their sex, I will use their names.

If you call me Missy, or Comrade or Ms: those are titles and not my name. You can call me that if you like, of course, and then see how I respond. That goes for the pronouns too; people might get upset or stroppy if I don’t want to use «their» pronouns, and I will have to deal with that as and when.
I will have to explain that I disagree with people trying to decide which pronouns to use about them for two reasons: clarity of language and language reflecting reality.

I know it is possible to lie. But to lie about someones sex (or non-sex, even though that is impossible) has the potential to affect me directly in so many ways that I have concluded I don’t want to anymore.

I will still be kind towards transpeople I meet, but if referring to them by name is an affront to them then I can’t help that.
It makes things really difficult, and it curtails how I speak enough. I can’t talk about sports. I can’t talk about history. I even had to shut up about the plight of women and children in Afghanistan, because it only affects biological girls and women, and the fledging TW could not tolerate hearing about that.

It is not just the pronouns, you see. I also must agree TWAW, that TW should be in women’s sport, in hospitals, in prisons, in our Open plan changing rooms to the swimming pool and in the sauna.
I must agree not to know the sex of my non verbal dd’s carers. She is extremely vulnerable. To say men wouldn’t lie to gain easy access to her would be a BIG lie, and we have already seen that men DO lie to have access to victims for sexual exploitation.

And that’s where the whole thing falls apart.

There will be plenty of companies- stuffed with white, well educated people with privilege coming out of their ears (plus a pay gap, guess where?) clapping themselves on the back for being inclusive. Hurrah for diversity!

“None” is a perfectly acceptable pronoun in itself. But if anyone were to ask me directly what my pronouns were, I’d tell them not to be silly. Life is too short for this nonsense.

I'm just waiting this one out as a fad that will go away, like most instances of corporate mutual virtue-signalling.

This one is a little different as it requires me to imply i believe something I don't, and actively damages the language environment for those with communication barriers. Multiple requests to change the environment for people with hearing loss in - get this - a waiting room for the AUDIOLOGY dept have been ignored. But not this.

Essentially, stating preferred pronouns appears cost free, hence why junior EDI staff love to introduce it. But it's not cost free to me.

Excellent points made by those pointing that other characteristics or vulnerabilities do not seem to get the same care and attention.

@HadalyEve
I won't add to the responses of PPs regarding compelled speech - they've said it all.
I note that you appear to agree that compelled speech is a bad thing. So that is a step forward for you.

You're making a lot of false analogies @HadalyEve. As @BellaAmorosa says making up silly minimising names for someone isn't the same as using the correct pronouns based on sex. As a non believer in their religion, I'd like to opt out of it, thanks.

Sorry that was @turbonerd that pointed out that calling her "missy" isn't comparable to calling a man identifying as a woman or "non binary" (a concept which means whatever the self identifier decides it means) the correct sex based pronoun "he". It's not personal, I just disbelieve in your religion and I politely decline to participate in its ceremonies and worship.

yes, this is rather important. It is not personal, but I don’t buy into this dogma at all.

I was a bit lippy with my jog on mate earlier in the thread, though it was not directed at any poster, but at «pronoun people» in general.

And I applaud the poster who answered this call for inclusivity by adressing real disabilities and giving suggestions for how these disabilities can be better accomodated; often simply by not hogging their designated spaces when you are not disabled.

I think you need counselling not to tell the truth, but to be guided into an understanding of the concept of gender and how that presents within your identity.

Just catching up. How sinister is that sentence?

If someone I'm meeting for the first time wants to tell me their chosen pronouns, in a situation of polite and reciprocal social contract I'm fine with that. I may use them, I may use their name, I'll certainly avoid intentionally using pronouns they themselves find offensive.

I do not want to be required to chant the Hail Mary or be named a sinner when I'm there to do a job. It would not be appropriate for me to go round the table and demand to know if each person accepts Christ as their saviour with obvious disdain, social consequences and possibly pressure and disciplinary actions for the wrong answer that they have another faith or are atheist. People's politics and faiths need to stay out of other people's faces.

This.

Not at all when taken in context. The person said they didn’t know if they had a gender or even what gender is, so I suggested counselling. They then claimed that I might think they weren’t telling the truth, so I was reassuring them that no I believed they were telling the truth when they said they didn’t know if they had a gender or even what gender is.

What else would you suggest for someone in the same situation? Someone is baffled and struggling with the concept of gender and unsure as to how it may or may not play a part in their identity?

I think that if you believe pronouns are based on sex, then that’s great. Good for you, you can have your pronouns based on your sex. But, where compelling speech comes in is when you decide what another’s persons pronouns should be, and ignore & disrespect their beliefs in order to impose your beliefs on to them.

In other words, we only own our pronouns, we do not own others pronouns. If you want others to use the pronouns for you that you want, which would be based on your sex, then tit for tat, you should likewise give others the same courtesy and call them by the pronouns they have chosen for themselves based on their beliefs.

Maybe define gender in terms that aren't just stereotypes or muddled up with sex?

What else would you suggest for someone in the same situation? Someone is baffled and struggling with the concept of gender and unsure as to how it may or may not play a part in their identity?

Anyone with any sense is "baffled" because no one who professes to understand it will explain what they think it means.

I would suggest it would be a good start if someone would try. Do you fancy having a go?

It’s not a step forward for me, as I’ve always been against compelled speech.

PPs haven’t really made a case as to why they should be able to impose pronouns of their choice on others. There no real justification to not only own your pronouns, but to also own the pronouns of everyone else you meet.

Your rights end where another’s rights begin.

I still do not agree that everyone just respecting & using each others pronouns regardless of the belief is ‘compelling speech.’ It’s only asking for basic courtesy to address a person by the pronouns they have chosen for themselves.

PPs haven’t really made a case as to why they should be able to impose pronouns of their choice on others. There no real justification to not only own your pronouns, but to also own the pronouns of everyone else you meet.

Where do you get this idea that a person "owns their own pronouns"?

Sorry, but I can’t explore your questions pertaining to your identity and your gender. I’m not a therapist, and this would go into some very personal self-exploration of your psyche which I don’t have the right to look into. You need someone with whom you have a trust bond and a professional code of ethics that includes patient confidentiality.

The only other thing would be to massively over generalise and stereotype commonalities in gender and gender identity which would be more harmful than helpful.

Theres a reason why I’ve told my DC that the “what’s my gender” online quizzes and forums (even MN) cannot be used for this purpose and any answers anyone feeds you is likely to be dangerous rubbish - I.e you like legos, hate dresses, love the colour blue and have short hair therefore you are a transman.

This sort of self discovery requires professional guidance.

Sorry, but I can’t explore your questions pertaining to your identity and your gender. I’m not a therapist, and this would go into some very personal self-exploration of your psyche which I don’t have the right to look into.

Hahaha.

You almost had me fooled for a while.

The question is “what are your pronouns”?

The “your” is a possessive determiner in English which indicates ownership of the noun directly following “pronouns”

Similar to “what is your name”?

Who do pronouns/names belong to if not to the person they are being used to refer to?

Sorry? Are you saying you think I am a therapist? I assure you, I am not.

Huh?

Not asking people to state "their pronouns" (i.e. assuming by default that everyone has preferred pronouns and is happy to share them) isn't excluding trans and non binary people in any way. They (and anyone else) are still free to state their pronouns if they wish to do so.

What it actually is, is creating a more inclusive and less threatening environment for anyone who doesn't believe in gender ideology, and indeed for any person questioning their gender identity who isn't ready to share that with the whole class just yet.

The question is “what are your pronouns”?

No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain anything.

"What are your verbs?" isn't evidence for people "having verbs", now is it?