Posted on 12/05/2023 11:18:15 AM PST by taxcontrol
I have recently observed a number of companies either create or alter their policies regarding pronoun use. I find that much of this change is coming directly from HR departments full of SJW. Many of these changes are problematic for people of faith. My company recently announced a "Global Pronoun Policy" and I felt that I needed to push back against this effort to validate the LGBTQ+ community by the use of pronouns.
In an effort to push back against the "powers that be", I am providing a synopsis of the email that I sent to both the legal and HR departments requesting an official statement from legal on pronoun use.
Dear US Legal,
The current Global Use of Pronouns Policy appears to be in violation of Title VII of the US code and I am calling this to your attention and requesting clarification and guidance.
I am sure that you are aware that US Title VII prevents workplace discrimination based on religion. Many of the mainstream religions practiced in the United States consider the willful participation in a lie to be a sin and thus is at least discouraged and in many cases, are expressly prohibited by the religious texts. Referring to someone via a pronoun that is different from their sex is viewed as participating in a sin as it furthers the lie. Making it company policy to mandate such speech, as articulated by the “key points” section in the policy, creates a hostile work environment and discriminates against those religious beliefs.
I bring to your attention the bullet “Repeated intentional misuse of a person’s pronouns may result in disciplinary action.” Without a doubt, this comment implies a threat and creates the “force” behind the action of coerced speech.
As this appears to violate US law by creating forced speech and a hostile work environment, and since there exists US case law that has ruled against the forced use of pronouns, I am requesting official guidance from the Legal team. To wit:
Are employees required to utilize a person’s preferred / published pronouns even if such use violates the employees’ deeply held religious beliefs?
--- It is likely that sending such an email will create a target on the person sending it. However, I do believe that it is important to take a stand. If you wish to use this email or alter it, please feel free.
I fealt with that by avoiding pronouns entirely.
It’s all ESG.
Just ask them where they got the permission to change your language. I do.
Those of us who had religious objections to the “Operation Warp Speed” synthetic mRNA experiment had the faced the same problem. I, and others, had to stand up to organizational coercion. It turned out well for some, badly for others. There’s always risk involved in doing the right thing.
That’s probably the best way around all of this.
When I was a kid, I was taught that if someone was present, it was impolite to speak of them by pronoun anyway, you had to use their name. You can do the same thing when they’re NOT present - people have names; and I don’t really care what name someone wants to be called. There are many names that have been used for both males and females.
I would try to live my life and, if questioned, call the other person a hateful bigot who shouldn’t question my life choices. I would threaten to report them to HR for hassling me over how I choose to live my life.
Great communication! Why not send it to Legal directly with a copy to HR?
You better get your resume polished up and your network refreshed. You are going to need it. Or maybe just suffer bad performance reviews and no raises for a long time.
You are courageous for doing this. I love how you put them in a box!
Please keep us updated.
(he / him)
(she / her)
(they / them)
....and the list goes on.
Since it is not required, I have chosen not to participate.
Of course, you still have the problem when “Fred” wants to be called “Sally” even though “Sally” is obviously a man.
I suppose you could fallback on using the name on “Sally’s” birth certificate. What a rathole and waste of time to satisfy such an infinitesimal number of people. This is a huge drag on labor productivity and earnings.
Same here, not playing that game.
“ I was taught that if someone was present, it was impolite to speak of them by pronoun anyway, you had to use their name.”
Fine, if you know their name. It seems like those weirdos get bent over the sir/ma’m thing. “Pardon me, ma’m” can be construed as verbal assault and “literal violence” by those confused morons. It was common courtesy in my day. It’s best not to engage them at all. I am so thankful I am retired!
So glad that I’m retired.
No, I think lots of men named ‘Sal’ (short for Salvatore or Salvador) are called ‘Sally’.
I knew a lady named ‘Tommy’, and a man who went by ‘Blossom’.
These were nicknames, but many ‘normal’ people go by nicknames all the time.
When it comes to the name on a birth certificate, I think you’re stuck with it unless you change it legally; but again, lots of folks don’t go by the name on their birth certificate. My husband’s name is ‘Tony’. He really doesn’t like Anthony, and doesn’t use it except legally.
I didn’t and don’t participate in anything that conflicts with my system of beliefs whether it’s required or not.
You can omit ‘ma’am’ and ‘sir’ and be just as polite by your tone and smile.
(I’m glad I’m retired, too.)
OK, let’s use “Dave” and “Karen” instead. You get my point, I think.
They are doing it for the purpose of eliminating people of faith. (Christian or Jewish.)
Again, I don’t care what name someone wants to go by. To me, a name doesn’t necessarily indicate sex and isn’t a demand that I abdicate my understanding of human biology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.