ChatterBank2 mins ago
Halifax 'Inclusion' Policy Sets Twitface On Fire ... Again ..
104 Answers
News followers may be aware of the latest furor about 'inclusion', this time involving the Halifax Bank.
The bank has decided to offer name badges to its employees with pronouns to advise their preferred pronoun address -
https:/
The badges are voluntary.
The company advises that this is about inclusivity, and ensuring that no-one is accidentally 'mis-gender identified'.
It also advises that anyone who does not agree with the policy is welcome to take their business elsewhere.
I feel that a simple reality check may be in order here.
I have been a Halifax customer for over thirty years, and in that time, as in every other walk of my life, I have never 'mis-gender-identified' anyone, probably because I am capable of telling the difference between a man and a woman in any social or professional setting where it matters - and personal in-branch banking interaction has never been one of them.
So I remain bemused but utterly disinterested in the notion that an employee thinks that their gender identity is important enough to me that they need to identify it via a badge on their front.
But, and this is where I am seriously bent out of shape -
If the company pushing this nonsense wants to confirm its 'inclusivity' by terminally excluding me if I choose not to agree with its policy, then I feel seriously motivated to take them up on their offer and move my account elsewhere.
They seem to forget, they are a service industry, and I can take my account anywhere I choose any day i fancy, and it's surely in their interests to ensure that I stay, not to push me away with their snotty 'my way or the highway' approach to my embracing their latest woke piffle.
I conduct my business without the need even to know the name of the person I am dealing with, and I have yet to feel the need to know which 'pronoun' they prefer to be addressed by.
I am all for inclusivity, but not when it only includes people who see the world their way, that is not my definition of the term, and I am not interested in dealing with an organsation that thinks it has a right to dictate my views on its staff policies.
Any thoughts?
The bank has decided to offer name badges to its employees with pronouns to advise their preferred pronoun address -
https:/
The badges are voluntary.
The company advises that this is about inclusivity, and ensuring that no-one is accidentally 'mis-gender identified'.
It also advises that anyone who does not agree with the policy is welcome to take their business elsewhere.
I feel that a simple reality check may be in order here.
I have been a Halifax customer for over thirty years, and in that time, as in every other walk of my life, I have never 'mis-gender-identified' anyone, probably because I am capable of telling the difference between a man and a woman in any social or professional setting where it matters - and personal in-branch banking interaction has never been one of them.
So I remain bemused but utterly disinterested in the notion that an employee thinks that their gender identity is important enough to me that they need to identify it via a badge on their front.
But, and this is where I am seriously bent out of shape -
If the company pushing this nonsense wants to confirm its 'inclusivity' by terminally excluding me if I choose not to agree with its policy, then I feel seriously motivated to take them up on their offer and move my account elsewhere.
They seem to forget, they are a service industry, and I can take my account anywhere I choose any day i fancy, and it's surely in their interests to ensure that I stay, not to push me away with their snotty 'my way or the highway' approach to my embracing their latest woke piffle.
I conduct my business without the need even to know the name of the person I am dealing with, and I have yet to feel the need to know which 'pronoun' they prefer to be addressed by.
I am all for inclusivity, but not when it only includes people who see the world their way, that is not my definition of the term, and I am not interested in dealing with an organsation that thinks it has a right to dictate my views on its staff policies.
Any thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the pronouns are pointless as I'd only use she, her, hers as shown on Gemma's badge in the advert if I was talking about her. If she's speaking to me I'd have no use for them. If she left me to get something and another member of staff asked if I was being dealt with I'd answer "yes, your colleague has gone to get something". Why would I be speaking about Gemma otherwise?
Redhelen - // You are getting your knickers in a twist over a badge that is voluntary!
You are certainly acting outraged - customer service is not going to be affected by someone wearing a badge informing you that they wish to be they/their. //
You are clearly not reading my posts, or if you are, you are selectively taking from them a position which fits with your perception of my take on this.
From my OP onwards -
// So I remain bemused but utterly disinterested in the notion that an employee thinks that their gender identity is important enough to me that they need to identify it via a badge on their front. //
I have stated several times that the notion of a badge being worn, and the self-important motiviation behind it, is a matter of utter indifference to me.
My ire is caused by the attitude that if I 'don't approve', I am not welcome to remain as a customer.
Clearly my approval is neither required, or sought, which is fine,but I am not minded to be patronised by some opinionated back-office wonk, and that is the entire basis of my OP, and subsequent offerings, as you will see if you read back through them.
You are certainly acting outraged - customer service is not going to be affected by someone wearing a badge informing you that they wish to be they/their. //
You are clearly not reading my posts, or if you are, you are selectively taking from them a position which fits with your perception of my take on this.
From my OP onwards -
// So I remain bemused but utterly disinterested in the notion that an employee thinks that their gender identity is important enough to me that they need to identify it via a badge on their front. //
I have stated several times that the notion of a badge being worn, and the self-important motiviation behind it, is a matter of utter indifference to me.
My ire is caused by the attitude that if I 'don't approve', I am not welcome to remain as a customer.
Clearly my approval is neither required, or sought, which is fine,but I am not minded to be patronised by some opinionated back-office wonk, and that is the entire basis of my OP, and subsequent offerings, as you will see if you read back through them.
carrot - // I think the pronouns are pointless as I'd only use she, her, hers as shown on Gemma's badge in the advert if I was talking about her. If she's speaking to me I'd have no use for them. If she left me to get something and another member of staff asked if I was being dealt with I'd answer "yes, your colleague has gone to get something". Why would I be speaking about Gemma otherwise? //
A voice of sanity in a sea of posters who are willfully ignoring the point i am trying to make.
A voice of sanity in a sea of posters who are willfully ignoring the point i am trying to make.
"Corby - // Is the new badge with pronouns a "good thing" or is it "bufoonery"? //
You may wish to wait for other answers, I am sure you know mine already."
When I asked the badge removing doubt in a specific scenario you said it was a good idea.
Later you described this area of their policy as "bufoonery" so I am none the wiser.
You may wish to wait for other answers, I am sure you know mine already."
When I asked the badge removing doubt in a specific scenario you said it was a good idea.
Later you described this area of their policy as "bufoonery" so I am none the wiser.
//…Is the new badge with pronouns a "good thing" or is it "bufoonery"?//
I don’t even think it’s buffoonery. It simply stupidity.
Gender is now largely a meaningless term. It seems it can mean anything to anybody, as they choose, and I’m told there are many hundreds of “genders” to choose from. With that in mind, it’s quite obvious that there cannot be hundreds of different pronouns so those who choose a gender which is different from their biological sex will have to put up with whatever people think is appropriate for their presentation.
Despite what we’re encouraged to believe, people who have trouble with their gender (either real or perceived) make up just about 0.5% of the population. It’s most unfortunate, but those 1 in 200 will have to put up with being “misgendered” from time to time if their chosen idiosyncrasies do not match the pronouns people adopt for them. I am certainly not going to stare at badges to see whether “Debbie” wants to be called he or she because life’s too short. I’ve no interest whatsoever in Debbie’s (or anybody else’s) “gender” and if Debbie looks like a Debbie I’ll call her “she”. If she looks like a Derek I’ll address him as “he.”
If I were you Andy, I would take my overdraft elsewhere. Here’s no reason why you should indulge the Halifax in their stupidity. They obviously think they are doing “the right thing”. That’s their privilege. It’s yours to take your custom elsewhere.
I don’t even think it’s buffoonery. It simply stupidity.
Gender is now largely a meaningless term. It seems it can mean anything to anybody, as they choose, and I’m told there are many hundreds of “genders” to choose from. With that in mind, it’s quite obvious that there cannot be hundreds of different pronouns so those who choose a gender which is different from their biological sex will have to put up with whatever people think is appropriate for their presentation.
Despite what we’re encouraged to believe, people who have trouble with their gender (either real or perceived) make up just about 0.5% of the population. It’s most unfortunate, but those 1 in 200 will have to put up with being “misgendered” from time to time if their chosen idiosyncrasies do not match the pronouns people adopt for them. I am certainly not going to stare at badges to see whether “Debbie” wants to be called he or she because life’s too short. I’ve no interest whatsoever in Debbie’s (or anybody else’s) “gender” and if Debbie looks like a Debbie I’ll call her “she”. If she looks like a Derek I’ll address him as “he.”
If I were you Andy, I would take my overdraft elsewhere. Here’s no reason why you should indulge the Halifax in their stupidity. They obviously think they are doing “the right thing”. That’s their privilege. It’s yours to take your custom elsewhere.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Technology2 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.