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'

I like repeated references to the Denton's report. It openly showcased how trans activists were intent on subverting the democratic process, deliberately targetting the young, including exploring how to remove parental rights and all manner of behaviour that's completely unacceptable in a democratic society where children are protected.

For anyone new to this (and it sounds as if there a couple of posters who have yet to read it 😉), in addition to the links upthread, this link is a critique of some of the more worrying content:

gendercriticalwoman.blog/2020/07/23/that-dentons-document/

Compelled speech!

Compelled speech.

An interesting snippet of article posted by @MrsOvertonsWindow

The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women. The document doesn’t shy away from using a slur associated with threats of rape and violence (Terf) . It goes on to draw the conclusion that press coverage is problematic. The lesson to be learned is that the freedom of the press has created a divisive issue. In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.

Great idea.

Here are the other 'strategy/ communications' guides that show just how manipulative activist groups are:

Messaging Guide : Transgender Youth and the Freedom to Be Ourselves

From December 2021

static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd0f29d0d626c5fb471be74/t/61b13d00236e2f7f2dbb9a36/1639005441624/Transgender+Youth+and+the+Freedom+to+Be+Ourselves.pdf

And from the Greens.

https://lgbtiqa.greenparty.org.uk/2023/06/15/dogwhistle-guidance/

In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.

And many of us on FWR remember fully well that at first they did not, even the more right leaning press didn't bother.

The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women.

Woo-hoo! Take a bow, Terven of Britain.

Also just to say 💪 for us standing up for our rights.

The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women.

Haha x post

Yes. It's been a massive relief that the press finally stepped away from the pressure from "Press for change", "Trans media watch" and numerous other lobby groups writing policy instructing the media to lie about facts and reality.
Finally the excesses are being covered. At one time the press would never have covered this:

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/trustee-of-the-transgender-charity-mermaids-quits-over-speech-to-paedophile-aid-group-jkjn2jrk9

Or the BBC acknowledge that they were wrong to lie to the public about this case:

pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/bbc-trans-pronouns-scarlet-blake/

Just a reminder of how using 'pronouns' is not the harmless, respectful action that some people frame them to be.

Collectively, using pronouns has allowed activists to leverage ‘but society sees us as women therefore it is so cruel to exclude us’ from where they want to access.

However, it is not limited to this. On media, social media, and MN is a great example, failure to use preferred pronouns leads to deletions. Less so now, since Isla Bryson. But it still happens. There is significant harm if female people cannot use accurate, precise and clear language to discuss their needs and where they see harm being done.

Shaming women for not using pronouns, or misgendering, is an act of silencing. It is an act of removing the very language that we need to discuss our needs.

And I have seen people dismiss this with 'but what about the individual? Surely you would be 'kind / respectful / just a decent human being / insert whatever shaming phrase you have seen being used,' to an individual person. However, the reality is undeniable. And it is all language demands, not just pronouns.

Individual's have leveraged this act of 'kindness / respect / whatever' to harm female people collectively.

Sport is just one of area that this has been done.

McKinnon/Ivy stood infront of policy makers and argued that it was cruel and inhumane to deny males trans people the right to compete as their chosen gender. Why? Because surely society at large accepted they were ‘female’ as people used their female pronouns and treated them a female. We are still campaigning to reverse the policies where this person consulted. McKinnon/Ivy talked to the IOC about transgender athlete inclusion in around 2018/19 I believe.

Mridul Wadhwa is another. Applied for a female advertised job role and was made CEO of a rape crisis centre. Because everyone treats this male individual as a female.

I think Naomi Cunningham has summed it up rather well in this interview.

Naomi Cunningham is a barrister and so has some first hand experience in how the effects of language changes impacts policy and law.

I have seen laws and policies changed by that argument from male activists consulting on committees etc. Maybe some people choose not to trace the harm directly, but the harm is there on numerous fronts.

Repeating preferred pronouns has now given life to phrases like ‘used her penis to rape’ which is so wrong on many levels.

Here is Victoria Smith's view.

The hidden cost of pronoun politeness | Victoria Smith | The Critic Magazine

Here is Ivy / McKinnon on video making the statement:

or the Daily Show link which requires a VPN to watch outside of USA.

People using pronouns need to understand what is happening because of this usage and consider their contribution. I don’t believe they can ignore the collective harm that results. They can try to ignore it. But it has already happened and to deny the harms that have already resulted is dishonest.

As I said before, pronouns have featured in many of the "GC" court cases. They are a significant bone of contention.

Anyway...

You okay with sperm provider, penis holder, prostate haver?

Have you ever seen leaflets or campaigns calling men by their bodily functions?

I'm very late to the issue of gender ideology and like others on here I thought 'what's going on here then?' (Thanks Isla Bryson!) I educated myself and was horrified at the attack on women's rights that had been unfolding while I looked elsewhere. (Brexit/COVID/Boris Johnson/Trump). I think the Cass Review has created a massive change in the way gender ideology is viewed and more people feel they can speak up now when they see unfairness or threats to safeguarding. The Forstater verdict on protected beliefs, the ban on puberty blockers, new education guidance for schools, the letter to the Times from doctors regarding the BMA vote, Facebook have now said they're not deleting objections to men in women's spaces because they are deemed newsworthy. This ideology does not stand up to scrutiny. So many people have been incredibly brave at speaking out and I am in awe of them. Thanks @BoEAnonymous for pushing back in the Bank of England. They're lucky to have you.

I would like to see the male equivalent to 'bleeder' or 'black birthing body' if any supporter of the new language wants to even address the fucked up ness of those terms.

How about, ejaculator or shitter?

I cannot think of anything as dehumanising as 'bleeder' or 'black birthing body' that would be even conceived to be used for male people.

Just another way female people are discriminated against by this political movement, isn't it?

I always rather thought shitting was universal to all animals @Helleofabore.

Is that all you can comment? Ok. Thanks.

Care to address the issue raised?

The problem with gender Ideology and the theory of Gender Identity is that you either accept it without question, or you fundamentally disagree with it - and no amount of 'evidence' or reading trans biographies is going to make the facts change. Nobody can change sex, and Language matters.

Language is the site of the battle for power when it comes to post modernistic theories. If you can compel people to speak untruths, for ideological reasons, then you have effectively achieved colonisation and control.

Trying to pretend this is all about being polite is a smokescreen for attempted ideological domination. If you can get people to surrender their integrity and have them pretend that 2 + 2 = 5 what else can you get them to accept?

Great! So wonderful to hear you do your own research across a variety of sources.

What would be really good to see to back up your position is to compare the dates that "educate yourself" was being used by TRAs vs the dates it starts appearing in "GC"-aligned discourse.

My hypothesis, based on lived experience, is that it appeared in TRA-aligned resources and discourse first, and this lead to it being used satirically by GC sources to highlight the double standard of being told to educate themselves by people who in reality had less awareness of the facts behind GC statements than those making them. However, it is just a hypothesis at this stage so I'd welcome any additional data.

The whole " you need to educate yourselves" or the compulsions for people to make public apologies for 'wrong think' before being "re-educated" come straight from the gender activists playbook. There are even two on-line skits of this phenomenon: 'Dame Katy Denise' and 'Titania McGrath' - whose punchlines are inevitably " Do Better" and "Educate yourself"

Basic respect BUT cannot function that way while we attempt to use the same words to mean two different things.

She is a woman. She understands herself to be a woman because and only because she has female biology. She experiences the social constructs associated with her sex as a limitation on her rights, capabiities, social and economic power and autonomy, and sometimes even her physical safety. When she uses the language and pronouns of womanhood, she refers to the experience of being physcially female and to group herself with others who are physically female. She is grossly insulted by the idea that her womanhood is based on how she thinks rather than the fact of her body, or that she is naturally aligned to these social constraucts rather than having them imposed upon her.

She is a woman. She understands herself to be a woman because and only because she feels her womanhood in her thoughts and emotions. She experiences the social constructs associated with her gender as fundamental to living fully, expressing her abiities, social and economic power and autonomy, and sometimes even her physical safety. When she uses the language and pronouns of womanhood, she refers to the experience of identifying mentally as a woman and is grossly insulted by the idea that her male body could disqualify her from womanhood despite the fact of her mind, or that she is not naturally aligned to these social constraucts rather than simply projecting her own stereotypes.

To each "woman", the other's use of the language and pronouns of womanhood to describe themselves and their expereinces is a gross insult, and existential denial. And due to the fact that the language of womanhood is what determines access to female-only resources, each "woman" has a deep vested interest in delegitimising the other's language.

How can this be resolved so that both "woman" have basic respect?

Sorry, haven’t had time to read the whole thread. I know the Dentons Report is not so easy to get hold of these days - Dentons had it on their website for a while but for, um, unfathomable reasons, decided to remove it.

Elle, have you managed to get an original copy now, and have you read it? I’d be really interested in your response.

I imagine the BofE is a bit behind the curve on this. Most commercial organisations I deal with are now very well aware of the pitfalls of following ‘Stonewall Law’. The BofE is lucky to have pp, who may well be ensuring they don’t have the same legal experiences as the Green Party, the OU and others.

Sorry, haven’t had time to read the whole thread. I know the Dentons Report is not so easy to get hold of these days - Dentons had it on their website for a while but for, um, unfathomable reasons, decided to remove it.

Wow, I wonder why?

How can this be resolved so that both "woman" have basic respect?

I'm not sure it can. I don't want to be forced to validate an ideology I consider harmful to women. I consider that oppressive and counter to my own freedom of expression and belief. There's no wiggle room for me.