• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

No gendered pronouns in personnel reports: this week in the strange death of Canada

Metaphor

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
12,378
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/c...all-personnel-to-stop-using-gendered-pronouns

In a new policy change, the Canadian Armed Forces will no longer be using gendered pronouns in official reports.


Documents obtained by conservative commentator Aaron Gunn and presented to The Post Millennial reveal that military personnel are no longer allowed to write he or she, but must replace it with they/them pronouns, regardless of an individual’s preferred pronouns.


Issued via Canadian Forces General Message, these changes that deprive a person of their sex based identity in writing are meant to encourage gender diversity. In reports on personnel, no superior will be allowed to use pronouns that designate or refer to a person’s biological sex. The notice reads:

“Based on a recent CAF cultural and normative shift to promote gender diversity and associated inclusiveness, CFPAS [Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System] writing policy and guide will also reflect this new reality where sex, gender identity, and gender expression are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Forthwith the use of gender pronouns such as quote he/his and she/her unquote are not to be used when drafting pers. Members will be referred to by rank and name or by using gender-neutral pronouns such as they/their.”

Screen-Shot-2020-04-12-at-5.59.58-PM.png
In practice, superiors, who are required to write personnel reports for those who serve under them, will not be allowed to use the pronouns of that person’s choosing if they identify as male or female and use sex-based pronouns. Instead, everyone will be referred to with the accepted gender neutral, plural pronouns of “they, their, them.”


It is not yet known how Canadian Armed Forces personnel will react to the deprivation of their sex-based identity in their personnel documents. It is currently not clear what the consequences may be for officials who do not follow the new protocol.


In 2016, Bill C-16 was passed amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. It added gender expression to the list of groups that are protected from discrimination, as well as adjusting hate speech and hate crime laws to include protections for gender expression.


While use of preferred pronouns have been considered a necessary element of the promotion and inclusion of gender diversity, this change by the CAF is the first time that preferred pronouns are being officially discounted in favour of a catch-all, gender neutral pronoun system.

Unfortunately, this doesn't go far enough. It refers only to superiors addressing lower ranked members, and not people addressing themselves, peers, or their seniors. I suggest Twitter lead the way and ban reference to preferred pronouns in bios, and automatically correct all tweets to they/them/theirs. It's the only way to be sure.
 
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/c...all-personnel-to-stop-using-gendered-pronouns

In a new policy change, the Canadian Armed Forces will no longer be using gendered pronouns in official reports.


Documents obtained by conservative commentator Aaron Gunn and presented to The Post Millennial reveal that military personnel are no longer allowed to write he or she, but must replace it with they/them pronouns, regardless of an individual’s preferred pronouns.


Issued via Canadian Forces General Message, these changes that deprive a person of their sex based identity in writing are meant to encourage gender diversity. In reports on personnel, no superior will be allowed to use pronouns that designate or refer to a person’s biological sex. The notice reads:

“Based on a recent CAF cultural and normative shift to promote gender diversity and associated inclusiveness, CFPAS [Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System] writing policy and guide will also reflect this new reality where sex, gender identity, and gender expression are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Forthwith the use of gender pronouns such as quote he/his and she/her unquote are not to be used when drafting pers. Members will be referred to by rank and name or by using gender-neutral pronouns such as they/their.”

Screen-Shot-2020-04-12-at-5.59.58-PM.png
In practice, superiors, who are required to write personnel reports for those who serve under them, will not be allowed to use the pronouns of that person’s choosing if they identify as male or female and use sex-based pronouns. Instead, everyone will be referred to with the accepted gender neutral, plural pronouns of “they, their, them.”


It is not yet known how Canadian Armed Forces personnel will react to the deprivation of their sex-based identity in their personnel documents. It is currently not clear what the consequences may be for officials who do not follow the new protocol.


In 2016, Bill C-16 was passed amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. It added gender expression to the list of groups that are protected from discrimination, as well as adjusting hate speech and hate crime laws to include protections for gender expression.


While use of preferred pronouns have been considered a necessary element of the promotion and inclusion of gender diversity, this change by the CAF is the first time that preferred pronouns are being officially discounted in favour of a catch-all, gender neutral pronoun system.

Unfortunately, this doesn't go far enough. It refers only to superiors addressing lower ranked members, and not people addressing themselves, peers, or their seniors. I suggest Twitter lead the way and ban reference to preferred pronouns in bios, and automatically correct all tweets to they/them/theirs. It's the only way to be sure.

I don’t know Metaphor. That seems kind of extreme for Twitter to do. It’d be a lot of work.
 
superiors, who are required to write personnel reports for those who serve under them, will not be allowed to use the pronouns of that person’s choosing
That's probably the whole point, right there.
Probably a lot of requests for the policy if they have a Lawrence in transition to Loretta, when do we officially change from 'he' to 'her'?
Start of treatment? Application for treatment? Slicification of the Pickle?
And someone responded with a universal, "Okay, fine, NO ONE gets gender in their evals. Happy? You're all 'they.' Now, leave me alone."

This is not PC run amok. This is bureaucracy taking the shortest path to ground.
 
My last sea duty tour was an aircraft carrier. A few of my people had vaginas as part of their anatomy. Our systems were these cute little missile launchers on sponsons. Well, to get to these sponsons, they had to transit the berthing and head of sailors with penises as part of their anatomy. Now then, command policy was for vagina clad sailors to call out: “Female on deck.” (Their words, not mine.) prior to. Now what?
 
Unfortunately, this doesn't go far enough. It refers only to superiors addressing lower ranked members, and not people addressing themselves, peers, or their seniors.

Why would members of the armed forces be writing performance appraisals for their superiors?

Probably they wouldn't. Unless the army has gone corporate and has introduced "360 degree feedback".
 
That's probably the whole point, right there.
Probably a lot of requests for the policy if they have a Lawrence in transition to Loretta, when do we officially change from 'he' to 'her'?
Start of treatment? Application for treatment? Slicification of the Pickle?

You don't know much about trans activism, do you?

Pronouns are whatever a person demands, at any time they demand, and pronouns can change on demand. You are medicalising and gatekeeping trans identity by listing steps you believe a trans person needs to take, and that makes you guilty of a transphobic hate crime.
 
superiors, who are required to write personnel reports for those who serve under them, will not be allowed to use the pronouns of that person’s choosing
That's probably the whole point, right there.
Probably a lot of requests for the policy if they have a Lawrence in transition to Loretta, when do we officially change from 'he' to 'her'?
Start of treatment? Application for treatment? Slicification of the Pickle?
And someone responded with a universal, "Okay, fine, NO ONE gets gender in their evals. Happy? You're all 'they.' Now, leave me alone."

This is not PC run amok. This is bureaucracy taking the shortest path to ground.

I suspect the point is to have the personnel appraisals remain gender-neutral so that selection boards for promotion can't be accused of bias against female or non-binary candidates. Something in that vein. It's difficult to say for certain, but references to GBA+ and related federal policies make it seem plausible.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP10573700/nddnrp17/nddnrp17-e.pdf
 
superiors, who are required to write personnel reports for those who serve under them, will not be allowed to use the pronouns of that person’s choosing
That's probably the whole point, right there.
Probably a lot of requests for the policy if they have a Lawrence in transition to Loretta, when do we officially change from 'he' to 'her'?
Start of treatment? Application for treatment? Slicification of the Pickle?
And someone responded with a universal, "Okay, fine, NO ONE gets gender in their evals. Happy? You're all 'they.' Now, leave me alone."

This is not PC run amok. This is bureaucracy taking the shortest path to ground.

I suspect the point is to have the personnel appraisals remain gender-neutral so that selection boards for promotion can't be accused of bias against female or non-binary candidates. Something in that vein. It's difficult to say for certain, but references to GBA+ and related federal policies make it seem plausible.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP10573700/nddnrp17/nddnrp17-e.pdf

It could hardly be that, as names are allowed, and most names imply a person's sex.
 
I suspect the point is to have the personnel appraisals remain gender-neutral so that selection boards for promotion can't be accused of bias against female or non-binary candidates. Something in that vein. It's difficult to say for certain, but references to GBA+ and related federal policies make it seem plausible.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP10573700/nddnrp17/nddnrp17-e.pdf

It could hardly be that, as names are allowed, and most names imply a person's sex.

'Rank and name' tends to mean rank and surname, specifically.
 
I suspect the point is to have the personnel appraisals remain gender-neutral so that selection boards for promotion can't be accused of bias against female or non-binary candidates. Something in that vein. It's difficult to say for certain, but references to GBA+ and related federal policies make it seem plausible.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP10573700/nddnrp17/nddnrp17-e.pdf

It could hardly be that, as names are allowed, and most names imply a person's sex.

The text you quoted talks about referring to soldiers by rank and name. It's not clear but in my universe that's more likely to refer to surnames, ie. I'd find it odd if they meant talking about sergeant Jane or John rather than sergeant Williamson. And either way, blanking the name can be done with a simple search and replace, while replacing all and only the gendered references to the person is more complex.
 
I suspect the point is to have the personnel appraisals remain gender-neutral so that selection boards for promotion can't be accused of bias against female or non-binary candidates. Something in that vein. It's difficult to say for certain, but references to GBA+ and related federal policies make it seem plausible.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP10573700/nddnrp17/nddnrp17-e.pdf

It could hardly be that, as names are allowed, and most names imply a person's sex.

'Rank and name' tends to mean rank and surname, specifically.
No, the eval needs the entire name, so Randy Xavier Smith isn't confused with Randy Xander Smith.
 
I don’t know Metaphor. That seems kind of extreme for Twitter to do. It’d be a lot of work.

See, I thought permabans on people who misgender somebody was a lot of work too, but Twitter seems pretty efficient at it.
Well, if that is the case, maybe they can do what you are suggesting then.

I don't know if I think Twitter should enact Metaphor's plan though.
 
The next step is to call everyone "it". So that all is covered for when AI arrives. After all, we don't want to offend any robots.
 
The next step is to call everyone "it". So that all is covered for when AI arrives. After all, we don't want to offend any robots.
"They" is perfectly fine. It has been adapting to the use as a singular pronoun for years now. But I'm glad people are really worried about what matters most in life... protecting the inertia of 'labels'.
 
Back
Top Bottom