Co-worker editing documents with "(s)he" to just "he" about generic people

Manxman_in_exile

trailingspouse wrote: »

For people who don't think it matters, or don't think it's that big of an issue, here's a thought.

Imagine the document said something like 'The white Inspector should examine every 23rd teapot', and in the preamble there was a note saying 'white includes black'. That would be daft, wouldn't it.

But "white" and "black" here are adjectives not pronouns. It would be equally stupid to write "the male inspector should examine every 23rd teapot" because "he" already works and if you still don't like it there are better ways round it than "(s)he".

shortcrust

What an amazing load of nonsense this thread is. Bordering on dystopian.

TELLIT01

I read the start of the thread but haven't read every reply fully. My take on it is that if a manager wishes to modify a document created by a subordinate, and that document is for general use, they have every right to do so.
If the originator of the document isn't happy with the changes about the only thing they can do is ask that their name is not put to the document because the content is not theirs.

Edited to add: Even the topic title is wrong. The document has been edited by a co-worker (which would probably p me off too), it's been edited by somebody further up the management tree.

Nicki

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Edited to add: Even the topic title is wrong. The document has been edited by a co-worker (which would probably p me off too), it's been edited by somebody further up the management tree.

But you are forgetting that the OP chooses not to recognise the colleague's promotion. Apparently the fact that the employer gave the colleague a new job title and salary raise does not matter because the OP doesn't think either are merited!

Dreamscometrue

I have received letters from the bank in the past where they begin "Dear Sirs". I have my own Ltd Co but most certainly do not have any male appendages!

TELLIT01

Nicki wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the OP chooses not to recognise the colleague's promotion. Apparently the fact that the employer gave the colleague a new job title and salary raise does not matter because the OP doesn't think either are merited!

That probably really tells us all we need to know.

PossiblyOverworked

Nicki wrote: »

But you are forgetting that the OP chooses not to recognise the colleague's promotion. Apparently the fact that the employer gave the colleague a new job title and salary raise does not matter because the OP doesn't think either are merited!

Yes, I don't think either are merited because it is clearly a "bung" (or whatever the word is) to keep someone with a now higher salary but no additional responsibilities. I don't report to this person, I haven't been told that this is now my "line manager" or "supervisor" or whatever.

Edited to add: and we have never been told that "you now report to John" or whatever. "John" just suddently started asking up "whats the status of the XYZ project as I have to report to Jane" etc (where *Jane is our mutual manger!)

But even if the promotion is merited -- should the colleague be able to overrule "gender neutral" language with "his" etc?

PossiblyOverworked

Nicki wrote: »

I just wonder what success looks like for the OP in this scenario. If she is hoping to validate her opinion that John only has "ostensible seniority" in the team and to take him down a peg or two, I think she will lose the battle. If she genuinely cares that all documents are gender neutral then she may be tasked with updating the whole bank on top of her existing workload. Or her manager may not agree with her assessment of the situation in which case it may be foreseeable that her relationship with John will be strained for a while.

"What success looks like"..... I want the Senior colleague (John) to be brought up in front of HR and given some kind of discipline that goes on their permanent record.

John should not be allowed to abuse their position by implying that "we only have male Teapot Inspectors so it isn't a problem" etc without any insight into things like: what if one of these guys left and was replaced by a woman (or would John not recruit a woman because UGH , maternity leave blah blah blah gross, etc)

As a woman myself I find it "exclusionary" even though I'm not part of the team being referred to, because I could easily be.

Edited to add: John hasn't ruled out "women" to my knowledge but has voiced other discriminatory beliefs and thrown "ruled out" CVs due to nationality etc into the bin.

sangie595

PossiblyOverworked wrote: »

Yes, I don't think either are merited because it is clearly a "bung" (or whatever the word is) to keep someone with a now higher salary but no additional responsibilities.

It is called "we value this employee and wish to retain them in the organisation". Something that you need to get over. It sounds like jealousy on your part.

sangie595

PossiblyOverworked wrote: »

"What success looks like"..... I want the Senior colleague (John) to be brought up in front of HR and given some kind of discipline that goes on their permanent record.
.

And there we have it in a nutshell. Utter hatred. You do not wish to engage in a process that leads the employer, or this individual, to better understand gender discrimination. You don't care about the issue at all. Any issue that gets this person, who you hate, into a disciplinary, is your aim.

Quite apart from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about - people are not "brought up in front of HR" like naughty schoolboys; and HR do not discipline people, managers do - This is now presenting as a personal vendetta against someone who you despise because the employer likes them more than you. Do you have any idea how petty and vindictive you sound? Vendettas are far more likely to land you with a disciplinary record than him. Quite rightly, probably. You are acting like a cross between a bully and a petulant child.