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'

By finding a different word/different phrase which does not contain the word "woman" for the male person. Because the whole point is that woman is a word denoting sex, just like she and her.
Fa 'fafine and other third gender groups have a different name. That's fine. They don't claim to be women. The entire problem, the contentiousness, is caused because TAs try to use the word "woman" to erase women.

By finding a different word/different phrase which does not contain the word "woman" for the male person. Because the whole point is that woman is a word denoting sex, just like she and her.

Fa 'fafine and other third gender groups have a different name. That's fine. They don't claim to be women. The entire problem, the contentiousness, is caused because TAs try to use the word "woman" to erase women.

Yes, exactly this.

I'd be happy to refer to both sexes as "transsexuals" or "transgender people" or any other similar neutral noun, and I wouldn't need to refer to their sex unless they made it necessary by trying to access things for the opposite sex, to which I would object.

But really, I'd like these people to stop expecting me to validate their personal identity in any way.

Ereshkigalangcleg

Exactly. Same here. I think the notion of transgenderism is nonsensical, the thought processes are full of holes logically, the assumptions about "womanhood" are questionable and the whole idea of a man being a woman on his whim is pretty offensive, but I could tolerate it - not respect it, I freely admit - if it were not for the insistence that said thought processes and assumptions actually make a male person a woman. That's what makes it impossible to tolerate. I will not tolerate ideas that erase me and material reality.

Yes. I think the fact that the two concepts of womahood cannot coherently co-exist - because accepting either one as valid immediately invalidates the other - simply means that whatever the thing that people of gender (1) experience, it isn't anything to do with sex.

Different things so different concepts, different names. That's all we need to sort this out and no one needs to lose out by it.

It's not a judgement on them, it does not mean that everything they feel is not real and valid, it's just that it's not really connected to sex at all other than through very shallow and easily disproved stereotypes and it was a mistake believing the two were linked in the first place.

(1) (ie people who actively identify as trans or cis. It's not the direction that matters, it's that someone is actively saying "yes, this is me" not just having it assumed for them)

I just don't believe that a group of males are ever going to have any claim on the word "woman", or the female experience and they shouldn't have been indulged as much as they have been. In a less sexist world they would not have been.

It may sound harsh that I don't actually see their feelings as "valid", but there you go.

What exactly is this concept that we're trying to find a word for, btw? Because to me it seems that when you take away the connection to sex, it disappears.

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.

What does this mean? What is this "womanhood" that isn't linked to sex?

FlirtswithRhinos

Well, as I said, it's not something I can respect or that I want to validate (why should anyone have to?), but they can crack on with their feelings, as long as it doesn't affect women.

"Woman" already has a meaning. You can't make that word not about sex without breaking it. And you can't make it about male and female people without making it not about sex. So what is the point of using it about male people? To erase women as a meaningful class of human beings, entirely for the validation of a group of men
That's the overreach which is hostile and utterly disrespectful to women - the attempt at colonisation of womanhood and all its vocabulary. A totally unnecessary attempt, I might add. You can be third gender without erasing women.

Exactly @Snowypeaks

I will say that if anyone manages to come up with a word and a coherent definition that isn't based on sex or sexist stereotypes for this group of males I will consider using it.

I have a sense of deja vu, ie that one individual has somehow tempted too many to digress for unknown reasons. Other than to move the debate forward.

I respect that many comments have put forward ideas and information, but overall coming back to a thread, it is hard to engage when so many are will to be tied up by one individual. Not sure why they deserve a response.

Not of course suggesting a name change or anything.

But hard to get back into the thread.

Shame

This is exactly my point.

The language of womahood can't mean two things that are mutally exclusive AND ALSO be used in a way that is respectful to both views.

We either make it mean sex and find a new word for what trans and self-identifying cis women feel that is not connected to the language of womanhood at all, or we give it entirely over to whatever it is that those people are feeling and have new words for the state of being female-sexed that is not connected to the previous language at all.

The two concepts have no connection other than language, but the language currently implies a connection that does not in fact exist. That needs to be broken.

Obviously I think there is a very strong practical and moral case that the language of womanhood returns to referring fundamentally only to the female sex. However my core argumement does not rest on either group being the "rightful" owners of the language, it simply rests on the undeniable fact that the two meanings are contradictory and therefore cannot support a "be kind / be respectful" narrative where everyone gets the words they want.

AFAIC there's only one type of woman. And one type of man, come to that. Because we are mammals.

However my core argumement does not rest on either group being the "rightful" owners of the language, it simply rests on the undeniable fact that the two meanings are contradictory and therefore cannot support a "be kind / be respectful" narrative where everyone gets the words they want.

I understand that you want to make a practical point and I see why, but my argument does in fact also include that they are not the rightful owners of the language, and furthermore that it is a sexist and oppressive act in and of itself for the oppressor class to be able to colonise the language and activism of the oppressed.

It's not so much about being "rightful owners" as being the people that the word describes.
If women doesn't mean women, it doesn't mean anything at all.

we give it entirely over to whatever it is that those people are feeling and have new words for the state of being female-sexed that is not connected to the previous language at all.

Do you not think that these males would claim that this was "excluding" them? And seek to be included?

As I said, to me it rests on the validity of the whole concept. TRAs and their supporters can't even define what a woman is without either referring to sex or using a circular argument.

I've noticed this is still going on in a lot of financial sector organisations. It's so depressing - with the HR people leading the way with pronouns etc. I think one problem may be the external DEI training that is almost always offered by Stonewall proteges. Cant understand why there isn't better stuff out there.

Has anyone seen this tweet from Maya today:

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1830890567615541372

Seems that there has been yet another language evolution.

And why if it isn't linked to sex at all would males need to take oestrogen, or wear prosthetic breasts?

Seems that there has been yet another language evolution.

"The Anti Trans Disinformation Handbook" - well yes, there's definitely disinformation going on.

It's the way they tell 'em!

Indeed. "sistergirl "and "brotherboy" 😂

I saw that. Is it an Oz thing? Where has that emerged from?

You might be making a good point but the descriptive cis is vile.