NI Civil service encourages staff to endorse the transgender movement and more in new 'inclusive language guide'

[IwantToRetire]

Civil servants are being officially invited to show their support for the transgender movement, among a wealth of other dos-and-don'ts.
A new "inclusive language guide" has been published by the Department of Finance (which has responsibility for the civil service) encouraging staff to make people aware of "their pronouns".
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/business/civil-service-encourages-staff-to-endorse-the-transgender-movement-and-more-in-new-inclusive-language-guide-4829909

The Civil Service Inclusive Language Guide has been developed as part of the Civil Service's commitment to being a supportive and inclusive employer.
https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/publications/civil-service-inclusive-language-guide

The guide (pdf format)
https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dfp/Civil%20Service%20Inclusive%20Language%20Guide.pdf

They're not being asked to endorse a "movement" they're being asked to be supportive and respectful to trans colleagues. This is like announcing that an initiative to be more inclusive to Muslim co-workers is forcing people to convert to Islam. Hyperbolic, scaremongering language designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Not really. It’s like asking non-muslims to greet their Muslim colleagues with As-salamu alaikum when they come into the office.

Of course, people can do it if they are inclined, but it shouldn’t be forced and nobody should be offended if it doesn’t happen.

It is trying to enforce the change of the meanings of words, such as they/thier

That's a rubbish analogy. Being supportive of Muslims in the workplace means respecting the need of Muslim women to ablute and wash in strictly single-sex bathrooms before prayer. But it does not mean I have to go with them to do it.

For people who believe in gender identity, they may not outrightly demand I use their preferred pronouns, so they ARE forcing me to go along with it.

Supposed to say but for those who want preferred pronouns to be used, as that guidance states, when I see pronouns on my Team meetings, and I'm asked for mine in my company profile, then I am being forced to go along with it.

Erasing the reality of sex because a tiny minority want to pretend they dont have a sex, is a form of tyranny being imposed on others.

And in fact has nothing in common with for instance using gender stereo types.

This is exactly the type of directive that leads to the childish, but actually harmful nonsense of for instance, birthing people.

Only women can give birth.

Only women menstruate.

This whole emporer's new clothes fanatsy being ranked the same as being sexist, or racist, or ageist and so on, is just the weasel word approach to undermining sex based reality and rights.

Its like the cultural revolution approach. If you dont "join in" you are then marked as a non believer.

They tried this in the English Civil Service a couple of years ago and had so many complaints it was quietly withdrawn.

I had a look.
Mostly it's pretty reasonable. Actually most of is is basic common sense 😂 and every day normal practice for everyone unless you're a total arse.
Most of the document is about women, disabled groups, ethnic minorities etc.

There's only one area which is totally bat shit and it stands out like a sore thumb.

Most people will look at that section and have a massive eye roll.

There's only one area which is totally bat shit and it stands out like a sore thumb.

And in a way that is part of the worry, concern.

Although not 100%, many people now a days do make more of an effort with the language, well in public. And it isn't too hard because as you say it is common sense.

But to then have something that goes against common sense and lived experienced parcelled in with it, could be undermining. Not forgetting how deeply entrenched sexism is.

I don't think I agree the others are mainly common sense.

Like "minority ethnic groups" is really substantially differernt than "ethnic minority groups." I mean, that is where you should just tell someone to piss off.

Quite a lot of them look like stupid word games, either meant to make people feel part of the in-group, or to encourage people to feel that others aren't really respecting them because they can't remember all the nonsensical rules.

I'd really like to know who the person is who decided that Ethnic minority groups is now problematic and we all need to switch to minority ethnic groups.

It seems to me like it was probably someone looking to make sure their job in DEI doesn't get axed.

This seems to be a university trend which hasn't permeated very far. And would have more standing if, for instance (which it may have) this version of the phrase had been adopted by the groups how are genuinely representative of the groups this label is for!

This term is used by some people to place the emphasis on the minority (or minoritised) status as opposed to the ethnicity. It also arguably makes it clearer that everyone has an ethnicity (including White British people), not just those who are minoritised.

In fact in what passes for the charity and voluntary sector, they are far more likely to use use the word minoritised eg:

We are the UK’s only national feminist umbrella organisation dedicated to addressing violence against Black and minoritised women and girls. https://www.imkaan.org.uk/

But wonder if that is because many of these groups have their origins in 70s radical politics, when the word Black was used as an umbrella term encompassing many cultures and nationalities. Used to differentiate from / opposed to the dominant white culture. eg Southall Black Sisters.

My sense is that there actually is no real reason in many cases for these changes to what is supposed to be ok or preferred or not ok.

Very often it seems like the explanation is made up to justify making a change. It's nothing that a normal, rational person would even differentiate. Or if they saw a difference of emphasis, one version still isn't less offensive - because neither are offensive.

Quite a lot of the terms here that they are saying are now not preferred - BAME, BIPOC, etc, came about in exactly the same way - some academic just decided that this was the new thing and someone felt they had some kind of authority to tell the rest of the world that is what they should say.

This is not a new thing - even back in the 60s, some of the racial words that fell out of favour weren't rejected because the community as a whole didn't like them, it was a small group, or even one person in some cases who felt empowered to decide that word wasn't the best one to use any more, even though many members of the community being described continued to use that language for decades afterwards.

The pace of it has exploded though where words that came into use even a year ago as the new "correct" thing start to be questioned, and words of two years ago are now offensive. Some words (Lainx comes to mind) don't seem to have any kind of use in the relevant community at all, they are confined to academia, the white professional middle classes, and a few people who make a living as activists.

I think its worth asking who drives this stuff, and why? There is something really concerning about it IMO.

NI, estimated to have the second highest rate of femicide in Europe?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2024/1013/1475137-northern-ireland-femicide/

That NI?

That's the way to improve matters?

They're a bit late to the party, aren't they? Most institutions seem to be dialing back on forced pronoun use.

NI, always about five years behind the curve. VAWG at an all time high and this is the civil service’s output. Laughable if it wasn’t so emblematic of a deeply regressive cultural view of women.

on the plus side, I’ve been working in NI for a few months now and been able to explain the GC stuff with a lot less “oooh you TERF” pushback to many colleagues - who just had not heard of the TRA hardline stuff and are more of the “be kind” mindset.