The University of Liverpool has issued guidance warning that asking someone their pronouns may be “non-inclusive” and could pressure them to “out themselves” as transgender — an apparent reversal of guidance promoted in recent years, and one that risks creating linguistic uncertainty and chilling open discourse, as speakers grow increasingly wary of mis stepping.
Staff and students at the Russell Group university are being advised to avoid directly requesting pronouns, amid concerns this might compel individuals to reveal aspects of their gender identity before they feel ready. The advice forms part of the university’s broader diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) framework, and reflects a growing trend among institutions to refine the etiquette of so-called inclusive language.
“When you first meet someone, you don’t want to ask about their pronouns,” the guidance reads.
“This could make them feel like you’re asking them to out themselves as transgender, agender, or non-binary, which they might not want to do, particularly if you work in a conservative office.”
The university, a long-standing participant in the Stonewall “Diversity Champions” scheme, has instead encouraged staff and students to volunteer their own pronouns proactively. This, it says, is a more sensitive way to create an inclusive atmosphere without placing others under direct pressure to conform.
“By sharing your own pronouns, you’re allowing the other person to share theirs, but not forcing them to,” the guidance explains.
It adds: “This small action can contribute towards creating a more inclusive environment for everyone to work and study no matter their gender identity.”
Lord Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said the guide showed that “what is politically correct in the trans community changes every 10 minutes”.
“This trans-inclusive language guide feels a bit 2024 in light of the Supreme Court’s decision,” he told The Telegraph.
“Given that what is politically correct in the trans community changes every 10 minutes – from you must ask someone what their preferred gender pronouns are, to you must not in the blink of an eye – wouldn’t it be better if universities stopped issuing these guides? They cannot hope to keep up, so why not just bow out?”
As part of a further linguistic consolidation of gender identity theory, the document advises against the use of the phrase ‘preferred pronouns’. “Despite the popularity of the term, it’s incorrect, since ‘preferred’ implies someone’s gender is a preference,” it reads.
The university’s guidance also recommends gender-neutral language as the default, recommending that staff and students use “they/them” pronouns for everyone until their specific pronouns have been made clear.
Critics argue that this type of instruction, while framed as supportive, can end up codifying a narrow view of inclusion – one that may stifle spontaneous interaction or cast non-compliance as a moral failing. Although the university emphasises that the guidance is non-mandatory, some warn that policies of this kind may generate informal expectations that are difficult to opt out of, particularly in professional or academic environments where reputational risks are high.
Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert, director of the campaign group Don’t Divide Us, urged students and academics to reject the guidance.
“We are human beings capable of speaking with each other, and working out differences, hurts and offences, ourselves,” she said. “We don’t need official approval or gold stars from anyone. This is an elemental freedom of being a free citizen in a democratic society – policing this, in whatever guise, encourages authoritarianism.
“There must be better jobs the so-called, often self-appointed, ‘DEI experts’ could be doing other than encouraging us to behave like infants or paternalistic carers.
“You can state whatever pronouns you want and still be a nasty person, and vice versa. Most of us know this. It seems like our academic elites are having problems understanding this.”
The university maintains that it is not compelling anyone to use particular language or disclose personal information. “To include your pronouns is a personal decision, though it can make a real difference in reassuring our trans, non-binary, and broader LGBQ+ staff and students that they are welcome and accepted for who they are within the university,” the advice reads.
It concludes: “Ultimately, using gender-neutral pronouns doesn’t require too much effort on your part, but it could make a huge difference in creating a warmer, more inclusive workplace environment for everyone.”
Liverpool’s new guidance follows growing concerns that diversity policies shaped by external advocacy groups are creating a culture of ideological conformity across British universities, particularly around language, belief and compelled expression.
At the University of Exeter, some academics say they have felt pressured to endorse a Stonewall-influenced “inclusive practitioners commitment”, developed by the institution’s “LGBTQ+ colleague and student” group. The online document asks staff to make six pledges, including affirming trans staff and students by using their chosen names and pronouns, and demonstrating that they are “the kind of person that LGBTQ+ people can confide in and feel safe around”.
Other pledges encourage academics to incorporate LGBTQ+ perspectives into their teaching, and to “educate” themselves about the ways anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment can be perpetuated through “micro-aggressions, dog whistles and talking points”. Staff are also asked to oppose “transphobia, bi-erasure, acephobia and intersexism”.
Although participation in the pledge scheme is not formally required, several Exeter academics have criticised the initiative as a means of enforcing ideological alignment on contested matters of gender and identity. One lecturer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “If I am noticed, someone will complain about me and the university will try to sack me. Even if they don’t succeed, the process will be brutal – the disciplinary process is itself a brutal punishment.”
Similar concerns have arisen at King’s College London (KCL), where staff applying for promotion are required to show support for the university’s equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies. Dr John Armstrong, a reader in financial mathematics, raised internal objections to the policy in 2022 before seeking legal advice from the gender-critical campaign group Sex Matters.
A legal opinion commissioned by the group, authored by barrister Akua Reindorf KC, concluded that KCL’s policy could be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act. Reindorf further warned that if the promotion criteria remain unchanged, the university could fall foul of the soon-to-commence Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
Her opinion stated that KCL’s “various policies, training materials and guidance relating to the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment are incorrect, as a matter of law, in several substantial respects”.
According to Ms Reindorf, “many of the errors and misstatements” in KCL’s staff-facing documentation stem from the fact that they “have their genesis” in materials produced by Stonewall and Athena Swan – both of which, she notes, “promote the gender identity belief”.
There’s more on this story here.
