Halifax 'Inclusion' Policy Sets Twitface On Fire ... Again ..

[andy-hughes]

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://www.lbc.co.uk/news/halifax-staff-pronoun-badges-customers-threaten-close-accounts

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?

[naomi24]

I agree with you absolutely!!

Shall I say that again when you’ve picked yourself up off the floor? :o)

My business would most certainly be going elsewhere. What an appalling attitude!

[andy-hughes]

Thanks naomi - experience does show that in matters of simple unarguable common sense discussed by mature adults, our thinking is almost always aligned.

[jno]

calm down.

I've been receiving letters for decades signed along the lines of Elizabeth Smith (Miss), or (Mrs) as the case may be. This enables me to address them accordingly. I have never once threatened to take my business elsewhere on account of ///their snotty 'my way or the highway' approach///.

The human race will survive this outrage.

[burlyshirley]

Totally agree andy and I actually know someone who is going to close their account in view of this silliness !

[naomi24]

JNO, when a Miss was a Miss and a Mrs a Mrs customer service was paramount. Now it seems, it isn’t.

[gingejbee]

My thoughts...it's really not important enough to get into a tizzy about. People can wear whatever name badges they choose - it doesn't affect me.
And, andy, you haven't really been a "Halifax customer" all that time...it's Halifax Bank only superficially, being simply a name that the Lloyds Banking Group continues to use.

[Prudie]

This comes about from the Halifax or its PR company employing modern day graduates who should never have gone to University in the first place to come up with some hair brained ideas to justify themselves. This is the best they can do because they only know about PC and snowflake issues. It's laughable.

[jourdain2]

Couldn't possibly disagree with you. You are quite right.

[douglas9401]

I remember their ads from days gone by:

Get a little X-tra help with the Halifax.

I demand that there's the option of a little Y-tra help too or I'm taking my chromosomes elsewhere.

Yours

Brig. Madd-Barking (rtd)

[sanmac]

Slightly off topic, but in the '50s, '60s, and even perhaps later, many married women were not at all upset when they received mail with their husband's name on it such as "Mrs. John Smith"...Actually, that's probably way off topic:)

[barry1010]

Sanmac, that is the correct, formal way to address a married woman or a widow.

[barry1010]

Maybe the answer is to have one single form of address that is not related to gender, sex or anything at all personal. How about 'Aitch' for human? Excuse me, Aitch.... Thank you, Aitch...

[davebro]

or Oy - you ?

[douglas9401]

That's okay until somebody identifies as 'haitch', Barry.

[Peter Pedant]

such as "Mrs. John Smith....is indeed correct
and I usually squeeze in somewhere
that Mrs Janine Josephine Lou-lou Smith
addresses a widow tho she may not be ! oo-er Mrs

and whilst I am at it
Mr Peter Pedant MA - oops sorry, Peter Pedant esq., MA
no degrees whether or not he has them, with mr

but you olds really always knew that innit?

[dave50]

Why are so many companies scared of such a tiny vocal minority?

[gingejbee]

^and why are so many people het-up about a tiny insignificant thing?

[burlyshirley]

^ And why are YOU in such a nit picking mood ??!

[Canary42]

///modern day graduates who should never have gone to University in the first place to come up with some hair brained ideas///

Obviously not very good students, they should know it's "hare-brained".

[middlemarch]

I don't think it's tiny or insignificant. I bet anyone opposing this will immediately be denounced as "transphobic". The notion of "voluntary" is not really believable in view of all the bullying that goes on by the very vocal minority.