Google Business Inclusivity?

[frase]

Seriously, what is this non inclusive, misandrist ploy from Google Business? I am a straight male, this is so out of hand now.
Where is the "Straight male option"? Oh that is right there is never one...

As for me I do not really care about what path you follow, that is your business. My business is mine, why the need for tokens to clarify who one is or what their beliefs are? What next ISIS friendly tokens? I support Ukraine tokens? The list goes on, not needed and a ridiculous idea from another woke organisation out to get their Virtue Badge.

 

[britechguy]

I am a straight male, this is so out of hand now.

So, in other words, you're angry because there's no "majority marker"? Sorry, but you'll get not one bit of sympathy or empathy from me. The world of business is still overwhelmingly populated and controlled by straight white men, as it has been since long before I've been alive.

If you think it would be to your advantage to identify your business as, "Straight, white, male owned," then, by all means, you have plenty of means to do that. But as it stands, particularly in IT, that would be the default. It goes without saying.

Group affinities can be useful for attracting business. I've been using signifiers on my own business website for ages now, and others wish to do the same. What business is it of yours if someone wishes to supply them as part of their business model?

 

[frase]

Not an argument on sexuality or gender, my point is that this kind of idea is simply not required. Is this inclusivity, I think not it borders more on misandry. If I disagree or do not follow on someone else ideals or pathway, it means that I am some kind of homophobe or misogynist. That is my point, tokens like this breed division/exclusion rather than inclusivity. Gender or sexuality should not matter, it is competency and consistency of the business that does.

 

[britechguy]

No, it doesn't, plain and simple. Your spin on what this means is precisely what I'd expect to have heard from my grandfather's generation.

Minority (of any type) owned businesses have been invisible, almost entirely invisible, until recent years. There are reasons why customers might feel more comfortable going with a minority owned business, and it's just fine that those have methods to self-identify as such.

This isn't about competence, and were you not a member of the top echelon of the social heap you might have some clue about how those who are not in that same position might feel and about the types of businesses they might choose to seek out based on things other than competency (which everyone happens to expect as a baseline, no matter what product or service they're buying).

 

[callthatgirl]

I had to register for an event and it asked me what my pronouns were. I almost didn't go, I am not woketh. Business is business, I don't care about your gender or anything outside of general business information. LinkedIn is completely destroyed.

I quit using "woman owned business" 12 years ago. I don't need to promote that to get business.

 

[britechguy]

I don't need to promote that to get business.

Which is perfectly fine. But is there any legitimate reason that others who make the opposite choice should be deprived of being able to do so?

I'd also say that it's pretty hard to hide that a business called, Call That Girl, is woman-owned (in all probability, and we here know that the probability is 100%).

 

[britechguy]

I had to register for an event and it asked me what my pronouns were.

This is a phase that is bound to pass. And I'm every bit as annoyed about it as you are.

The idea of "they" as a singular for a known individual makes no sense in English. And I'd have no problem were a new pronoun set coined and integrated into the language, which always changes. But "they" is so well established as a plural, or a singular for an unknown individual to avoid "his or her," that the ship has sailed.

 

[callthatgirl]

And it should not be used in business but yet here we are.

 

[britechguy]

And it should not be used in business but yet here we are.

Why not? It's about addressing individuals in the way they wish to be addressed. Caring about that used to be a mark of good manners.

Business does not happen on some kind of abstract plane. It's human interaction, and you can't take human concerns out of it (or are a fool if you were to seriously try).

I don't have to like each and every thing that gets dubbed as "woke," but I absolutely do believe that we're far better off giving everyone respect, and addressing them as they wish to be addressed is a primary feature of respect.

 

[callthatgirl]

Ok so I have some clients who have she/her in her signatures, not one man. I call them by their first name, so what's the point of putting in their signature? Now I know how she feels politically, that's it.

 

[britechguy]

You don't even know anything about how she feels politically. You know that this client identifies as a woman (which can be important in a lot of contexts) and when being referred to via pronouns prefers the female ones.

But like I said earlier, this is a trend that will die a natural death. What society can support, long term, is a numbers game based on what helps society as a whole. The number of non-binary individuals, and that's what all this is about at its core, is a minuscule number compared to the whole of any society. And, in the end, taking offense if someone chooses to guess at whether you identify as male or female in this world when you identify as neither is just not something that's going to last. And those guesses tend to be directly related to choices made about how you dress and otherwise style yourself based on societal norms.

 

[gadgetfixup]

It's a sad world when a business has to click a button to say they accept a class of people. What a bunch of nonsense really. In over 30 years of owning a business open to everyone it never crossed my mind to consider a person's sexual preferences and life choices. The fact a business should have to click or otherwise prove they're inclusive is disgusting and implies if a business owner doesn't play the new Google game he or she or it aren't inclusive. To customers that make choices for patronage based on whether a business owner wants to play the new game at Google, best of luck to them. I'm pro dollars and don't give two cares about your private life.

 

[gadgetfixup]

Which is perfectly fine. But is there any legitimate reason that others who make the opposite choice should be deprived of being able to do so?

Yes because it implies if a business doesn't participate in this social experiment they don't support a group of people and they're prejudice. A business is tagged as non-inclusive unless they play along. That's what's wrong and it's a serious failure. I shouldn't have to declare I'm inclusive to any social group as a business owner or fear being labeled a racist, homophobe or worst.

 

[britechguy]

It's a sad world, and has been for longer than I've been alive, that society as a whole has condemned all sorts of people for attributes that are entirely neutral to society at large, sometimes even positive.

I don't see how you can possibly even try to state that a business "has to" do any of these things. They are presented as options, not requirements.

I am gay, and have made no secret of that. Anyone who wants to look at my business page (britechguy.com) will see the small rainbow flag at the bottom of the page along with the line: Bri the Tech Guy is a "Family Friendly" business. No one forced me to do this, Google is not forcing anyone to add affinity tags to their information, they're just offering them.

And I can absolutely assure you that I have received business due to that little bit at the bottom of my webpage. There are plenty of places in this world, still, where open hostility toward LGBTQ individuals is the norm, and is accepted. I live in a "tiny dot of purple in a sea of red," and I can assure you that attitudes "out in the county" are not anything near to reliably neutral about gay people. I have had both gay clients and trans clients come to me specifically because of what I put out there that is exactly the same as the options Google is now giving others.

@gadgetfixup: I commend you on your not giving two cares about an individual's private life. I can also assure you that this cannot be assumed, and if you have paid attention over the last several years at high-profile lawsuits from service providers who don't want to provide service to "those people" even though they have a business that serves the public, you'd know that.

The idea that using these things is "forcing" anything, upon anyone, is ludicrous. Use 'em if you want to, don't use 'em if you don't.

 

[britechguy]

A business is tagged as non-inclusive unless they play along.

No, it's not. Only a tiny minority of businesses will ever take this up.

Not doing this does not prove that you are not inclusive. You can't prove a negative.

Doing this telegraphs that you are, explictly, but is certainly not a requirement.

Lack of evidence proves nothing.

 

[lcoughey]

When a business puts up a rainbow flag, shows favor to a political party or whatever their belief might be as a way of promotion, they are also telling those with differing views that they may not be so tolerant of them or want their business. It is better for business to remain neutral on such matters and just focus on what you do.

Of course, when it comes to things of personal ethics, that is up to each owner to decide on how they want to handle it on a case by case scenario.

 

[britechguy]

Of course, when it comes to things of personal ethics, that is up to each owner to decide on how they want to handle it on a case by case scenario.

Yes to everything you've said, but particularly this. And that's why optional affinity tagging is not problematic. It allows someone who chooses to use it to communicate something they want to communicate. Absence of such a tag says nothing.

 

[nlinecomputers]

I'll just say this. The lines being drawn in this discussion by its participants have been predictable based on other political discussions seen on this board. If you think you are projecting neutrality or welcoming everyone without directly stating it you may be surprised to find that not everyone sees it for that.

When a business puts up a rainbow flag, shows favor to a political party or whatever their belief might be as a way of promotion, they are also telling those with differing views that they may not be so tolerant of them or want their business. It is better for business to remain neutral on such matters and just focus on what you do.

Of course, when it comes to things of personal ethics, that is up to each owner to decide on how they want to handle it on a case by case scenario.

Yes, I live in a hyper-conservative area. If I did put up signs it would have a more negative effect than positive on my business.

 

[phaZed]

It'd be such a better place if we could just see people as people... and left them to their own lives - instead of preaching to them (or legislating) how to live.

 

[gadgetfixup]

if you have paid attention over the last several years at high-profile lawsuits from service providers who don't want to provide service to "those people" even though they have a business that serves the public, you'd know that.

I watched in horror as the LGBTQ+ attacked and sent a Christian man and his daughter into hiding for safety and destroyed their pizza business because a gay reporter drove 20 miles to their obviously Christian pizza parlor (Memories Pizza) and asked them if they'd cater a gay wedding reception. This small pizza parlor had a prayer request box on the counter, Dad and daughter devote Christians just trying to make a living in a small town of Walkerton, Indiana. They were obviously targeted by this gay reporter knowing full well what answer to expect. When the daughter gave the wrong answer based on her sincere religious beliefs, gay people came to harm them. That's a place about 30 miles from my shop. A similar scenario happened in almost every high-profile case and the Supreme Court has corrected States several time for persecuting people over their religious beliefs. Seems the side that begged and received tolerance has little to give.