The DFW metroplex is home to many leading businesses whose reach and influence extend nationally, even globally. In recent years, boardrooms, businesses, and their office policies have become another front in the conflict surrounding the concept of “preferred gender pronouns.”

Yet, it appears that amongst Dallas’ biggest employers, the trend of using “preferred gender pronouns” in the workplace is falling out of favor, if it ever was in favor.

Commenting upon the gender pronoun issue in big business, local activist group Mission DFW suggested that while companies might support it on paper, few people adopt it in practice. The group told The Dallas Express that “in December 2021, only 6 million LinkedIn users had pronouns, out of 875 million total users.”

Mission DFW continued by stating, “Corporations that probe employees for ‘pronoun disclosure’ care nothing about diversity nor inclusion; they simply seek to coddle and normalize mental illness by selling the Leftist agenda of transgenderism to elevate their Woke ESG score — a bogus metric that profits no one, especially not shareholders.”

Some companies have found that latter aspect to be painfully true, and earlier this year the British bank Halifax saw customers withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars and closing accounts in backlash to the introduction of gender pronouns on company nametags.

When depositors raised objections to the practice, a Halifax representative suggested, “If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account.”

The resulting exodus led some observers to cite it as an example of the “get woke, go broke” principle.

However, supporters of the use of “preferred gender pronouns” in the business space maintain it is necessary to create a welcoming environment for workers.

The taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health’s Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office called gender pronouns “a way for individuals to identify themselves outside of using their names.”

The government entity told companies, “Encouraging the disclosure and use of gender pronouns can create inclusive and welcoming work environments for SGM (sexual and gender minority) employees and their allies.”

Opponents of the proliferation of non-biological pronouns in broad or mandated use claim the movement is based on an “anti-science premise” that there are more than two genders.

In a notable opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton explained, “Increasingly we see a dangerous and antiscientific trend toward the outright denial of biological sex.”

The scientists continued to suggest, “Biologists and medical professionals need to stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex.”

This is referenced in contrast to the proliferation of gender identity concepts furthered by activists and adopted by some corporations, evidenced by Facebook’s allowing users to choose between 58 different gender options when they create an account.

Yet, among the businesses in the DFW area with over 10,000 employees, many of their chief executives appear to have ignored the recent trend even when corporate policies urge the practice, suggesting that despite the headlines the trend generated in prior years, the practice is falling away.

Some of these mega-corporations publish preferred pronouns on paperwork and online forms, but the leaders of the organizations do not seem to care for the practice themselves.

For example, UT Southwestern Medical Center provides “They/Them/Theirs,” “Ze/Hir/Hirs,” and “Other” as options for people to pick from on forms, in addition to the two traditional masculine and feminine pronoun sets. However, the president of the organization, Daniel Podolsky, declined to explicitly provide “preferred pronouns” on his biographical page.

Likewise, Texas Health Resources asks for “preferred pronouns” when a person is creating an account, but CEO Barclay Berdan did not list his “preferred pronouns.”

In both cases, however, the masculine pronoun is used in their biographical description.

Looking at the defense industry, Fort Worth-based Lockheed Martin “encourages supportive people to identify themselves as safe to the LGBTQ+ community by a simple gesture like displaying a pride flag or adding pronoun preferences into an email signature.”

CEO James Taiclet, however, does not list his preferred pronouns.

While activists have tried to promote “preferred pronouns” from a fringe view to a mainstream view, many business industry leaders thus far — at least in practice — appear to believe it’s unnecessary.

Additionally, federal courts have recently protected the rights of people who do not want to refer to people by their “preferred pronouns,” pointing to the majority decision in Matal v. Tam (2017) by Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito asserted that “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals went so far as to rule that “no authority supports the proposition that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender identity.”

Yet, government entities and activist groups persist in the cultural push towards mandating the use of “preferred gender pronouns.”

A few entities have opposed that agenda, some even in court, such as when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration last year to block the president’s executive order attempting to mandate transgender policies.