Total capture
Sigh. The rot is everywhere.
Citizens Advice is facing a backlash from staff for an “ideological instruction” to wear gender pronoun badges.
…
Dame Clare Moriarty, its £170,000-a-year chief executive, told all staff last month that pronouns are “an important way of affirming their gender identity” and “we shouldn’t assume someone’s gender based on their appearance”.
No they’re not and of course we should.
Her internal memo on Citizens Advice’s intranet, seen by The Telegraph, added: “You can help to normalise sharing pronouns by sharing yours. We’ve created some button badges with different pronouns that can be fastened to a lanyard or your clothing.”
But we don’t want to “normalise sharing pronouns.” Sharing pronouns is utterly moronic and also bad.
The charity has introduced the badges in national offices and via suppliers for regional teams, while its IT team has drawn up instructions on adding pronouns to email signatures.
…
The four-page guide says that “the pronouns used to refer to you are an extension of your name” and getting someone’s pronouns wrong is “misgendering”, meaning staff must “thank them for correcting you and let them know it won’t happen again”.
How do adult people allow themselves to get this stupid????
Staff are told to consult Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence if they want more coaching.
A Citizens Advice benefits adviser, who received the memo, told The Telegraph: “I know many who are deeply unhappy with this kind of ideological instruction, especially at a time of economic crisis for our clients, which is what ought to be the priority for Citizens Advice.”
“Never mind about your heating bill, I want to talk to you about our Lord and Savior my pronouns.”
In another memo this year, the charity explained to staff on why it is a “trans-inclusive service”, saying it is “particularly important to be explicit” about this because of prejudice and harm faced by trans and non-binary communities.
What harm. Tell us about the harm. Be specific and concrete. What harm???
It said that being trans-inclusive means that “as an organisation, we recognise that trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people are non-binary; we demonstrate this in the way we interact with colleagues and with clients”.
They can’t “recognise” that because it’s not true. You can’t “recognize” that giraffes are salmon, because it isn’t true. You can’t “recognize” that men are women, because it isn’t true.
Ms Moriarty said in response to the criticism: “Speaking up for people who face intense disadvantage is part of our charitable purpose. We want to create a service where everyone is comfortable coming to us for help, and a workplace where everyone belongs.”
But they don’t. They want to create a service where many people will feel acutely uncomfortable going to them for help, and a workplace where people who know the difference between women and men don’t belong.
She said personal opinions are recognised, adding: “We encourage respectful dialogue and ask all staff to be mindful about discussions that affect some people more directly, and more personally, than others.”
Except women. They just have to deal with it.
Hurt fee fees, of course.
If you can’t be bothered beatin’ ’em, join ’em, I reckon. So I’m in the market for a large and prominent badge I can pin on to my jacket that says:
And round the rim the simple sentence: ‘There is no weapon in politics that can beat riducule.’
Come to think of it, I might go into the badge business on the strength of it. Could finish up bigger than General Motors and Toyota combined.
Omar, you could make me a badge identifying my trans-otter status. I will have to give some thought to my personal pronouns, though generally I prefer “plaid” and “quark”. (So what if they’re not pronouns; a lot of the things the TRAs are using are not even words.)
iknklast,
A transgender otter would have to be a platypus; notoriously shy and secretive; particularly about their pronouns.
I would note that the male platypus possesses a venomous heel-spur. Dunno why I felt that I needed to add that, other than it’s a weird bit of trivia knocking around in my head.
That’s a good enough reason.
I suppose that liars and cheats might feel “prejudice,” and that resistance, questioning, and criticism harms the chances of success of their lying and cheating. This kind of browbeating only serves to weaken a culture’s natural defence against those who would take advantage of the corrosion of traditional values that oppose such anti-social behaviour. It is remarkable that this is touted as being a good, kind thing to do. It’s the valourization of pathology.
Similar to Omar #2, I’ve been thinking that groups of women should invade men’s spaces, especially toilets and change rooms, talk loudly about lack of penis size, erectile dysfunction, etc. and if any man “reveals his wang”, laugh at how stupid it looks.
#8, I think it would have to be large groups of women; if there is more than one man in the bathroom, especially. Women (including trans-men) aren’t screaming about their right to invade men’s spaces because they know it would end badly.
Or, as it’s been said, men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them.