In July this year one of Australia’s biggest banks, the ANZ published an article entitled “Inclusive Banking services is a basic human right”.
Now, forgive me if I’m having little laugh…… but “inclusive banking is a basic human right”? Stating this does seem akin to teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. Surely opening a bank account has nothing to do with gender?
In the article they give themselves an almighty pat on the back for adapting their systems to accommodate non-binary people.
“A change of this magnitude requires support from almost all areas of the organisation and during the process we were challenged to think outside the box to deliver great solutions for our customers and the community.
Hundreds of people across ANZ worked on this initiative – and every single person has been in full support of it.
At the heart of the change is a focus on customer experience, ensuring non-binary people have a seamless experience choosing gender-neutral options when applying for ANZ products as well as their ongoing banking needs.”
It gives the impression banking at ANZ prior to this change was a gender specific experience. Or are the spin doctors simply having a field day with the change to their systems regarding titles - Mr, Mrs and Ms?
Being non-binary is now legally recognised in Australia. The move to drop gendered titles would seem to also make sense. Then there is the solution to add another - not unlike the Mrs and Miss dilemma that tried to pigeon-hole us in the marriage stakes back in the 70’s - enter ‘Ms’.
In fact, title usage, or ‘honorifics’ in the English language are slowly being phased out. Historically these were used to reflect social hierarchies, politeness, and marital status but they are well down the road to being obsolete.
Of course, we applaud this move by the ANZ. Opening a bank account has nothing to do with gender. It is probably time we review a naming convention that dictates the declaration of whether you are male or female, particularly for no apparent purpose.
One has to wonder why addressing a person simply by their name cannot suffice?
Comments