Need help to stop my organisation compelling us to use preferred pronouns!

[Appalonia]

I'm a facilitator for an international self development organisation and we have recently been given a code of conduct instructing us to use participants preferred pronouns. I'm absolutely fuming about it! I'm sure this has been done to be ' inclusive' but I really don't think it's been thought through. It's particularly galling as the whole ethos of the work of this organisation is about truth telling. They run trainings to help pp to uncover unconscious beliefs and help pp verify whether they are really true or not. So if a man stood up in a training and said ' I feel like I'm a woman', using this methodology, this belief would be verified as false.

I want to have a conversation with the head of DEI, to discuss why compelling the facilitator s to take on this belief system is potentially so damaging. There's so much great info out there, but I'm looking for an article that is clear and succinct that I can send to them to explain the issues. I think a lot of this has come from America, but I need to at least try and say why I object to this, but I need some compelling facts to do it. Can anyone please help?

A man isn't going to stand up in your workshop introductions and say 'I feel like I'm a woman' though is he?

He's going to say something like 'my name is Nancy and my preferred pronouns are she/her'. Those things are facts.

Honestly, I'd do an internal eye roll too but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. You're not going to get anywhere in the corporate world by arguing that you shouldn't address paying customers the way they ask you to.

I think you need to provide a little more context:

What sort of self development organisation? Are you an employment training company or more at like a self-help organisation.

Are you a trainer? I think on most types of course customers would react very poorly to their identity being picked apart, even if it's not based on reality.

Like it or not, pronoun people find it rude if others decline their edicts. Personally, in a professional context, I would use those pronouns within earshot of pronoun person.

It's the principle I object to. Pronouns are the thin end of the wedge, resulting in violent men in women's prisons, women losing out to men in sports, women being referred to as uterus havers, menstruators, the word ' mother ' being taken out of documents relating to maternity, men in women's refuges, single sex wards, men assaulting women in homeless shelters, toilets, a man being the head of a rape crisis centre etc. Can't believe I have to justify this on a feminist forum.

And no, I'm not going to identify the organisation, all in asking for is an article that summarises the issues, as there's so much information out there.

Useful advice here from SM
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/pronouns/
A few older posts from different people here:
https://www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/12/1/should-you-declare-your-pronouns-a-simple-guide

https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/06/27/share-pronouns-at-work/

and another
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

Those articles are largely about being compelled to declare one's pronouns at work. (Which I'd fight tooth and nail against.)

This is about using, or rather refusing to use others' preferred pronouns in the workplace.

*edited- I read further and found some advice in the first article which reiterates what pp and I posted earlier.

Thanks for the links. I just had a conversation with someone from this org and I asked where this has come from. Surprise surprise, it's a senior trainer that has a ' trans' child! ( who was a lesbian and autistic)... It always seems to be the case. But individual cases do not make good policy!

Can't believe I have to justify this on a feminist forum.

You don't. I agree with you but just because we think that doesn't mean your employer will agree or that it's appropriate to prioritise our comfort in all situations.

And no, I'm not going to identify the organisation

No one asked you to. My point is that you are vague on your context and it would be a very unusual context where your employer would allow you to use sex based pronouns for someone who wanted the opposite.

It's polite to use preferred pronouns in the workplace, if people have them. What you can push back against is if your employer insists that people have to announce their own pronouns. It's a personal choice whether to tell other people what pronouns you want them to use, or to let them decide for themselves.

I would not try to go down the rabbit hole of claiming that people are being dishonest if they call themselves "he" when they're female or vice versa. People have all sorts of reasons for doing this nonsense and at work it's nobody else's business why they choose to do it. As for unconscious beliefs, workplaces need to leave those alone. Bring your professional selves to work. Leave the rest at home.

Not much advice but good luck op I hope it goes well

There's a difference to being instructed to discuss / reveal pronouns on emails, letters and at the beginning of meetings. That's compelled speech with lots of people choosing not to participate,

But the workplace is not the place to challenge participants, visitors, guests or co workers about their pronouns or personal beliefs about their identity. This is a massive political battle and women are on the back foot given the power that the trans lobby hold. But I wouldn't challenge an individual in the work place - surely that moves into hostile treatment of an individual?

It appears we are often being unwillingy led by teenagers in this matter and teenagers dictating to their parents in managerial positions.

I'm cautiously optimistic that all this extraneous pronoun mullarkey will die a natural death owing to it being unsustainable due to the multitude of (sometimes ridiculous) variations.

In the meantime there are going to be women and other brave people either fighting it tooth and nail or just quietly being pronoun refuseniks and choosing to simply address the pronoun demanding person by their name.

Grateful that SexMatters provide information on the legalities.
Good Luck O.P, let us know how you get on.

It depends whether it's just using someone's stated pronouns if they state them or forcing participants to state pronouns - which is compelled speech/ belief, is signing customers up to a belief system they may not believe in, may be very opposed to, and may not wish to discuss either way, and is likely to lose the company business.

You say you're an international company well lots of cultures don't recognise 'preferred pronouns' in English as biological sex is very important in their community.

You say you're a facilitator which suggests lots of participants at once. Well, would recognising one person's pronouns mean that others are forced to go along with a belief system they don't necessarily agree with? A bit like demanding everyone take communion or something.

Is there even a situation where third person pronouns need to be used? If not, it's all performative gender ideology worship and compelled belief.

Given it sounds like your organisation suggests there is an objective truth, I'm sorry but the vast preponderance of evidence is in favour of biological sex being the reality. And at the very least, from the sounds of it your organisation needs to accept the reality that many people only 'see' sex not gender, don't believe in the latter as anything more than stereotypes, and that you cannot compel belief in others to see the world as you see it. Given gender ideology is all about trying to force belief in others, I think them dabbling in this is seriously unhinged and probably means the implosion of their business model. Customers will see the glaring hypocrisy and take their money elsewhere.

You can force someone (usually a woman) to use she/her for a man via threats and abuse but they're still going see that man as a man - probably even more so given the toxic bullying behaviour and refusal to accept their point of view as valid.

It's not polite or inclusive to insist everyone takes part in your highly contentious, non-objective beliefs. I can respect some people believe they are the opposite sex for a variety of reasons - some of which are very troubling. It certainly shouldn't mean I have to partake in their pronoun rituals or be compelled to lie. Where is the kindness towards those of us who were forced to lie by abusive adults as children and see this as another form of gaslighting and mostly male control over women?

The problem is someone imposing non-sex based pronouns on others is legitimising one person's not reality based belief over everyone else's beliefs. Is that acceptable in your organisation OP? Your organisation is setting themselves up to compel belief. Do you want to do that to people? People are already scared about speaking up about this - surely it will kill any facilitated sessions dead if people from the start feel that there will be a negative consequence to being truthful?

Yes I’m not sure compelled speech should be what happens

Also, I see your conundrum.
You are working for a company whose values you possibly share and now they are requesting that you validate something that by your values and instincts is dishonest and has further consequences. Yes, the introduction of pronouns often is the thin end of the wedge.
I would look to see if you can garner any support, are there any possible allies?

When did the meaning of 'preferred' change? I didn't realise that it now means 'mandatory'.

Appreciate all the replies and support, the 2 conversations I've had today with pp from my org have shown me that they are just genuinely unaware of the issues ( and how this affects women ) , but are open to hearing more about it. I do know enough to write something myself, was just looking for an article that explains how pronouns were just the thin end of the wedge, and the potential v serious consequences for unthinkingly taking on this ideology.

I have no advice but I want to wish you well OP. What you are doing is so important and I thank you.

Thank you for saying that, that's precisely my dilemma. It's taken a lot of courage to bring this up, as this is an organisation I've been deeply involved with since the 90s and it would be heartbreaking to be kicked out of it because of this. At the same time, I just can't go along with this, and I really want us to have an informed discussion about it. They have no right to tell us to go along with this ideology, but I don't think they even get that's what it is. Being kind, nice and inclusive has done such a disservice to women...

I'd adopt strategies such as not using pronouns for those concerned: 'Nancy's report, Nancy's strategies — just use the name or some other reference ('the client from XYZ') — and avoid the use of she/ he and his /her. I might just refer to them by the wrong pronouns and if picked up apologise and say 'Sorry, I'm juggling a lot at the moment and I sometimes forget.' I'm mindful of the Jo Phenix tribunal where, within a few minutes of a witness declaring themselves to be they/ them the barrister and the judge were misgendering right and left. It's a massive ask to require you to stop doing what you've been doing automatically without conscious thought since you were a small child — seeing a man and calling him 'he' or 'him'. Perhaps you need to make this point: how difficult it is even for people entirely on-board with self-ID to be consistent and how stressful it is.

It might also be worth bringing up the fact that since the Scottish ruling of recent weeks, the only man who can legally say he is a woman (and vice verse) is someone with a GRC. Also point out that lack of belief in gender ideology is a protected position and that speech cannot be compelled.

If your management has any integrity it should be prepared to listen to you. I hope they do.

Another approach would be to point out that expecting people to use different pronouns is ableist. It's hard enough for those of us who don't have communication or speech-processing or ND issues, but for those who do — and some might not even know they have a disability — it can be extremely difficult and stressful.

https://www.ourrighttospeak.com/

I'd adopt strategies such as not using pronouns for those concerned: 'Nancy's report, Nancy's strategies — just use the name or some other reference ('the client from XYZ') — and avoid the use of she/ he and his /her.

I'm thinking aloud here rather than challenging you, but if OP is so adamant about not using female pronouns in this example, how is agreeing to use Nancy's adopted feminine name any better/different?

In my workplace - in common with many others, I suspect - failing to use someone's preferred pronouns is a disciplinary offence, so I don't really have any choice if I want to keep my job. As someone said - that is a hard battle to fight and I try to pick topics I think I might get more traction on.