Bank of England staff told to share pronouns and use ‘gender neutral’ language

[IwantToRetire]

... “while fostering a sense of inclusion among employees is, of course, a worthwhile objective”, he believed that training courses like the one given to Bank staff are “ideologically driven”.

“As a result, they may have the unintended effect of fostering an intolerant workplace culture in which some employees feel they cannot express certain, perfectly legitimate points of view,” the letter said.

“Our primary concern is that the ‘Trans Inclusion’ course appears to promote gender identity ideology while stigmatising gender critical beliefs, which are <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/P9CHb/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/28/left-has-captured-language-of-political-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">protected under the Equality Act 2010.”
The FSU’s letter highlighted a part of the training that stated “using the wrong pronouns” is another example of a “microaggression”.

Full article in the Telegraph at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/31/bank-england-share-pronouns-woke-training-trans-rights-sex/

Can also be read in full at https://archive.is/P9CHb

I assumed this must be an old stories as I thought most institutions had given up on this nonsense. But appears to be recent'

Yes. Australia.

Oh, of course they would. But it would be much harder to make that stick with different words. The only reason they have made it stick so far is that they corrupted the feminist critique of gender as a constructed concept that is separate to sex into the idea that womahood is separate from sex. They can't play that trick twice.

But to be clear, I'm not suggesting this is my preferred outcome or something I'd lobby for. More that it is helpful to frame the TRA demands properly as not being about respect or inclusion of an out group, but about two different concepts that happen to have the same name.

Yes, I know that's a bug not a feature, but the TRAs cannot admit to that. So it forces them to justify from first principles why we can't just have two separate groups, which we all know they cannot.

Yes, I know that's a bug not a feature, but the TRAs cannot admit to that. So it forces them to justify from first principles why we can't just have two separate groups, which we all know they cannot.

Yes I take your point there.

Yes. Australia.

Are "sistergirl" and "brotherboy" terms used commonly there? Never heard them before.

What does that even mean??

This issue is soo going to collide. They need woman to mean biological woman, in order that they can try and appropriate it, otherwise what are they appropriating? A skirt?

But at the same time, yes, they want it to mean, a skirt!

But for no one to actually acknowledge that.

Or if they do, they keep quiet about it, and pretend it isn't that. Whilst utterly promoting that yes, yes it is that!

Fortunately more and more people are seeing the gobbledygook.

They are aboriginal cultural references for those with transgender identities.

What I cannot tell you is whether that group of people in Australia have adopted the aboriginal terms or if they remain solely for use by the aboriginal people.

Thank you. That's educated me as someone commented upthread.

This issue is soo going to collide. They need woman to mean biological woman, in order that they can try and appropriate it, otherwise what are they appropriating? A skirt?

But at the same time, yes, they want it to mean, a skirt!

But for no one to actually acknowledge that.

Or if they do, they keep quiet about it, and pretend it isn't that. Whilst utterly promoting that yes, yes it is that!

Yes, exactly! A point Flirts also made. Hopefully it will all fall apart.

They are aboriginal cultural references for those with transgender identities.

Thank you! TIL!

Yes, for me this is a new point that I hadn't previously seen or heard expressed clearly.

Obviously one of the viewpoints you have articulated fits in with the way we have used words through most of our lifetimes, and the other requires a radical semantic change. If we were to accept the trans identity meanings of "woman"and "man", it would mean mentally translating just about all historical texts, both fact and fiction, as the words would not mean what the author intended. This is seems a problematic route to take.

Yes, we see this in women's sport, for example. If men of any kind are included, it ceases to be women's sport. The converse also applies, but because of the male sporting advantages, it hardly matters (in terms of fairness) if women are included in men's sport, and an open category is not typically a threat to men.

Do the authors of the delightfully open-minded, nuanced and fair-minded Australian language guide realise that, from the screenshot at least, they've left no way at all to describe one of - if not the - most oppressed groups of the world - the women of Afghanistan?

I'd like to email them to check that my new, enlightened understanding of these complex issues (thanks to their clear table) is correct, asking for confirmation that:

1. The term "biological woman" is offensive and discriminatory, signalling membership of "an anti-trans lobby-group".

2. As such, Afghan women and girls who describe themselves as such must be bigoted oppressors...

3. ...who should be educated immediately in the superior moral and inclusive values of the western world...

4. ...and, on learning that their gender identity is the source of their oppression, a significant minority will be able to engage fully in society once again.

Or, if the authors perceive an issue with this...

Why in the name of common sense, compassion and empathy, do you believe that the women of Afghanistan (and those working on their behalf in Australia and around the world), should not have a word to describe themselves?

The sheer stupidity, arrogance and blinkered privilege of these people sickens me.

They'd dismiss my post above as, "She's being facetious" and missing the point. It's easier to do that than to acknowledge the extent of what they're doing. It takes intellectual effort and courage to see.

Orwell would understand, though.

...women will exist only in the version of trans ideology, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be.... How could you have a slogan like ‘women's rights’ when the concept of women has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness...

...Don't you see that the whole aim of ideological language is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept relating to women's oppression that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its associated or previous meanings rubbed out and forgotten: gender. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand the biological foundations of women's oppression?”

I changed about 10 words in the above. 10.

The rest is what he wrote.

A visionary - who surely could never have envisioned the particular form the totalitarian instinct for language control in the arrogant pursuit of the betterment of humanity would take, so distressingly soon after his death.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but regarding your last couple of paragraphs about framing and forcing TAs to justify having one group - is this in practice different from asking questions like...
Why do women and males who claim to be women belong together?

Or...
What do women and males who claim to be women have in common that women don't have in common with men in general?

Or even...
What is a woman?

To which the TA response is to deflect, or to RE-frame the issue as one of inclusion/exclusion and make appeals to emotion - as in the guidelines posted upthread - or to undermine the concept of sex. That has been the line of "argument" so far and unfortunately it seems to have had a lot more success than it deserves.

This really is where we are headed.
Think of Hoff & Hopf (German podcast hosts, I've probably spelled the names wrong) who were fined 250,000 euros and threatened with prison for the crime of referring to an obvious male as a man.

I'd like to think that Orwell would have approved of your modern adaptation, @Catiette . He was a wise old owl, and sure knew all about the power of language.

Just adding this as a fresh example of just how far and dehumanising 'gender neutral' language is.

https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/article/2024/sep/03/pcos-effects-mental-health

"People with the condition were born with ovaries and experience at least two of the three main diagnostic criteria: menstrual irregularities, elevated levels of androgens like testosterone and the presence of small follicles on the ovaries."

and

"Though estimates vary, between 8 and 13% of menstruating adults have PCOS, and many experience adverse mental health outcomes. Recent studies have revealed that people with PCOS are four to seven times more likely to have depression and anxiety, three to six times more likely to have an eating disorder, and 8.47 times more likely to attempt suicide. In a survey conducted by the non-profit PCOS Challenge: The National Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Association, 62.15% of the 900 respondents reported high to severe mental health impacts caused by the condition."

and

"I spoke to 10 people with PCOS, and all say they’ve felt unequipped to deal with the associated mental health impacts, partly because the syndrome itself is not fully understood."

and

"Experts say that people with PCOS may suffer from mental health issues due to a number of biological factors."

and

"Routine medical advice for people with PCOS often reinforces conventional beauty standards".

and

"People living with PCOS also tend to experience weight bias in healthcare interactions".

And this is just misinformation because.... umm.... what about the male peoples....

"PCOS is a leading cause of infertility in people of reproductive age; studies indicate that the infertility rate for those with the condition is about 15 times higher than for people without."

and this one was fabulous:

'Confusing medical advice, delayed diagnoses and a hodge-podge of imperfect treatments only exacerbate the emotional toll.'

The only time 'women' are mentioned in this article is when specialists are discussing PCOS. That is actually a good thing as the specialists seem to be vitally aware that they need to mention just WHO it is that experiences PCOS.

But hey! All good isn't it? Let's give misinformation AND dehumanise women and girls AND make an article meaningless unless the reader understands just who suffers from PCOS in the world.

And this is what 'respectful' looks like in 2024!

@Helleofabore I could barely read that article. Family history of PCOS - ie ALL the WOMEN in my family have it, complete with fertility issues and recurrent miscarriage. To date not been advised to send any male family members for screening or counselling.

It’s female specific. Whilst its impact is wide ranging (comorbidities being 7x higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, plus seems to be accompanied by hypothyroidism) the most significant impact is gynaecological - menstrual irregularities, infertility, recurrent miscarriage etc. Just how can anyone write an article like this whilst evading the core issue of it being a WOMEN’s condition?

🤬

I agree.

And if they wanted to make it inclusive, just use the additive ‘women and …’ or even female people is better than this confusing mess.

People wish to lecture others on ‘respect’ and using gender neutral language. Well, as a comma person, I consider this article an abject failure in achieving its goal in communicating to their main target audience. That being female people.

Maybe the goal is, another nail in the coffin of universally agreed definitions of 'women' and 'female'.

Ive got pcos

i was worried that dd had it, she hasn’t got it

she’s got endometriosis instead….another female specific issue where the word female/woman is being erased

ive no patience for this shit

So sorry @RufustheFactualReindeer I’ve known a few women with endometriosis and it was hellish for them. Keep hoping there will be more research and better support/interventions for sufferers, but increasingly suspicious than anything to do with women will ever be prioritised any more.

Thank you cautious

its just the length of time it takes for the operation and coil etc on the nhs, we are going private again this time but we can’t keep doing that

its a bit shite really

Here is another one.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5158114-european-society-of-cardiology-thinks-preventing-strokes-in-women-is-too-complicated?reply=138048309

Gender neutral language is so very inclusive and accurate and informative.

So here is another example of how this is a tool for abusive people to continue to abuse. And how those keen on supporting them continue that abuse.

archive.is/2024.09.03-175410/www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/5074534/dundee-mp-chris-law-fear-alarm/