It appears that the Bank of England's staff have been told to "share their pronouns" at the start of meetings and use “gender neutral” language when speaking to customers.
Presumably this policy is designed to demonstrate inclusiveness. People will have various opinions as to how necessary, desirable, etc this might be. It's relatively innocuous. If it's a stated policy of the Bank, those who disagree can decide for themselves whether it's the place for them.
At one branch, though (and there might be others), trainers have taken a further step.
Employees were also told that the statement: “Everyone is born a man or a woman, it’s science” would be regarded as a “microaggression”.
This goes beyond policy.
This is a direct attempt to ban a statement and the thinking or beliefs behind it.
The statement itself is, for some, a statement of fact; for others, it offers a particular perspective; for still others, it's an outmoded concept.
For the bank to take the third position and then judge, label, accuse and presumably punish those who hold the other two positions is a more aggressive action than making the statement.
At best it is a attempt to achieve "group-think" or to encourage a "say one thing but think another" approach.
At worst, it is a denial of the right to hold and express an individual and genuinely thought-out belief.
I will add this important note: I would object to this type of attempt to control thought and speech, regardless of the statement. This is a matter of principle, not specific content.
The irony is that the ham-fisted attempt at "inclusivity" (re: gender identity) is screaming "non-inclusivity" (re: the right to diverse beliefs).
In Australia, are we prepared to deal with this in our own workplaces?
What’s your experience?
